Topic awaiting preservation: The insidious perfidy of the church (Page 4 of 5)

Well, there you have it.

Bug admits that xianity is the root cause of all the worlds problems, because xians sin and sin has upset the entire universe.

The ENTIRE universe!

What were you thinking?

As noted before, only the religious can be sinners.

Never let your sense of morals get in the way of doing what's right.
Isaac Asimov
US science fiction novelist & scholar (1920 - 1992)

I feel constrained to add, the death rate of catholics in Africa is very likely hgher than the conversion rate.

This of course, is entirely due to the fact the Vatican steadfastly refuses to permit the use of condoms to help slow the spread of the disease.

Which brings to mind another question; Bug if a child is born with aids, is it born with sin? (or fetal alcohol syndrome, etc)

Never let your sense of morals get in the way of doing what's right.
Isaac Asimov
US science fiction novelist & scholar (1920 - 1992)

Diogenes, you forget that according to Christianity, all children are born with sin. "Original Sin"

Aids or fetal alcohol syndrome make no difference.

I'm sure you're just messing around when you say that, Dio. The points I'm making assume that the Xian world view is reality. The entire universe as you correctly restated is in a broken or fallen state as the result of the sin of the first human. That is a foundational premise of Xianity.

Also, I hope we're clear that *if* your world view is correct, then of course sin is just an invention of religion. But your world view is just that, a view, and not necessarily fact. This is usually assumed when we have these discussions but I'm not sure where you stand on that distinction.

Has a child born with AIDS committed any sin? No. That should be obvious.

Is any child born into this world cursed with the sin of human? Of course, that should also be obvious. Why? Because every human born into this world will eventually die. If there was never any sin committed from the moment of creation, we would all still be living in a perfect state as described in the garden of Eden story.

: . . DHTML Slice Puzzle : . . .

(Edited by Bugimus on 10-26-2005 22:45)

quote:

---

I did not expect or will not get an apology from Web.

---

My apologies.

quote:

---

his aim is to portray a bigger man who knows more

---

Now that is putting words in my mouth. I totally disagree with the point in question, being that there are examples of fledgling democratic Moslem countries (as I demonstrated) - and they are not becoming "xian". To be blunt, they are spreading their Faith and belief to other European countries (many Moslems in Germany now). So, evidence shows the contrary, if anything at all.

Back to the point of sin, Bugs - obviously, God knew beforehand, that Adam and Eve would eat the Apple, right? (and even before that, that Satan would rebel, which is also sin).

Therefore, God was the one to originally sin, Bugs. No way around that one.

God caused sin, not the other way around.

As for your Paradox. No solution? Then the logical mind must take that which makes sense. I can see where your thinking is headed, but until such has been proven, you have to accept that which is instead of that which might be.

(Edited by WebShaman on 10-27-2005 00:50)

Well said WS.

Bug, the universal xian view, as you would have it, is merely that..a view. It is not, nor does it remotely approach, reality.

The concept of "Sin" was invented by religion and I suspect by the xian version.

Regardless of the fact you, in your faith, are unable to accept that fact...it remains a fact.

Only the religious are sinners or can be.

Never let your sense of morals get in the way of doing what's right.
Isaac Asimov
US science fiction novelist & scholar (1920 - 1992)

Guys,

God can only be said to be guilty of allowing *us* to *choose* to sin. He is in no way guilty of the sins *we* commit. You're trying to say that because he created autonomous creatures capable of sinning that he sinned, and that does not logically have to follow.

How can we be said to have free will if God didn't allow for us to live in a world where sin was possible?

Dio,

My Xian world view is a belief, yes. But you need to recognize that your world view is also based on many beleifs about the nature of reality. Your view is also just a view. I get the distinct impression from so many of your posts that you actually think your view is absolute fact and anything that contradicts it is hogwash.

When you insist that "Only the religious are sinners or can be", you are really just arguing semantics.

What I call "sin" is often what others would call "harming others". If I were to march up there and stick a knife in you, a great number of people would say that was wrong to do. I would call it a sin, I would say it was illegal, and not a very nice thing to do.

Now if I said that you remaining an atheist of the highest order sins against God, you would say that is just religious nonesense. And in a way I would agree in that it is not tangible to prove as would be the knife inserted into you.

Do you see that the "sin" I'm talking about isn't *always* the "religious mumbo jumbo" you make it out to be?


Allow me to point out one more point about ground rules around here. A while back it was somewhat generally agreed that whenever I make absolute statements like "God said this" or "God created the world", that it is understood I'm speaking from the point of view of a believing Xian in the reality of that faith. After all it is absolutely possible that what Xianity teaches is, in fact, reality. So when you talk about God being a figment of our imagination I understand you're speaking from that belief and don't object to your every statement. I don't know if that helps clear anything up or not but I thought I would try.

: . . DHTML Slice Puzzle : . . .

quote:

---

God can only be said to be guilty of allowing *us* to *choose* to sin. He is in no way guilty of the sins *we* commit. You're trying to say that because he created autonomous creatures capable of sinning that he sinned, and that does not logically have to follow.

How can we be said to have free will if God didn't allow for us to live in a world where sin was possible?

---

No, Bugs, you still are not grasping what I mean. God just didn't create something with free will, and then set it loose, to commit sin or not, accordingly; God already knows in advance, when creating a soul, that it will either go to heaven or hell!

quote:

---

he created autonomous creatures capable of sinning that he sinned, and that does not logically have to follow.

---

An appropriate simile would be building a bomb, that was set to explode 50% of the time at a particular time and date, then placing it in a public area. It might just be that when it explodes, that some will not be hurt - and maybe some will be. To take this further (because God knows exactly what is going to happen in advance) - plan the time to take into consideration that all will be in the lunchroom at noon, and place the bomb there and remove the 50% chance.

I'm not questioning about God being able to create creatures capable of sinning (and that is not what I am pointing out here) - I am pointing out that in the xian Belief, he creates someone with the complete fore-knowledge that this soul will sin (or not, accordingly). He builds the "bomb", and sets it in a public area (world) and it goes off, killing people, Bugs. And God knew it in advance.

Are you seriously then suggesting, that God is not guilty of killing people, when the bomb goes off? After all, the people had the "free will" to go eat lunch somewhere else But the "bomb" in question did not. God knew that this was going to happen before he created this soul. God created the "bomb", placed it, and set it off.

As for the free will thing - we don't need the concept of sin to have free will. Sin is thrown into the mess to make the masses feel guilt at wrong-doing. That is why there is a system of forgiveness. This is a circle process - one is born into sin, is forgiven (if one "beleives" that Jesus Christ died on the cross for your sins), and every time you sin, you need to be forgiven again.

But the root of the problem is never solved, only the resulting feeling (that of feeling guilt).

I see, yes, you're struggling with the whole Free Will vs Predestination thing. Believe me, I understand how difficult that one is. My conclusion as I state above is to accept it as a paradox. I sometimes come *really* close to saying God did *not* know what was going to happen in advance by his own choice not to know but that opens a can of worms as I'm sure you know

But some Xians believe that *everything* is predestined by God and we have *zero* free will. John Calvin championed this view and the most hard core version of this view can be remembered with the acrostic, TULIP:

Total depravity: We are completely fallen and unable to avoid sin on our own.
Unconditional election: We can do nothing to merit God's grace and he chooses who he will to be saved.
Limited atonement: Christ only died for those who he chose to save
Irresistible grace: If God chooses you to be saved there's nothing you can do to avoid it.
Perseverance of the saints: Once he saves you, you are saved for all eternity no ifs ands or buts.

I am *not* a Calvinist. I am probably about as far to the other side of this theological position as is possible. I'm pointing it out to show how some Xians handle the question of foreknowledge.

I am also pointing this out to show you that you are agreeing with this approach when you insist God is guilty of our sin because he predestined our actions. I don't believe in that level of predestination and therefore do not agree with you that he is guilty of making us sin. I maintain that Adam was not created to sin but that at one point he chose to do so. Once that happened, everything changed and we are now all dealing with that decision and trying to find our way back to the perfect relationship we once had with the Creator.

: . . DHTML Slice Puzzle : . . .

Seems to me your god has fairly recently, again, been re-invented by the faithful (how many 're's should there be there, one wonders?)

I recall in my youth god was touted as all powerful and creator of all.

Everything which happened, good or bad, was 'god's will'.

Then, as criticizing the various churches became less of a socially unaccaptable practice and people starting coming up with hard questions the religious simply could not answer, the god concept got re-worked to the current view you espouse.

Which, in itself, speaks volumes in favour of those of us who decry the blind fealty to religion.

BUG 'n Me (me in italics)

My Xian world view is a belief, yes. But you need to recognize that your world view is also based on many beleifs about the nature of reality. Your view is also just a view. I get the distinct impression from so many of your posts that you actually think your view is absolute fact and anything that contradicts it is hogwash.

My view is based on reality and in-so-far as palpable proof is concerned, I have lots, you have none. THAT is reality.

When you insist that "Only the religious are sinners or can be", you are really just arguing semantics.

What I call "sin" is often what others would call "harming others". If I were to march up there and stick a knife in you, a great number of people would say that was wrong to do. I would call it a sin, I would say it was illegal, and not a very nice thing to do.

Now if I said that you remaining an atheist of the highest order sins against God, you would say that is just religious nonesense. And in a way I would agree in that it is not tangible to prove as would be the knife inserted into you.

Do you see that the "sin" I'm talking about isn't *always* the "religious mumbo jumbo" you make it out to be?

No, not at all...in fact in regards to semantics, you are the master here as you keep apologizing for and excusing your faith.

It seems you are also diverting from the catechism in regards to "sin"

The seven deadly (religious) sins first showed up in codified form in about the 13th century.

quote:

---

pride (vanity) ? a desire to be important or attractive to others or excessive love of self (holding self out of proper position toward God or fellows; Dante's definition was "love of self perverted to hatred and contempt for one's neighbor")
envy (jealousy); resentment of others for their possessions (Dante: "Love of one's own good perverted to a desire to deprive other men of theirs")
wrath (anger) ? inappropriate (unrighteous) feelings of hatred, revenge or even denial, as well as punitive desires outside of justice (Dante's description was "love of justice perverted to revenge and spite")
sloth (also accidie, acedia) ? laziness; idleness and wastefulness of time allotted
laziness is condemned because:
others have to work harder
it is disadvantageous for oneself, because useful work does not get done
an equilibrium: one does not produce much, but one does not need much either (in Dante's theology, sloth is the "failure to love God with all one's heart, all one's mind, and all one's soul" - specific examples including laziness, cowardice, lack of imagination, complacency, and irresponsibility)
avarice (covetousness, greed) ? a desire to possess more than one has need or use for (or, according to Dante, "excessive love of money and power")
gluttony ? wasting of food, either through overindulgence in food, drink or intoxicants, misplaced desire for food for its sensuality, or withholding food from the needy ("excessive love of pleasure" was Dante's rendering)
lust ? unlawful sexual desire, such as desiring sex with a person one is not married to.; fornication (Dante's criterion was "excessive love of others," thereby detracting from the love due God). In the Latin lists of the Seven Deadly Sins, lust is reffered to as luxuria
Several of these sins interlink, and various attempts at causal hierarchy have been made. For example, pride (love of self out of proportion) is implied in gluttony (the over-consumption or waste of food), as well as sloth, envy, and most of the others. Each sin is an attenuation of the central Christian sin of failing to love God with all resources and to love fellows as much as self. The Scholastic theologians developed schema of attribute and substance of will to explain these sins.

The 4th century Egyptian monk Evagrius Ponticus defined eight deadly "passions", which were later reduced to seven by merging pride and vainglory. Prior to the current heptad being defined by Thomas Aquinas in the 13th century, accidie, often translated as sadness or listlessness, was used instead of sloth. A cogent modern term would be "apathy," but the term also included "wanhope" or paralysis of despair. In Eastern Orthodoxy, these impulses are still characterized as "deadly passions" rather than sins in and of themselves. Instead, to invite and entertain or to refuse to attempt resistance against these passions is considered sinful in Orthodox Christian moral theology.

In the official Catechism of the Catholic Church, consisting of 2,865 numbered sections and first published in 1992 by order of Pope John Paul II, the seven deadly sins are dealt with in only one paragraph. The principal codification of moral transgression for Christians continues to be the Ten Commandments and the Beatitudes, which are a positive statement of morality.

---

No knives mentioned.[/i]

[i]I suppose you are excercising your 'free-will' to decide what other aspects of life you may consider sins? Seems a lot of the religious do that to further their own 'views'.

Interesting to note; the seven deadlies pretty sum up the basic nature of mankind.

One might then, be forgiven for suspecting one's contention religion's basic purpose from the outset is mind control.

What else can one conclude, when the churches seek to alter man's very nature?

A nature they, in the same breath, claim was provided us by god.

The ultimate conclusion then is; churches are working counter to god's wishes.[i]

Surely that's a sin?

Never let your sense of morals get in the way of doing what's right.
Isaac Asimov
US science fiction novelist & scholar (1920 - 1992)

(Edited by Diogenes on 10-27-2005 15:30)

Thank you Web for an apology. I grant a compliment to you in your knowledge in many different issues, but I believe when one allows others to express their beliefs or views on topics, without receiving a condesending rebbuttal or sarcastic reply, it shows much maturity and integrity. And this implies all the marbles are in the right place. And respect is due.

Touching on the issue of the creation of time, man, etc. There is much to be thought of in respect to man's origins, why we are here and where are we going. I agree with Bugs. Now the world as we know it, is in a chaos. The natural order of world was suspended and then time began. The universe in its chemistries is out of harmony, like out of alignment until the real nature of God is revealed. Then time as we know it will no longer exist.

In the beautiful creation story of Genesis, Adam who has dominion over the earth has fallen. Before the fall, he had the supreme love of God. We know from our biblical stories that God created many creatures who Adam had dominium over, but no one was made like him in his body. Adam was created in the image of God so he could reflect who God is. In paradise though, Adam could not see the love of God reflected back to him in these creatures he had rule over, so God has Adam sleep( for however long only God knows) and God in the story takes a rib out of Adam and creates Eve. When Adam wakes up, he then sees Eve, and alas Adam thinks, this is someone who looks almost like me. Her anatomy was a compliment to his. Her body was beautiful like his. He did not see lust or desire for her body, but the pleasure of the love of God. He saw love reflected back in her eyes. In heaven no sex is necessary, because the communion with God is all you need. This is the ultimate marriage supper of the Lamb the book of Revelations speaks of. After the fall, Adam becomes inverted and no longer looks at Eve's body in the same way. He wants to satisfy his hunger for self gratifications instead of gratifying God with his body. Eve then feels ashamed and covers herself, because Adam is no longer looking at her with the love of God in his eyes, but with the look of lust and desire for her body. This unordered desire is called concupiscence and was created from the invertness of man. It is not from God. At this point the harmony of paradise is disrupted and no longer available. Thus the chaos of the World starts and time as we know it begins. Though the love of God never left the first parents, they were truly sorry and God knew their soul, so God allowed man to reflect and come back to the paradise God once offered. God did not completely sever his love for us or we for God. God left us some of the knowledge of paradise in each one us. This is our desire to know God, love God, serve God, so we know how to do it in the next world we come into, which is Paradise. Our inclination to know God thru spirit goes back to our first Parents. So we as Christians have a bit of the "Alpha" in us. (if that makes any sense)

The best way for evil to come is thru the body. The body which was created for the love of God to reflect his image is used to destroy God love. The only way we can see the love of God is the human body because it reveals the invisible Christ for us. Now in our times it is used to promote lust, profanity, adultery. It helps sell cars, motorcycles, beer, cell phones, etc. The body is now used as a lustful tool to bring darkness and blind what the human body was really created for. Man now is a slave to the his carnal lustful nature. Like Adam he cannot see God in the beautiful human body, he only see his self-gratifying inverted nature. What a confusing, chaotic, and disharmony we live in now.

(Edited by jade on 10-27-2005 17:44)

quote:

---

I see, yes, you're struggling with the whole Free Will vs Predestination thing.

---

I do not see where I am struggling with it

If you need to use a paradox to explain it, then I feel that you are struggling with it. For me, it is a cut-and-dried issue.

^ exactly!

WS and DL,

Look, you're coming into my world view and arguing for predestination *within* that world view. You're more than welcome to do that and I love the fact that we can share these things and try to understand points of view even when we don't accept the premises of those views. I completely understand that you think my world view is bullsh*t so please don't think I'm putting words in your mouth or get confused when I say what you quoted. I see this is a matter of wearing different hats for the sake of argument and understanding.

I'm saying that within the Xian world, there are different ways of seeing the issue of the effects of sin and what not. One of the classic debates is Free Will vs Predestination. There are shades of gray from each of those extremes and many different denominations take their pick from those.

DL-44 and others are quite correct in pointing out the multitudes of opinions on many of these theological points within Xianity. Some use this to argue it is all crap and others see it as a natural progression of understanding. Just as we have not been told exactly how the world works physically, neither have we been told all the details of theological issues.

I think it is important for me to explain my view on differences of opinion among Xians. I believe there are precious few aspects of our faith that are "core", i.e. essential to be considered a Xian. There is freedom to disagree on just about anything else as long as one does not stray from the core beliefs, or essentials of the faith. That is why I don't fret too much about jade, Fig, JKMabry, or any other of my brothers and sisters belonging to different denominations. Because when it comes to the core beliefs, I am confident we are all pretty close on them.

For instance, everyone Xian I just mentioned and I'm sorry for leaving out any other here, would agree that Jesus Christ is the Son of God, died on the cross, was buried, and then was resurrected and now sits at the right hand of God. That is the essence of the core of Christianity.


Dio, those last two paragraphs are also for you. I speak for what I believe to be true and that is it. You may see me making excuses and apologizing for my faith but you could not possibly be more mistaken. I apologize for those who share my faith who have done wrong and perverted the faith and harmed others in that process. But you will *never* find me making excuses or otherwise being ashamed of the best hope humankind has ever known.

quote:

---

Diogenes said:

I recall in my youth god was touted as all powerful and creator of all.

Everything which happened, good or bad, was 'god's will'.

---

There are many who still believe that. Most of my family still thinks that way. I do not agree with them. I lean *very* heavily towards free will in my theology. I have serious problems with the idea that everything was meant to happen exactly as it does.

One of the things I hear so often is people saying it was God's will when a loved one dies. I do not believe God took that person away! I believe that person died as a result of the way our world works. I do not believe that God has a plan for everyone's life already worked out either. I believe that he tells us how we are to regard others and expects us to live our lives according to certain principles. For those who love God and follow those principles, things work out for the best overall but not according to some plan that has already been written.


I am not beholden to any catechism from the 13th century. I accept the words of Christ and the apostles as my rule of faith. But inasmuch as the reference you cite describes sin, I agree with it. But there is no master list of sins to refer to you know. Everytime one attempts to write one, it becomes too dated or too many are left out. The point is that God's law is now written on our hearts and we judge accordingly. Me sticking a knife into you because I'm upset with something you've done would be sin, but me doing it as a doctor to save your life would be a wonderful thing. We are called to be able to judge sin based on two basic commandments which are to love God and love everyone else.

[edit, after having read jade's last contribution]

jade,

I think that run down was very good.

: . . DHTML Slice Puzzle : . . .

(Edited by Bugimus on 10-27-2005 22:47)

quote:

---

Bugimus said:

Look, you're coming into my world view and arguing for predestination *within* that world view.

---

Whoa, hold on there.

Not at all - pointing out the inherent flaws, and citing the christian view, as it has been presented to me, as a means of discussing the flaws, the illogical jsutifications, and the obvious paradox/contradiction is nothing resembling aruging *for* the views discussed.

Taking the idea of predestiny to it's logical conclusion is not arguing for or against it - simply a matter of saying "hey, this don't work"

^Exactly!

Excuse me BUGS, but R U saying that you believe in an actual Adam & Eve that lived in paradise until they sinned?

If so, was it a serpent that led Eve astray or is the snake just a symbol of Man's inherent imperfection?

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
" The noblest pleasure is the joy of understanding, and being understood. "

Ok, let me ask you how much of the bible do you believe is fact?

Unless I need to be more specific?

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
" The noblest pleasure is the joy of understanding, and being understood. "

DL, I was more speaking to WS than you when I said that about jumping in my world view and this is why:

quote:

---

WebShaman said:

No, Bugs, you still are not grasping what I mean. God just didn't create something with free will, and then set it loose, to commit sin or not, accordingly; God already knows in advance, when creating a soul, that it will either go to heaven or hell!

---

to which I responded...

quote:

---

Bugimus said:

I am *not* a Calvinist. I am probably about as far to the other side of this theological position as is possible. I'm pointing it out to show how some Xians handle the question of foreknowledge.

I am also pointing this out to show you that you are agreeing with this approach when you insist God is guilty of our sin because he predestined our actions. I don't believe in that level of predestination and therefore do not agree with you that he is guilty of making us sin. I maintain that Adam was not created to sin but that at one point he chose to do so.

---

I perceived WS as telling me I could not hold to my view of free will because predestination was king. But I was hardly worked up over it as my words may have suggested. The point is that there are varying opinions about this issue within Christendom and so who is WS to say it *has* to be one or the other? The fact that I have accepted it as a paradox should highlight how difficult this topic is.

If I seemed too defensive then no worries, I really wasn't that much worked up. I just hope you can at least see why I took it that way.

Taking things to their logical conclusion works both ways remember. I have attempted to take some of your basic views to what I consider their logical conclusions as well. I know I still owe you a detailed response on the meaning an purpose of life with no God topic. I haven't forgotten that and I still mull it over in my head thinking all the way back to the Media violence thread from months ago. There's hardly enough time these days to hang out here like I used to, alas.


Zynx,

I do not believe that there were two blonde haired, blue eyed people named Adam and Eve that lived in a pretty garden with a picket fence with fig leaves covering their privates.

However, I know for a fact that there was Adam, or the first man. Whether you are religious or not, it is undeniable that there was one day when modern man as we know him came into existence. This is what Genesis describes when it speaks of the breath of life entering Adam.

There was also a point at which this first man conceived of right vs. wrong and decided to do wrong. This was the moment at which what we call sin entered the world.

So how much of the bible do I believe to be fact? As I've just answered your question about Adam and Eve, yes, please be more specific and I'll be happy to elaborate on other parts.

: . . DHTML Slice Puzzle : . . .

quote:

---

The point is that there are varying opinions about this issue within Christendom and so who is WS to say it *has* to be one or the other? The fact that I have accepted it as a paradox should highlight how difficult this topic is.

---

Because a paradox cannot be explained, Bugs. It is not a logical conclusion. It is illogical.

The topic is only difficult, when your belief is in the way of your logic. Suspend your belief for a moment, and you will see, that logically, it goes one way or the other. There is no paradox involved.

And it is not an opinion, it is logical deduction taken to it's conclusion. The paradox you mention is an opinion.

To believe that you or I as human beings can understand every reality of the universe and beyond is absurd, IMO. Even scientific principles when we get into multiple dimensions quickly become only understandable in part due to our physical and mental limitations. I have no problem whatsoever accepting certain things as paradoxical.

: . . DHTML Slice Puzzle : . . .

quote:

---

Bugimus said:Zynx, I do not believe that there were two blonde haired, blue eyed people
named Adam and Eve that lived in a pretty garden with a picket fence with fig leaves covering their privates. However, I know for a fact that there was Adam, or the first man.

---

For a fact? "Factually", there is no "Adam & Eve". Perhaps the first "hominid", is your "first man"? But "factually", IT would not be anything LIKE an "Adam".

quote:

---

Bugimus said:Whether you are religious or not, it is undeniable that there was one
day when modern man as we know him came into existence.

---

Agreed. But this can also be scientifically proven, WITHOUT a bible.

quote:

---

Bugimus said:As I've just answered your question about Adam and Eve, yes, please be more specific and I'll be happy to elaborate on other parts.

---

Bugs, U either believe the BIBLE-VERBATIM, or U don't. U can not PICK-n-CHOOSE.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
" The noblest pleasure is the joy of understanding, and being understood. "

(Edited by Zynx on 11-10-2005 04:08)

quote:

---

WebShaman said:Zynx, My People do not pray! (and I am Cherokee)

---

Perhaps this is a bit pesonal WS. But I would like to learn from my Fathers side. While his mother came from southern Italy, during the Potato(e), famine, I want to also learn about Me-father-Grandpa's heritage.

Dad - Married a local
Gran-Dad - Married his Italian femalian
Great-Gran-Dad, married Cherokee Squaw(Not harm intended).

WS, where/what do I need, to do more research on this factual issue?

WS, I am not joking!

Last time I checked, I was 25% Cherokee?

Sorry to "Hi-Jack" this thread/idea.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
" The noblest pleasure is the joy of understanding, and being understood. "

quote:

---

To believe that you or I as human beings can understand every reality of the universe and beyond is absurd, IMO. Even scientific principles when we get into multiple dimensions quickly become only understandable in part due to our physical and mental limitations. I have no problem whatsoever accepting certain things as paradoxical.

---

I do not think that I understand every reality of the universe and beyond. Nor do I think that Science can yet explain everything - and it is entirely plausible, that Science may not be able to! You know that I believe in a "super nature".

But, it does give us some reather remarkable tools. Logic, for one. The ability to make connections that also are relaibly accuarate. This method has proven, time and again, to be better than the Religious method of belief. I use logic to deduct that there are two paths to follow. I however refrained from coming to a conclusion, because one is not logically possible given the lack of evidence.

You do come to a conclusion, however, an illogical one. And you have no supporting evidence, therefore it is an opinion.

Zynx, there are hordes of websites out there on the Cherokee, but if you are really interested in examining your roots, then I would suggest that you do some digging into the past, and get some names, and do some more digging. Of all the American Indian tribes, the Cherokee have a very advanced social and economic system these days. We have managed to adapt much of the modern world into our own.

Potato famine? In Italy? Ya mean all that pasta is made with spud flour?

Geez, we Irish didn't have to leave home after all, it was just a big mis-understanding, Mama-Mia!

Never let your sense of morals get in the way of doing what's right.
Isaac Asimov
US science fiction novelist & scholar (1920 - 1992)

WS, reasoning from my starting point and basic assumptions, my conclusion that a paradox exists is perfectly logical. I strive to stay true to clear thinking and logic. What you and I disagree on are assumptions. It makes far more sense to assume their is a god behind this reality than to assume it is all here by chance, IMO. In your opinion, and several others here, just the opposite is the case and we all reason from our assumptions respectively.

You also do not need to remind me about the benefits of science. It is precisely due to what we've learned from using science that I do not believe in a literal six day creation, for instance. There are other things that I do not accept as literally true as written in the scriptures because I can plainly see otherwise with my own two eyes.

WS, I want you to understand that the bible speaks very strongly about our ability to choose between right and wrong. I also believe very strongly that we have that ability and we are not compelled by our creator to sin. But also consider the following.

The struggle between free will and predestination is hardly limited to the Xian world view. I'm sure you've heard plenty talk of fate and destiny. Humanity struggles with this question. In fact, a belief that this world is purely materialistic and arose by chance argues far more for predestination than my view. If it is indeed a very large sequence of cause and effect, then aren't we all simply the effects of previous causes?

If this is the case, and I will be very interested to hear if you think it is, then on what possible basis can an atheist with that view speak of culpability for any action? How can we hold a molesting priest culpable, for instance, when he had no real choice in the matter? So how do you view this in a world devoid of a creator? This is not a slam but a real question I would like answered from your world view.


Zynx,

When I say "for a fact" I mean that scientifically and logically we know that there had to be one individual human that came into existence at some prior date that began our species. That individual was who the bible has named Adam, which literally means "first man". But the name Hebrew word Adam used in the OT often refers to mankind too. This matches even better when one considers how well the Genesis story describes each of our own experiences in becoming aware of right and wrong and losing our initial innocence when we committed our first sin.

quote:

---

Zynx said:

Bugs, U either believe the BIBLE-VERBATIM, or U don't. U can not PICK-n-CHOOSE.

---

Do you do this with anything in life? Do you believe everything you read? Do you put your brain on hold whenever you want to learn something? Of course not!!! So on what possible grounds can you say that? Please explain to me why I must read the bible in that fashion.

: . . DHTML Slice Puzzle : . . .

quote:

---

The struggle between free will and predestination is hardly limited to the Xian world view. I'm sure you've heard plenty talk of fate and destiny. Humanity struggles with this question. In fact, a belief that this world is purely materialistic and arose by chance argues far more for predestination than my view. If it is indeed a very large sequence of cause and effect, then aren't we all simply the effects of previous causes?

---

I have already explained my view of how the future works and my view of free will and predestination on this board Bugs. But I will quickly comment on it here. I beleive at any given moment, an infinity series of parallel Universes potientially are in existance - these contain every possible action/reaction/decision, etc that is currently being made/done at that particular moment! It becomes solid as it happens - meaning that one becomes true (real), and the others do not. I should think they probably are in a quantum state.

Thus, actions can happen, and things can be somewhat predictable as to how they will turn out, but it is never 100% reliable - it is not predestined.

So even though we are products of previous causes, that doesn't mean that the future is fixed. Not at all. I believe that a Universe without a Creator argues against pre-destination, and for free will! By adding a Creator that is all Poerful, one adds predestination, since an All Powerful Being surely already knows the outcome of everything (by definition of All Powerful alone).

quote:

---

If this is the case, and I will be very interested to hear if you think it is, then on what possible basis can an atheist with that view speak of culpability for any action? How can we hold a molesting priest culpable, for instance, when he had no real choice in the matter? So how do you view this in a world devoid of a creator? This is not a slam but a real question I would like answered from your world view.

---

Irregardless of whether there truly is predestination or free will, the illusion of governing ourselves (or the reality, whichever one subscribes to) takes presidence, Bugs. It is that simple. The Priest in question broke the law. He should be held culpable for that.

Sin is something totally different - since it doesn't truly exist (there is no evidence for it's existance), why should it be a factor here?

I have redefined sin in your terms several times already. I can only tell you to please think of it in terms of harming others when I speak of it. I am not interested in arguing semantics on that word anymore because I find it unproductive at best.

I have also played around with your view on the countless choices at any one point in time. It is a very attractive way to look at things.

My mind immediately envisions God outside of the solid block of countless options viewing our path through as time clicks away. In this case, He would be watching our path and not knowing by His own design what choice we would make next. The problem with this is what you have already pointed out, does this mean He is not all knowing?

I am actually *very* close to accepting the notion that He can choose to not know our next choice at any one moment. But there is no escaping other aspects where He must surely know some outcomes. Thus, my conclusion of paradox. Call it what you will, this is my position on this one.

I am still not entirely clear on why you say a godless universe supports free will. Just because there are many options at any one moment, how does that not mean that only one of them was going to happen? I mean, with sufficient knowledge of the workings of the physical world, shouldn't one be able to come up with an equation to determine what choice would be made? Did you by any chance reach the Foundation Trilogy by Asimov? As I recall, the Foundation actually had enough knowledge to make highly accurate predictions of the future based on sufficient data.

: . . DHTML Slice Puzzle : . . .

quote:

---

I am still not entirely clear on why you say a godless universe supports free will. Just because there are many options at any one moment, how does that not mean that only one of them was going to happen? I mean, with sufficient knowledge of the workings of the physical world, shouldn't one be able to come up with an equation to determine what choice would be made? Did you by any chance reach the Foundation Trilogy by Asimov? As I recall, the Foundation actually had enough knowledge to make highly accurate predictions of the future based on sufficient data.

---

Because there are an infinite amount of quantum universes at any given moment. Of course, some are more plausible than others. But still, with an infinite amount - that pretty much takes care of predestination, doesn't it? Thus, the only factor in the determination of which quantum reality will coelesce into reality (i.e. the potiential future that becomes reality) is through free will. At the moment of perception, it must assume a state. Sort of like how light can be both a wave and a particle, but when observed, it must assume a state at that particular point of either a ray or a particle.

I have read the Foundation trilogy (great read, btw - I really like Asimov). And I already said, that one can make predictions, and they will be more accurate as the amount of data becomes greater, obviously. But one is dealing with a prediction, not a predestination. Thus, there will be errors (and there was in the Fopundation Trilogy, if you recall ).

WebShaman | The keenest sorrow (and greatest truth) is to recognize ourselves as the sole cause of all our adversities.
- Sophocles

quote:

---

Bugimus said:Zynx, When I say "for a fact" I mean that scientifically and logically we
know that there had to be one individual human that came into existence at some prior date that began our species.

---

Scientifically humans came into existance? YUP, that's NOT the bible talking is it!

quote:

---

Bugimus said:Please explain to me why I must read the bible in that fashion.

---

2 me the bible will always be a work of,

FICTION:
1 a : something invented by the imagination or feigned; specifically : an invented story b : fictitious literature (as novels or short stories) c : a work of fiction; especially : NOVEL
2 a : an assumption of a possibility as a fact irrespective of the question of its truth <a legal fiction> b : a useful illusion or pretense
3 : the action of feigning or of creating with the imagination

How do U read the bible?

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
" The noblest pleasure is the joy of understanding, and being understood. "

(Edited by Zynx on 11-11-2005 03:23)

Zynx,

Keep in mind that I have no problem with accepting science and religion. Science is a human tool for learning and understanding our world. Religion is an attempt to understand our place in this world and aspects of reality that cannot be seen.

How do I read the bible? Well, when I look at its contents I see several types of writing collected and written over a few thousand years starting with the earliest books of the OT to the latest ones in the NT. I see history, poetry, philosophy, apocalyptic literature and theology throughout.

These books have been handed down to us by those who believe them to be inspired by God himself. Regardless of whether you believe in God, the bible is a treasure trove of information and insight into the Hebrew and Christian world view. I think the more you examine the bible, you will find it is far more than simply a work of fiction.

So I read it mainly to understand the original meaning and intent of its authors. I want as accurate a view as possible of what it says so I can make my own judgement as to the merits of its claims.

: . . DHTML Slice Puzzle : . . .

(Edited by Bugimus on 11-12-2005 23:18)

Oh brother: http://www.livescience.com/othernews/ap_051112_pope_evolution.html

Never let your sense of morals get in the way of doing what's right.
Isaac Asimov
US science fiction novelist & scholar (1920 - 1992)

I think the dead give-away that this is the snake-oil approach is the word 'intelligent.'

And poor old peejay2 not even cold and the knives are out. Nice 'team' there.

Religion has aways been saying that everything otherwise not explainable comes from a Creator, Gods, etc. Science has pushed them back, and keeps pushing them back, as the things that used to be otherwise unexplainable become explainable and proven to be natural laws and mechanisms at work.

Intelligent Design suffered a major blow with the eye, for example (soemthing they were saying was too complex to have formed naturally) - and it has been proven now, that it forms naturally.

Sadly, there are those who cannot accept facts.

WS, but finding out how something works and the process by which it came to be does not mean no one created it. I agree that the "god of the gaps" approach is flawed, but it's important to remember that thinking science can disprove the existence of God is also false.

: . . DHTML Slice Puzzle : . . .

Science is not about and is not required to disprove a god.

The proof is always in the positive. Those who make the claim, as soooo often pointed out here, must provide the proof.

Never let your sense of morals get in the way of doing what's right.
Isaac Asimov
US science fiction novelist & scholar (1920 - 1992)

I agree completely with that.

However, there are those in the atheist camp who believe science *does* disprove God or gods.

Conversely, there are those in the theist camp who try to use science to prove the existence of God and it simply can't be done.

I do not believe it is possible for any of us to either prove or disprove the existence of God conclusively. For those of us who believe He exists, it does come down to faith. It's important to also note that faith can, and quite often is, very well supported by reason and logic.

: . . DHTML Slice Puzzle : . . .

Faith is always supported, by rationalization and circular reasonaing.

Faith is, in the religious sense at least, the antithesis of reason.

Never let your sense of morals get in the way of doing what's right.
Isaac Asimov
US science fiction novelist & scholar (1920 - 1992)

Dio, some of your most fundamental views about life and reality are, in fact, only assumptions. We are all in the same boat as far as that is concerned.

: . . DHTML Slice Puzzle : . . .

Bugs, I have never suggested that Science disproves the existence of a Creator (which you know, since we have discussed and debated such many times before). I have said (and will keep on saying) that Science has pushed back the unknown, that was before the realm of Gods, a Creator, etc, the realm of the unexplained.

WebShaman | The keenest sorrow (and greatest truth) is to recognize ourselves as the sole cause of all our adversities.
- Sophocles