Topic awaiting preservation: The insidious perfidy of the church

***Please note; "the church", not "The catholic church".

The fact that most of the info I post here shall find the CC pre-eminent, speaks for itself, as I conduct my re-search without using the word 'catholic'.

The pedophile issue is a serious one and one which church-friendly (fearing?) media, politicians, police and courts have done a great deal to help sweep under the alter over the years and even today.

I feel it should be exposed, talked about, revealed and kept foremost in the memory of as many thinking people as possible and a few of those who seem to work merely on fused ganglion as well.

The guilty, or the supporters of various churches, may shoot at the messenger here, but I am bullet-proof.

Some time ago a believer, whom I offended by disagreeing with him and providing proof the bible was a fiction, swore to pray me to death.

I have not heard from him for some time, I hope he is well...as am I.

So, here is some reading material for y'all;

http://www.chilliwacktimes.com/tol/035104tl14.html

http://www.survivorsfirst.org/bosgrandjuryrpt.html

http://www.nospank.net/n-j16.htm

http://www.rickross.com/reference/loc/loc19.html

http://www.unknownnews.net/vaticanpedophilesclub.html

http://www.boston.com/globe/spotlight/abuse/archives/051392_porter.htm

http://www.meaning.ca/articles/news_commentary/sexual_abuse_church_may02.htm

http://www.therapistfinder.net/Child-Abuse/Pedophile.html

http://www.townhall.com/columnists/johnleo/jl20020204.shtml

http://www.zmag.org/content/showarticle.cfm?SectionID=72&ItemID=7842

Since I got chastized for entering similar material elsewhere, I thought perhaps it deserved it's own thread.

Cheers...and never bend over in church.

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 09-24-2005 03:24)

Hey Deo, this might interest you.

Philadelphia Grand Jury Report on Pedophile Priests

Ramasax
www.AmericanSerf.us

Thanks Ram, it does and has been added to the arsenal.

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, I will pray for this friend of yours, that he will grow close enough to Christ that he realizes why God didn't grant his request. I will also pray that you might discover that reason soon, as well.

While hiding the pedophile issue under the rug is a bad thing, many people are ashamed of their sins. That is probably why they will only come public with it if they are caught. I know that my sins are shameful, and that if people knew all about me, they wouldn't look at me the same. But the cool thing about Jesus is that He will forgive the sin and help the sinner cease the sinning. The cool thing about a believer who lives pro christo is that they will forgive the sin and help the sinner cease the sinning. That is what I would hope these churches will do with anyone who sins (especially pedophiles), because that is what Jesus did.

"For reason is a property of God's...moreover, there is nothing He does not wish to be investigated and understood by reason." ~Tertullian de paenitentia Carthaginian Historian 2nd century AD

Gid, yer an idjut.

The clown who wanted to pray me to death was no friend.

Don't hold yer breath waiting for me to discover a belief in a myth.

There is no historical proof of jc save in the bible, which is a story-book the Brother's Grimm could have dobne a better job of.

One cannot be a sinner unless one is religious.

Yoiu believe you are a sinner, so you are. I am not.

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

Gid: You're trolling. Stop it.

quote:

---

Dio, I will pray for this friend of yours, that he will grow close enough to Christ that he realizes why God didn't grant his request. I will also pray that you might discover that reason soon, as well.

---

I really don't understand why you would do such a thing - it has been proven that Prayer doesn't work - the only effect that it has, is on the one doing the praying.

Do you need soothing and comfort?

Diogenes:

Just a little advice for you. Religious folks love to be 'wronged'. I have found it counter productive to call them idiots and other sometimes well deserved names. And if they have already started the name calling business themselves, I will just stop conversing with them.

You know there are actually two types of idiots, the ones who know they are being idiotic and the ones who are too stupid to even figure that out. It really doesn't matter which kind of idiot you are talking to, either way you are just wasting your breath by telling them they are an idiot. No matter how much fun it may be....

Good point Norm.

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

You brought those things up earlier D-man: the lack of evidence for JC, and that sinners are only such if they believe so.

Have you ever looked into any of the research Paul Maier has made on the early Christian Church? It's extraordinary the things he has found concerning Jesus of Nazareth, and the arguments for the assumptions of his context are pretty sound.

D-man, you are actually one of the few people I have found who actually don't think they are a sinner on some level. Most people intuitly know they have broken God's laws because of the concience they have convicting their hearts. If you truly feel that way I can think that the only explaination is that you have darkened your heart so much, like those described in Romans 1:21-25, that you can't tell any more.

"For reason is a property of God's...moreover, there is nothing He does not wish to be investigated and understood by reason." ~Tertullian de paenitentia Carthaginian Historian 2nd century AD

There is a very big difference, gid, between knowing that you have done things wrong at some point, and beleiving that you have broken "god's law".

It is a very simple issue: if there is no god, then there is obviously no god's law. If there is no gods law, you can't break, and cannot be a sinner.

For those of us who do not beleive in your mythical diety, the concept of "sin" as such is a useless fabrication.

This is very different from not acknowledging wrong-doing.

Well Gid, it seem obvious to me that you are either unwillimg ( a sin of ignorance) or unable ( a sin of refusal) to acknowledge facts put before you which any person with an open, seeking mind would find of interest.

I must say, I am impressed by your encyclopedic knowledge of the several billions of " most people" upon the face of this earth and their religious leanings .

Surely this is due to your direct connection to your god. Gee, I hope it is not a party line and you are listening in to Dumbya's chats with 'The Lord".

It may cause you some distress to do a little research and find that xianity is a minority faith on the face of the earth and a dwindling one at that.

The lack of evidence of JC is based on scientific research.

Fact, in other words.

The real thing, not the Macdonalds/xian version.

It is not my heart which is dark, it is light and bright and free from other's opinions of what I must think and feel; it is your mind, which is occluded by superstition. Superstition, like all bigotry, is fueled by deep-seated feelings of inadequacy.

Sleep well.

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

quote:

---

The lack of evidence of JC is based on scientific research.

Fact, in other words.

---

Are you talking historically (Jesus the man) or theologically (Jesus the diety) here?

While noone can prove that Jesus was indeed the Savior, it is well accepted among historians and scholars alike, with few exceptions, that he did exist.

Explain.

Ramasax
www.AmericanSerf.us

Ram, he is referring to direct evidence that proves the man that is labeled Jesus Christ really exited - there is none.

We have been through this before, I recall, long ago. I think we had a similiar conversation here at the time when the grave marker was found...

That proved inconclusive.

quote:

---

Gideon siad:

Have you ever looked into any of the research Paul Maier has made on the early Christian Church? It's extraordinary the things he has found concerning Jesus of Nazareth, and the arguments for the assumptions of his context are pretty sound.

---

Many of the links that have been posted in these threads show how the arguments that he uses do not stand up to the facts.
One example:

quote:

---

Relating to Jesus? final week in Jerusalem, an ancient flight of stairs down to the Brook Kidron has been excavated, doubtless used by Jesus and His disciples on the way to Gethsemane at the base of the Mount of Olives, where ancient olive trees still thrive.

---

So they found a flight of stairs. There is no evidence that a person named Jesus used them, but he states that they were "doubtless used by Jesus and His disciples...". Hmmm... not doubtless, I certainly doubt it.

I do believe the name Jesus' name was in a Roman census.

Dan @ Code Town

And I believe the name "Jesus" was in the last US Census, as well...

The name Jesus was apparently as common then, as John or Jim or Smith is today.

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

quote:

---

WebShaman said:

...he is referring to direct evidence that proves the man that is labeled
Jesus Christ really exited - there is none...

---

What would constitute direct evidence for you, WS? You mean like physical remains or what?

This was what I was getting at in another thread when I said we should consider it fact that Jesus existed. To discount the NT when we do not for other historical evidences and other historical figures would be biased. We do not doubt that Nero existed, for instance. Do we have his remains? Not to my knowledge, but we have gobs of documentary evidence. To doubt that the man, Jesus Christ, existed in this day and age can't be considered objective.


Dio, I really don't have the time right now to read all those links. I read one and so you're saying that members of christian churches are *more* prone to this abuse? Assuming that is true, then it leaves us with this:

1. This abuse is a sin of the highest magnitude. Damaging and innocent life to the point where their physical life will be ruined *and* their after-life too is heinous. Christ warned of the fate of anyone who would do such a thing and nothing could be further from Xian teaching.

2. It should be exposed and eradicated. If the churches don't clean their own house, then others should. There really is no excuse for covering up such behavior.

3. Part of the proof of Xianity's validity is supposed to be how Xians love one another and others. This sort of thing obviously undermines that and that is why the church should be the most motivated to root this out.

4. This should not be used by anti-religious zealots (not to mention any names ) to attack the teachings of Xianity when it is clearly diametrically opposed to them.

: . . DHTML Slice Puzzle : . . .

quote:

---

We do not doubt that Nero existed, for instance. Do we have his remains? Not to my knowledge, but we have gobs of documentary evidence. To doubt that the man, Jesus Christ, existed in this day and age can't be considered objective.

---

Historians who lived when Nero did wrote about Nero. We have no such writings about Jesus from historians who lived when Jesus lived.

Righton Briggl and I posted a link somwhere which points out in detail the fact there isno historical record of the man outside of the bible which is not to be trusted as a historical record .

No Bug, sadly the pedophiles are found in many more places than the church, schools, social services, government agencies, boy-scouts and similiar organizations.

However, it is much worse for it to not only be happening in the various churches, but for them to be covering it all up with such enthusiasm.

The catholic church alone is thought to have spend billions of hush money.

As you point out, such actions counter all the teachings of xianity, but then very few xians live up to those anyway.

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

Oh, I'm sure that someone named Jesus lived during the time that a certain Jesus Christ was mentioned in the NT and by the Jews, Bugs.

However, that is where it stops.

We have no direct evidence, whatsoever, that the Jesus Christ mentioned in the NT really existed.

What is direct evidence? Well, physical remains would be pretty good, obviously. A non-refutable piece of evidence I think would also nail things down - a grave with a definite direct means of identifying the person in it, for example.

This is kind of like the Buddha - but we know he really existed, it has been documented very well, from a number of sources, unrelated to each other.

That would also be a pretty good indicator - to have many different sources documenting the Jesus Christ in the NT.

But we do not.

And that is a very, very strange thing, considering who and what Jesus Christ is supposed to have been and done.

After all, the Romans weren't the only ones in the region, and neither were the Jews. What about the "3 Kings"? What about the Palastinians and other Peoples in the area? Why didn't anyone else document these things?

We see Confucius, Buddha, and even Mohammad were all well documented, from many different sources. Why isn't the Jesus Christ of the NT documented so?

We know that a Caesar named Nero existed - not only is he documented by the Romans, but he is also documented by many of the other lands and countries ouside of Rome - and by Rome's enemies. Why would Rome's enemies document and help perpetuate a myth?

I mean, we have more evidence that Cleopatra existed, than did the Jesus Christ of the NT, Bugs.

(Edited by WebShaman on 09-28-2005 07:19)

quote:

---

Bugimus said:

To discount the NT when we do not for other historical evidences and other historical figures would be biased. We do not doubt that Nero existed, for instance. Do we have his remains? Not to my knowledge, but we have gobs of documentary evidence. To doubt that the man, Jesus Christ, existed in this day and age can't be considered objective.

---

Briggl touched on this, but this needs serious attention.

I would not in any way consider the gospels to be "historical evidences" in the same way that the historical writings related to Nero are. They are much more in the vein of Homeric tales, or other forms of greek mythology.

Yes, we do have "gobs of documentary evidence" for Nero. We do not have this for Jesus.

As stated by briggl, we have contemporary accounts of Nero, written by historians. For Jesus, we have accounts written from between 40 and 70 years after he was said to have died, and written by people who we cannot identify, and written to promote an ideology.

To say that these 4 writings can be held to be of a comparable integrity with other historical documents is worse than unobjective.
We also need to note, again, that those figures of history whom we do accept existed with little evidence, we do so only nominally, and with the full acceptance that everything we know about them could be anywhere from slightly exagerate to completely fabricated.

The only thing that can help lend credibility to such a figure, is corroboration with mulitple sources of information telling about the same person. We simply do not have this with Jesus. The small handful of references that are commonly touted by christians as extra-biblical sources of information about Jesus are nothing more then mentions of the movement, which mention the name Jesus, since that is the name associated with the movement. Nowhere is there an account of the actions, life, or death of Jesus other than the gospels.

Until such a reference is found, his existence in the first place must at least be viewed with skepticism.

I am willing to accept that Jesus did exist. I have no reason to suppose he did not. The circumstantial evidence for him is enough for me to give the benefit of the doubt - but that's far different from being able to say with confidence that this particular Jesus did exist.

I guess it won't hurt to re-post this; http://home1.gte.net/deleyd/religion/appendixd.html

and this; http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/gordon_stein/jesus.shtml

It seems some have missed or avoided them.

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

Can ylou believe this? http://www.godhatesfags.com/main/aboutwbc.html

so much for xian love.

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

random observation: it seems the philosophy and other silliness forum actually should be relabeled the "let's bag on xians" forum.

diogenes, the guy/church behind godhatesfags.com is an idiot and doesnt represent most xians.

WS, on a semi-related note i'm working on some research on your ideas of jesus not fulfilling the jewish prophecies. A guy that teaches in a program my brother (and is a pastor and professor) is jewish but became xian later on, he also has multiple doctorates in theology, can translate hebrew to english on the fly, etc. I'm trying to get some info from him on his position on jesus' fulfillment of those prophecies as he obviously believes that jesus was the messiah.

chris


KAIROSinteractive | tangent oriented

quote:

---

"let's bag on xians"

---

Now that is typical!

Maybe Dio is "bagging" on xians, but I don't see anyone else doing it. Dio is not the Phil and other silliness forum, Fig.

On another note, I'd be very interested to hear your findings, Fig.

quote:

---

is jewish but became xian later on

---

You need to be careful here, though. That's a WHOLE load of Bias. I would prefer a neutral party's findings, actually. For example, a Buddhist that has studied the Jewish Torah and the NT.

Because someone who has lost Faith in one religion, and switches to another, opposing one, obviously believe in that new relion's Dogma. It would be like asking a Pastor and Professor who has studied Physics (and has a Doctorate, etc) that is a Flat Earther, about the shape of the Earth...

The reason xians get the majority of the the bad press here is because they get the majority of the bad press.

Have you seen any headlines about Bhuddists, Janes, Jews, or other religious groups covering up institutionalized sexual abuse of kids?

If you have some, lets get it on here. It is not to be tolerated anywhere.

Recall as well, I have mentioned the predators are also found in secular institutions. When those headlines hit, I'll post them and would expect anyone else to do the same.

Pedophiles depend upon organizations wanting to keep such things under wraps to avoid prosecution.

It is important to keep the crime front and centre and thus encourage people to make it something people don't want hidden and perpetuated.

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

quote:

---

- it has been proven that Prayer doesn't work

---

WS, of ALL that your Indian heritage allows, (And mine - Cherokee), why oh why would you state such a thing?

Now think about this; Just because how a prayer is asked, does not mean that the response/answer given, should be an exact match to that prayer request.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

" The world today is such a wicked thing "

(Edited by Zynx on 09-29-2005 05:00)

Prayer doesn't work Zynx, because those praying are talking to themselves alone.

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

Zynx, My People do not pray! (and I am Cherokee).

There are times when one may beseech, or speak, with the spirits - but that is definitely not prayer.

The peyote might cotribute a bit as well

Dan @ Code Town

quote:

---

there are times when one may beseech, or speak, with the spirits - but that is definitely not prayer

---

What would be the reason for the speaking to spirits??????
What would you want to know???? Or better yet what do they reveal to you????
What is the purpose for communicating with your spirits in your lifetime???
Woudl it be you could not cope with the real world so you ask them for advice????
Why does your culture have a spirit world and how do they manifest themselves to you????


This would be very interesting to know?????

Jade, one might ask all of the same questions of you, as whatever you pray to is no different and no more real.

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

quote:

---

What would be the reason for the speaking to spirits??????

---

- to find out what they know.

quote:

---

What would you want to know???? Or better yet what do they reveal to you????

---

I don't talk to spirits, so I can't tell you what they might reveal to me, but things I would like to know are a)what happens after death, the Mysteries of Life, etc.

quote:

---

What is the purpose for communicating with your spirits in your lifetime???

---

I haven't communicated with spirits. I've had encounters with sprits, but no real communication. It takes someone with lots of training and guidance to do so, I have been told.

quote:

---

Woudl it be you could not cope with the real world so you ask them for advice????

---

No.

quote:

---

Why does your culture have a spirit world and how do they manifest themselves to you????

---

My culture doesn't have a spirit world - reality has a spirit essence that is a part of it. They manifest themselves in dreams, in trances, and sometimes in certain animals or objects.

Again, pretty much the same argument as the xians put forth.

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

Not really, Dio. We know that there are sources of energy (quantum Physics), and that reality can be influenced with thought and observance alone. I think my People know of a way to do this.

Also, we don't believe in "gods" or a "god". We don't believe in Angels, either. Nor is there a "heaven" or a "hell". We believe that there is a binding spiritual world right beside ours, that connects us all together, with all animals and all things.

We don't believe in the idea of "being saved" or salvation, becasue we don't believe that Man is somehow afflicted with sin (the idea of Sin is foreign) and so are the concepts of good and evil.

And though I myself have never been able to communicate with the spirits, I have encountered them. I can't prove this to you, however, and thus, it is only important to me, and those like me who have experienced such (and My People).

WebShaman | Asylum D & D | D & D Min Page

(Edited by WebShaman on 09-29-2005 16:53)

quote:

---

I haven't communicated with spirits. I've had encounters with spirits, but no real communication. It takes someone with lots of training and guidance to do so, I have been told.

---

So someone told you that people with enough training and guidance can speak to spirits.

And Catholics are told that if they tell their sins to a priest (a person with a lot of training and guidance), he is a direct pipeline to God, and their sins will be forgiven.

And someone told me that a man, who wasn't really a man because he was the son of God, died for my sins, but then didn't really die, and is now sitting at the right hand of God, but he really is God, along with the Holy Ghost, whoever he is, and they make up the Holy Trinity and they are really all one being because there can't be more than one God, and if I pray to them/him, they/he will answer me, so I can speak with God even though I don't have all that much training and guidance.

Well, I suppose if you were seeing God, Jesus, Angels, etc, Briggl, you might consider that communicating with them could be a real possibility, right?

But you could also be right - I don't know.

*shrugs*

I asked those who say they have spoken with spirits, about the spirits that I saw. They say that it is dangerous to speak with spirits, and that it is dangerous even to be noticed. I stopped attempting to do so, after a particularly bad experience.

Since I don't have the drive or dedication necessary to even attempt to try to learn how, not to mention completion of such training, I will probably never know.

[quote]And someone told me that a man, who wasn't really a man because he was the son of God, died for my sins, but then didn't really die, and is now sitting at the right hand of God, but he really is God, along with the Holy Ghost, whoever he is, and they make up the Holy Trinity and they are really all one being because there can't be more than one God, and if I pray to them/him, they/he will answer me, so I can speak with God even though I don't have all that much training and guidance./quote]

Excellent! If it wan't so damn long I'd use it as a closing quote. =) vbg

<still small voice>
Boo!
</still small voice>

joking aside, i have a sense (spiritually speaking, if you will) that all these religious threads are being woven into something more. i keep getting glimpses here and there of the truth of the matter.

the Holy Spirit was poured out upon ALL flesh. it is up to each one to recognize it and take hold of it. of course it is a scarey thing.

The Holy spirit? Single malt I presume?

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, just seems like an overwhelmingly negative tone recently. i personally have never been involved with a denomination or group that's been involved with anything related to pedophilia and would never be, yet i'm by association group in with a group 'tolerating' this. it just seems there's a very broad brush that's liberally applied.


On the other topic, i can see your point but dont think it necessarily affects this particular instance. actually the guy is hilarious, very open about pagan influences on chrsitianity, very much not the typical church type. as such i think he'd have some interesting insights, esp given his background.

chris


KAIROSinteractive | tangent oriented

Fig; don't take too much upon yourself now...what is under attack, in-so-far as pedophilia is concerned, is primarily the church organization...which-ever church.

Clearly, the overwhelming evidence is the CEO's and their underlings, have conspired for centuries to cover-up this hideous offense.

They have as much as possible hidden it from their flocks, denied it to their flocks or brow-beaten their flocks into silence.

Unless you were one of thse who knew and kept quiet, you need not feel guilty.

Of course, I realize a large part of being a xian is guilt, but one does not HAVE to subscribe to guilt for which one is not responsible.

This includes the alleged 'original 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)

Yerah, I was never really able to get my mind around the concept of Original Sin, nor why Mankind should be afflicted with such.

It is one of the silliest concepts in the xian religion, IMHO.

"You are afflicted with Sin! You need to be saved!"

Errrr...we got afflicted with Sin by God, and now we need to be saved from his affliction, through him

That's like going back to the Doctor that infected you with a debilitating sickness, to be treated.

Always remember WS, only the religious are 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)

quote:

---

Yerah, I was never really able to get my mind around the concept of Original Sin, nor why Mankind should be afflicted with such.

It is one of the silliest concepts in the xian religion, IMHO.

---

Is this because you never understood the concept of the story of Genesis?
For us believers its a timeless story. It was not necessarily written about one man and one woman. The writers are trying to give you a message about us today. There could of possibly have been no man such as Adam or Eve. Read Genesis creation story of Adam and Eve and substitute the word "mankind" for them and you will get a different view. In the view most un-educated bible readers have, its like saying, today I am going to willfully commit adultery and you are guilty too by association because your human. This doesn't make any sense. A paradise, a tree of wisdom, an apple, a snake??? The writers wrote the story in a way to convey to uneducated followers or would be followers to give them a better understanding of the will of God. However, the story of Genesis written, is still inspiring because it relates to God, so it is of God. If you pull yourself out of time, to where there is no time, Adam and Eve are you and me today, mankind. And the message is the same. To give all glory to the creator, delight in your creative self and be thankful by giving back to God. The paradise is the beauty of the soul as it becomes one with God in total commitment, The tree of wisdom is God. The apple taken from the tree of wisdom is the temptation of trying to be like God in choosing for yourself what is good and what is bad only for you and the snake is the from of which the temptation comes. It could of came via thru a bird or a frog. But the snake is what the writer choose. Maybe he didn't like snakes. Who knows. But that is not important. What is important is the message the story is trying to convey. Its all about "PRIDE" We pride ourselves in knowing what's best of us, because we do not believe in a God. We are prideful. So what's the difference from you and Adam lets say? Or me and Eve? We are both exposed to the same temptation or temptations they were exposed to according to the story. We give into weakness like they did. We go away from God, but some of us want to come back because we are sorry and want to make it right right again, whaterever the case maybe and we are given hope. So whats wrong with this?

I see the original sin as a death to the soul. We must give ourselves and our children the opportunity to be given grace. Are we born with grace? No, but we are freely given it by the waters of baptism. Baptism sanctifies us by washing away this death to the soul. We then let God take it from there because God is now making itself available to us living in us as we are a temple of his Holy Spirit. But God also gives us free will to love his ways or our ways freely of our choosing. God doesn't want us to be forced or believe because our parents made us. God wants us to look for God independly of our own. And this is where the tree of wisdom, apple, snake, fall from grace lesson is remembered.

Jade, no loving God would do such a thing.

Would you do such to your children? Curse them for all eternity, just because they wish to go their own way?

Original Sin makes no sense, whatsoever. It never did, and it still doesn't.

Unless your God is not a loving being, that is. Then it makes perfect sense.

The Jews have no problem with this, because they view God as a Zornful god.

quote:

---

Read Genesis creation story of Adam and Eve and substitute the word "mankind" for them and you will get a different view.

---

So *you* are now interpreting the *word* of god or, is that how someone interpreted it for you? Either way, someone is messing with the original text. How does that work? I thought the word of god is the word of god period.

quote:

---

God doesn't want us to be forced or believe because our parents made us.

---

If that indeed were the case why send your kids to sunday school? That's *force* whether you like it or not.

quote:

---

Jade, no loving God would do such a thing.

---

Your still not getting it. God cannot curse. God doesn't have anything to do with you being cursed, dammed, etc..
You do it to yourself. There is no ounce of bad, evil, ugly, mean-spirited wrath of God. God is pure love. Evil cannot contaminate him. God only knows goodness, mercy and love of which God is in infinitely.

Its a reap what you sow ideology and the results of where you end you created for yourself. Not God. God doesn't send anyone into darkness. They send themselves. Its a judgment set in motion by divine righteousness. And if it is "so be it, where you end" God can intervene by his divine mercy.

quote:

quote:

---

So *you* are now interpreting the *word* of god or, is that how someone interpreted it for you? Either way, someone is messing with the original text. How does that work? I thought the word of god is the word of god period.

---

This theology of Genesis has been thought of by the early church fathers almost 2 thousands years ago. Nobody is messing with scripture. If the original intent was to tell a lesson of faith where is the damage done? Besides, scripture is a tool of faith. Its not all of the faith for me.

(Edited by jade on 09-30-2005 21:48)

No Jade, YOU are not "getting it" - who made everything according to your belief? Who decided in your belief that there would only be a Heaven and a Hell? Damned if you don't.

Don't you give me that "the individual decides" crap. The system is set up, so that one doesn't have a real choice.

You are so blind. Two choices? Him or an eternity of suffering?

Your "God" has set the system up (in your belief) that if you don't exactly follow His rules, you are screwed. Hell, his chosen People are still screwed, according to your beliefs.

I say we go a third way - and throw God and his two choices out the window, and go Man's way.

(Edited by WebShaman on 09-30-2005 21:37)

Web.

Yes you do have a many choices and if you don't believe in my Christian God, what does it matter to you?

Christianity should not effect you as a person.

I believe what I believe because that is where I am guided to believe. This belief is not foreced on you. I am not forcing it on you. You have free will to think and believe what guides you in your life. We all have choices, be it in the spiritual or secular world and all those choices affect us in their outcomes here and wherever you land living and in the afterlife.


I never said the " Jews were screwed". That is your mentallty. They are still our brothers and sisters in faith of our history, though they don't believe in our savior.

You are no different from Jew who doesn't believe in the 1st coming of Christ.

quote:

---

You are no different from Jew who doesn't believe in the 1st coming of Christ.

---

Errr...no.

I don't believe in the xian God, Jade. I also don't believe in the Jewish God (which are supposed to be one and the same).

And no, xianity doesn't affect me as a person, not anymore - at least, the belief system doesn't, personally. But the religious organizations are about as pushy as it gets - and yes, they do tend to affect my life, still (and not in a positive manner).

quote:

---

Yes you do have a many choices

---

This has made me curious. What other choices are you speaking about, besides Heaven and Hell?

(Edited by WebShaman on 09-30-2005 22:11)

Cold beer in hollywood on a hot day. Pretty much heaven and hell for me.

It really is that black and white according to Xian theology. You are either in or out... it's digital.

WS, I think when jade says you are no different from a Jew of the 1st century, she means that unbelievers are unbelievers, there is no distinction. From her point of view, and mine, that is the case. There is only one way to salvation and that is through Jesus Christ, period.

What exactly is "un-loving" about Heaven and Hell? Parents allow their children to grow up and make their own decision quite often being disappointed and hurt by them. There can be no such thing as Free Will if God "forced" us to be good little robots. In order for us to truly be "good" the world has to be set up to allow us to be "bad" along with all its consequences.

Also, the concept of Original Sin makes plenty of sense when you realize that every single human being that gets to a point of knowing between right and wrong will choose wrong from time to time. We as human beings are simply incapable of rising above our sinful nature. That is one of the fundamental lessons that we can take from the Genesis story. I cannot understand how anyone could possibly put their faith in Man given our history.

: . . DHTML Slice Puzzle : . . .

So you put the knife in the middle of the room, where your three year old is. Tell him not to touch the knife and lock all the doors. Surely someone without absolutely knowledge what the fuck is going on is really making much of a chose. He will touch the knife out of curiosity anyways and fuck up.

The reason story doesn?t make sense, is that God punished humanity for their curiosity. In fact God does want humans to be robots, he wants them to obey everything he tells them to do. There is no room for second opinion or second thought or "what if I did this". It's either my way or hell.

The western Christian theology is by far the poorest and most pessimistic idea out there. It simply views that everyone is pretty much fucked. Augustus said it himself, majority are doomed . It looks at life with disgust and tries to conceals behind as, faith in "another" or "better" life.

And I am not talking about people here, but the theology. So stop bitching about how not all chrsitians are like that.

quote:

---

I cannot understand how anyone could possibly put their faith in Man given our history.

---

Bugimus, thats by far most naive answear I have heard...again. It's not just "our" history it's how nature functions, the life cycle, the food chain, the extinction, death and birth.
The most we can do is learn how to live with it, rather than dream of how we will be in Disney Land when we die.




(Edited by Ruski on 10-01-2005 04:53)

quote:

---

Bugimus said:

I cannot understand how anyone could possibly put their faith in Man given our history.

---

I agree with that. But that statement also sums up my view of "God"
(especially since "god" is nothing more than the cop-out of man...)

(Edited by DL-44 on 10-01-2005 05:04)

Jade said:

quote:

---

Christianity should not effect you as a person.

---

/

Then what, pray tell, are you?

Because xianity sure as hell has affected you.

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

quote:

---

I cannot understand how anyone could possibly put their faith in Man given our history.

---

Seeing as we are one of the most successfuly animals on the planet, why shouldn't we put faith in ourselves?!

You need to back up, and see the big picture.

quote:

---

Also, the concept of Original Sin makes plenty of sense when you realize that every single human being that gets to a point of knowing between right and wrong will choose wrong from time to time. We as human beings are simply incapable of rising above our sinful nature.

---

There is no universal right or wrong - that's a perspective thing. Or are you referring to Man's own laws, and what a society considers is right and wrong? In that case, humans tend to be selfish, when they think they can get away with it. When was the last time you drove over the speed limit?

We are incapable of "rising" above our sinful nature? That is total nonsense. What sinful nature? Nature itself could give a damn about human behavior - in that sense, there is no "sin" involved in our behavior. As for "rising" above our nature...I'm not really sure what you are referring to here. We are what we are. Why would we want to pretend that we are something other than what we are?

Maybe you could expand on this point?

We are the animal Homo Sapiens. We come from a long line of Evolutionary winners. I see no reason not to have faith in us.

quote:

---

DL-44 said:

To say that these 4 writings can be held to be of a comparable integrity with other historical documents is worse than unobjective.

---

I mean that the integrity of the 4 gospels themselves is very strong. I am not saying that everything contained within them should be taken as historical fact but that their contents appear to be well supported in its transmission. The closest work of antiquity in the number of copies for instance would be Homer's Iliad. We have 650 or so Greek copies and fragments and the gap between these copies and its probable date of origin 800 BCE is about a 1000 years. There are about 5,000 Greek copies for the NT and the gap between them and the date of origin is significantly smaller.

quote:

---

DL-44 said:

The small handful of references that are commonly touted by christians as extra-biblical sources of information about Jesus are nothing more then mentions of the movement, which mention the name Jesus, since that is the name associated with the movement. Nowhere is there an account of the actions, life, or death of Jesus other than the gospels.

---

That is correct. Virtually everything we know about the details of Jesus' life are covered in the gospels. The other NT books deal with the theological aspects of his ministry. It's important to note that these other books demonstrate a knowledge of some of the gospel information since they were not all written at the same time by the same authors.

I acknowledge the extra-biblical sources are few, but they are not insignificant particularly when dealing with the question of Jesus' existence. We can summarize the source list with Graeco-Roman sources, Jewish sources, extra-biblical Christian traditions, and as mentioned the other books of the NT. DL-44, I've listed these in more detail here before so I'm not going to list them here right now.

quote:

---

DL-44 said:
I am willing to accept that Jesus did exist. I have no reason to suppose he did
not. The circumstantial evidence for him is enough for me to give the benefit of
the doubt - but that's far different from being able to say with confidence that
this particular Jesus did exist.

---

When I talk about denying that Jesus Christ existed as a man, I am not referring to every single event listed in the gospels but rather that he lived, taught and began what we now call Xianity. The arguments about the accuracy of the details will go on forever, but I'm trying to put to rest this notion that he was a complete fabrication.

Dio, as DL-44 pointed out earlier, we have to be open to the idea that the existence of a great many figures of history can be doubted based on the kinds of information we have to go on. My point is that if we treat the information objectively, it is more than reasonable to assume that Jesus Christ was an actual person.

quote:

---

briggl said:
Historians who lived when Nero did wrote about Nero. We have no such writings about Jesus from historians who lived when Jesus lived.

---

But we do have this one, briggl. I would like to list this source written by the Roman historian Tacitus in 115 CE to provide a very clear extra-biblical account of the existence of Jesus:

quote:

---

Consequently, to get rid of the report, Nero fastened the guilt and inflicted the most exquisite tortures on a class hated for their abominations, called Christians by the populace. Christus, from whom the name had its origin, suffered the extreme penalty during the reign of Tiberius at the hands of one of our procurators, Pontius Pilatus, and a most mischievous superstition, thus checked for the moment, again broke out not only in Judaea, the first source of the evil, but even in Rome, where all things hideous and shameful from every part of the world find their centre and become popular. Accordingly, an arrest was first made of all who pleaded guilty; then, upon their information, an immense multitude was convicted, not so much of the crime of firing the city, as of hatred against mankind. Mockery of every sort was added to their deaths. Covered with the skins of beasts, they were torn by dogs and perished, or were nailed to crosses, or were doomed to the flames and burnt, to serve as a nightly illumination, when daylight had expired. Nero offered his gardens for the spectacle, and was exhibiting a show in the circus, while he mingled with the people in the dress of a charioteer or stood aloft on a car. Hence, even for criminals who deserved extreme and exemplary punishment, there arose a feeling of compassion; for it was not, as it seemed, for the public good, but to glut one man's cruelty, that they were being destroyed.

---

: . . DHTML Slice Puzzle : . . .

(Edited by Bugimus on 10-02-2005 16:47)

(Edited by Bugimus on 10-02-2005 16:53)

Such may be acceptable to people who want to believe Bug, but for those less susceptible to mythology;

http://home1.gte.net/deleyd/religion/appendixd3.html

The Following and excerpt from: http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/gordon_stein/jesus.shtml

"The next major ancient historian who supposedly mentions Jesus, and thus provides us with evidence that he was an historical character is Tacitus. Cornelius Tacitus wrote his Annals after 117 A.D. Their exact date of composition is not know, but we do know that it was at least 70 years after Jesus' supposed crucifixion. Jesus is not mentioned by name anywhere in the extant works of Tacitus. There is one mention of "Christus" in Book XV, Chapter 44, as follows:

"Nero looked around for a scapegoat, and inflicted the most fiendish tortures on a group of persons already hated by the people for their crimes. This was the sect known as Christians. Their founder, one Christus, had been put to death by the procurator Pontius Pilate in the reign of Tiberius. This checked the abominable superstition for a while, but it broke out again and spread, not merely through Judea, where it originated, but even to Rome itself, the great reservoir and collecting ground for every kind of depravity and filth. Those who confessed to being Christians were at once arrested, but on their testimony a great crowd of people were convicted, not so much on the charge of arson, but of hatred of the entire human race." (D.R. Dudley's translation)
While we know from the way in which the above is written that Tacitus did not claim to have firsthand knowledge of the origins of Christianity, we can see that he is repeating a story which was then commonly believed, namely that the founder of Christianity, one Christus, had been put to death under Tiberius. There are a number of serious difficulties which must be answered before this passage can be accepted as genuine. There is no other historical proof that Nero persecuted the Christians at all. There certainly were not multitudes of Christians in Rome at that date (circa 60 A.D.). In fact, the term "Christian" was not in common use in the first century. We know Nero was indifferent to various religions in his city, and, since he almost definitely did not start the fire in Rome, he did not need any group to be his scapegoat. Tacitus does not use the name Jesus, and writes as if the reader would know the name Pontius Pilate, two things which show that Tacitus was not working from official records or writing for non-Christian audiences, both of which we would expect him to have done if the passage were genuine.

Perhaps most damning to the authenticity of this passage is the fact that it is present almost word-for-word in the Chronicle of Sulpicius Severus (died in 403 A.D.), where it is mixed in with obviously false tales. At the same time, it is highly unlikely that Sulpicius could have copied this passage from Tacitus, as none of his contemporaries mention the passage. This means that it was probably not in the Tacitus manuscripts at that date. It is much more likely, then, that copyists working in the Dark Ages from the only existing manuscript of the Chronicle, simply copied the passage from Sulpicius into the manuscript of Tacitus which they were reproducing".

Tacitus reference has, I believe, been totally discredited by all serious scholars who are not trying to find proof of a historical xist.

I have much less difficulty understanding him as another myth like Camelot, than I could ever conceive of believing he, in fact, existed.

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

quote:

---

Bugimus said:

I mean that the integrity of the 4 gospels themselves is very strong.

---

That is what I assumed you meant, and I disagree very strongly.

quote:

---

Bugimus said:

The arguments about the accuracy of the details will go on forever, but I'm trying to put to rest this notion that he was a complete fabrication.

---

While I am willing to give the benefit of the doubt in regard to his existence as a person, that's still what it is: the benefit of the doubt. Until something more substantial is put forward, you will not be able to put that notion to rest.

quote:

---

Bugimus said:

But we do have this one, briggl. I would like to list this source written by the Roman historian Tacitus in 115 CE to provide a very clear extra-biblical account of the existence of Jesus:

---

The key word in Briggl's statement is contemporary. I don't consider 85 years (at least) later to be contemporary, and it is also very obvious that the information being presented by Tacitus here is from a christian source, not official Roman records.
Of course, again we have the issue of the title of "the Christ" as opposed to an actual name...
I don't know enough about the issues raised by Dio's post, but even if we assume that this passage was written by Tacitus, it is apparent that it is a passing along of second hand information.

I will maintain that I do not seriously doubt the existence of the man, or at least some man, who played some part of the role ascribed to Jesus in the gospels.
But I would by no means say that he can be proven to have existed, and it is quite possible that the views and actions of several people were rolled into one for this set of stories. Much like with the Arthurian legends, and the Homeric epics, and countless other stories.

quote:

---

Then what, pray tell, are you?

Because xianity sure as hell has affected you.

---

This is because I have accepted Jesus as God, Man, Redemptor, & Savior of my life. For myself, I am trying to do his will. Of my own free will choose to start working on my eternity on earth towards my foreverness with him.

I meant for an un-believer it shouldn't affect their daily living if they make no attachment to Christ. They should be un-effected by Christians trying to do the will of God since they don't believe in him.

I know Christianity penetrates all forms of goverment here in the USA, but you must remember, if a free society votes in the majority to keep Christians values as a rule that govern our democrary, we either go along with it or not. If it goes contrary to my belief, I would try to work to abolish it.
You have the same opportunity. For example, in the last election, one of the reasons J. Kerry was defeated was because of his stand on abortion. And his wishy washey faith ideals. Most Americas do not favor abortion. To me this played a key role in his defeat. Most Americans are religious by nature. A non-Christian or un-religious is a small minority. You have to think about who is really in charge for us. If most US social laws are in line with Christian values, who do you think Christians believe is really in charge. Its Christ. Not Geroge W. Bush. For us, its his values, he does the will of Christ. Look who is being sworn in as a new US Supreme Court Justice. A Christian. A practicing Catholic.

(Edited by jade on 10-03-2005 17:57)

Bush does the will of Christ.

I do believe I can spork my eyes out now. Won't them anymore because now I've read everything.

I am impressed by your ability to know what "most" amercans do or do not want.

I suggest to you if "most" americans didn't want abortions to be fairly available, they wouldn't be.

This would seem to contradict your contention.

Your new supreme court justice is a toady to Dumbya amd even you may live to regret his appointment.

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

quote:

---

Your new supreme court justice is a toady to Dumbya amd even you may live to regret his appointment.

---

This is a matter of your opinion and I believe President Bush and the new justice are no dumbyas. I am sure at this point in time you could not fill either of their shoes. They are both extremely intelligent humans.
Thank God.

(Edited by jade on 10-03-2005 20:00)

The judge may be intelligent.

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

Believe me, Jade, it may seem like the hand is tipping in one direction, but a short examination of American history will reveal, that such has happened before. As usual, the balance swings both ways.

quote:

---

For us, its his values, he does the will of Christ.

---

Mr. Bush's days are limited.

So are the days for the Religious Right.

Then more rational heads will prevail.

To that, I say thank mankind.

And knowing that the secular left feels that way, I'm breathing a sigh of relief on these two judicial appointments. I'm just not too sure about Roberts though as he sounds a bit too moderate for my taste.

[edit]
Actually, I am quite surprised by the most recent appointment. Once some of you get the details on it, you're going to have a field day. For some of you, you may want to be sitting down first.
[/edit]

: . . DHTML Slice Puzzle : . . .

(Edited by Bugimus on 10-03-2005 23:23)

We are very much aware, Bugs.

However, let us first wait and see which way they really vote - I seem to recall such before, with some previous picks.

What if they don't decide to overturn Abortion?

There are going to be some royally pissed off Right Wingers.

Does one dare to believe him? Apparently this guy said, during his interview with..who is it? Congress? Said R vs W is law and not only will not be repealed, but that the American people would not stand for it being repealed.

Which should give jade some pause to consider if her crystal ball, providing such marvellous insight into the psyche of the American People, might be due for it's centennial check-up. After all she says the guys a catholic.

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

Actually, WS, there is a uproar among the right wingers about this latest appointment.

I agree completely that we can only wait to see how they vote. Several of the previous appointments who were thought to be conservative turned out to be liberal. Bush Sr. appointed Justice Souter, as you recall, and that was a disaster for the right. So this just may turn out in your favor after all, we'll just have to see.

Overturn abortion? (capitalized?) That is a topic for another thread, eh? For that matter, so is this bit about the US Supreme Court


Let me offer this concerning the historical Jesus question. According to the Wikipedia "the vast majority of scholars agree that Jesus did exist." They offer this link as support http://www.bede.org.uk/price1.htm. I maintain that the view Jesus was a complete fabrication is out of sync with modern scholarly opinion.

: . . DHTML Slice Puzzle : . . .

quote:

---

Bugimus said:

I maintain that the view Jesus was a complete fabrication is out of sync with modern scholarly opinion.

---

And I won't disagree with you in that statement. Let's remember though, that many other such figures are still thrown in to the category of "mythology".
I guess what it comes down to, where this differs from the vast array of historical figures that we accept from ancient wirtings, the specificity that people expect to be nailed down, which obviously cannot.

The key point, for me, is as I've stated many times: with these other figures, we accept that

1) they may in fact be complete fabrications
2) they most certainly have been warped and exagerated
3) very often multiple people are rolled into one
4) such things as their actions, their lineage, their stature are almost always exagerated or fabricated

I do accept the historical jesus on these terms, as I do many other figures.

Dio - I would urge you to be more selective in the links you use as evidence on this issue. Several of them have been very shaky in many aspects.



(Edited by DL-44 on 10-04-2005 18:21)

I must say, that was a very good rundown, DL. Well said, and I share that opinion, wholeheartedly.

And don't forget Bugs - I am a Republican, I just belong to the other part of the party, that wants the Party back - it has gone waaaaayyyy too Right!

Good

I am very willing to discuss these issues about Xianity openly. I also desire to be as honest as I can when it comes to my position.

I think we decided either in this thread or another that it would be good to focus on the early history since we all pretty much agree things solidified by the 4th century. As I said then, I'll try to bone up on that aspect of this debate as threads pop up in future.

WS, yes, it is very hard for me to remember that you are a Republican. It's funny in a way. When I was still a Democrat, I remember saying exactly the same thing except substituting the word Right for Left I believe there do still exist conservative Democrats... about 2 I think at the last count

: . . DHTML Slice Puzzle : . . .

Shaky? How? By whose standards? By what measure?

Wheter they be penned by loonies or learned, are they not all valid opinions and do we not learn something from each?

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

quote:

---

Diogenes said:

Wheter they be penned by loonies or learned, are they not all valid opinions and do we not learn something from each?

---

That's an argument the religious would use

What I mean by 'shaky' is that many of the articles you link to in this regard make points that have either been completely refuted by investigation, or are simply conjecture and opinion....the same kind which the people writing them are trying to refute.

As an example, you posted a link up there somewhere which used an image of Bacchus being crucified to show that the crucifixion was a common myth.
The problem: the picture dates from the 2nd century. After christianity. How can this possibly be used as proof of a crucifixion myth predating christianity?

To use conjecture to prove something false obviously does not work. That is what those of us opposing religion have so often stated.

All I am saying is that a little research into the sources you post would be very beneficial. There are a fair amount of wackos trying to disprove christianity using the same means that the hopelessly religious use to promote it.

Care is required...

WHACK! Ouch

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

quote:

---

DL-44 said:

That's an argument the religious would use

---

Hey! Watch how you're swinging that thing. I think I just caught a piece of it too!

It is excellent advice for everyone as far as I'm concerned. We should all find the best arguments we can find to use here and leave the flaky ones for those other boards

: . . DHTML Slice Puzzle : . . .

quote:

---

All I am saying is that a little research into the sources you post would be very beneficial.

---

This is good advice.

Although I doubt I could research as "Core-Wreck-Lee", as wanted.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

" The world today is such a wicked thing "

quote:

---

Ruski said:

So you put the knife in the middle of the room, where your three year old is. Tell him not to touch the knife and lock all the doors. Surely someone without absolutely knowledge what the fuck is going on is really making much of a chose. He will touch the knife out of curiosity anyways and fuck up.

---

I have just quoted the beginning of Genesis according to Ruski. That's pretty good actually. Adam and Eve were perfectly capable of understanding what God had explained to them and there was no ambiguity. They trusted and believed God when he said that the day they ate the fruit they would die. The fact that they had a perfect relationship with God and trusted His word as truth is not something to ridicule, but rather to long for.

According to our theology, God told them the truth. It was the serpent who lied. They chose to believe the serpent and the result of that action was precisely what God had explained to them in the first place. This is the loss of that perfect and innocent relationship with the Creator. This explains that sin (deciding to do it our way) separates us from God and ends up in our own destruction. We were not designed to exist estranged from the Great Maker.

quote:

---

The reason story doesn?t make sense, is that God punished humanity for their curiosity. In fact God does want humans to be robots, he wants them to obey everything he tells them to do.

---

The curse is simply the natural result of their own decision to do it their way. If we do it God's way then we don't end up hurting ourselves and others, by design. But now as a result of this "original" sin the entire world in which we live is tainted and fallen.

The story makes perfect sense, Ruski. It explains why all the bad things that we deal with happen. It sets the ground work for the entire theology of the bible and God's never ending quest to reconcile Himself to his beloved creation. I think what you really mean is that you don't accept and/or appreciate this premise.

Choosing to trust the Creator of heaven and earth over lies is hardly the act of a robot. When one follows God's path, things work the way they were designed to. What you're describing is like throwing out an instruction booklet and building a complex machine your way. It's bound to be done incorrectly. It's a rebellious attitude toward God.

I think this rebellious attitude is due to us not liking anyone telling us what to do. I am definitely included in that. I hate it when others try to tell me what to do and I resist it all the time. This is part of that fallen nature I describe where we have a knee jerk reaction against following God's advice because we think we know better. Well, that was my point about human history being such good evidence that our way basically sucks.

quote:

---

The western Christian theology is by far the poorest and most pessimistic idea out there. It simply views that everyone is pretty much fucked.

---

This is where I think you've overlooked an extremely important aspect of Xianity. The pessimistic view is the one you and others here believe where we just exist and then we die. I understand that some here don't find that depressing at all but I most certainly do. What Xianity teaches is that we do indeed die as explained in Genesis, but that now death has been defeated. Through Christ's sacrifice on the cross we can all come back into a relationship with the Creator and not die in our sins. I cannot fathom how anyone can call that pessimistic. It is the best possible news in all the world.

quote:

---

Bugimus said:

I cannot understand how anyone could possibly put their faith in Man given our history.

Then Ruski said:

Bugimus, thats by far most naive answear I have heard...again. It's not just "our" history it's how nature functions, the life cycle, the food chain, the extinction, death and birth.
The most we can do is learn how to live with it, rather than dream of how we will be in Disney Land when we die.

---

You affirm the Genesis lesson when you describe our world ending in our deaths. Our theology explains why it is so. Perhaps the Disneyland representing the redemption offered by God is just a pipe dream. But the theology that you scoff at as pessimistic is the only theology that offers hope and forgiveness and a way to transcend the pitiful existence for which you recommend I settle.

quote:

---

WebShaman said:

There is no universal right or wrong - that's a perspective thing. Or are you referring to Man's own laws, and what a society considers is right and wrong? In that case, humans tend to be selfish, when they think they can get away with it. When was the last time you drove over the speed limit?

We are incapable of "rising" above our sinful nature? That is total nonsense. What sinful nature? Nature itself could give a damn about human behavior - in that sense, there is no "sin" involved in our behavior. As for "rising" above our nature...I'm not really sure what you are referring to here. We are what we are. Why would we want to pretend that we are something other than what we are?

Maybe you could expand on this point?

---

I will... I ran out of time for now.

: . . DHTML Slice Puzzle : . . .

Thus endeth the lesson...one hopes.

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

Bugs.

God knows all, sees all, and is everywhere, everywhen, at once. Correct?

Then God already knows the outcome of everything!

So, he knew that by putting the apple in the garden of Eden that Adam and Eve would eat it. He knew in advance.

God is the guilty party, as well. Yes, Adam and Eve succumned to the Snake, and ate the apple. That also made them guilty. But God was guilty as well.

In fact, God is guilty everytime something negative happens (because he knows that it is going to happen, and could prevent it).

Guilty.

Why should anyone beg forgiveness from a being that is also guilty?

Now, if we take God out of the picture for a moment - then it is clearly Man's (and Man's alone) fault for what he does.

I say we chuck God out of the Garden of Eden, tranple on the Snake until it is dead, and enjoy our Garden ourselves.

Dio, my comments were specifically directed at Ruski and WS since they asked me direct questions that I hadn't gotten to yet. You're just going to have to suffer through more open dialogue... deal with it!!!

WS, God is guilty of creating us. He is not guilty of the choices we make. That is what I tried to explain earlier with this:

quote:

---

There can be no such thing as Free Will if God "forced" us to be good little
robots. In order for us to truly be "good" the world has to be set up to allow
us to be "bad" along with all its consequences.

---

In the quotes from my last post you asked "what is sinful nature?". But you actually alluded to it when you acknowledged that "humans tend to be selfish". The point is that our most basic tendencies do *not* work toward any greater good other than our own. Transcending that "natural" tendency is what I'm talking about.

Whether one believes in God or not does not prevent one from doing good. But just doing good is only a portion of the whole. Of course, it pleases me to see people regardless of belief doing good things, but at the same time it is tragic to be cut off from the source of all goodness.

In the terms of the NT, the default condition of human is to act according to the "natural" order which is based in sinful (harmful to you, others, and/or God) actions. What a reconciliation with God's Spirit does is to transform the "natural" tendencies into "heavenly" ones. This results in good deeds and loving behavior which pleases God and the individual. This is what it means to be "blessed" by God; it's the joy that comes from that union of mind, purpose and action.

: . . DHTML Slice Puzzle : . . .

Of course God shares the guilty in the negative choices that we make! According to Xian belief, God creates each and every one of us - and he also knows exactly how we will turn out ahead of time and is therefore aware of what choices we will make. Thus, the guilt is shared.

This is also why God is guilty of sending every soul to hell. He could just decide not to let those souls who are damned come into being.

Bugs, you don't seem to be grasping this.

quote:

---

But you actually alluded to it when you acknowledged that "humans tend to be selfish". The point is that our most basic tendencies do *not* work toward any greater good other than our own. Transcending that "natural" tendency is what I'm talking about.

---

I in no way, shape, or form allude to "sinful nature" when I acknowldege that humans tend to be selfish. Sinful requires a being to judge the behavior (like your god). Being selfish does not.

quote:

---

The point is that our most basic tendencies do *not* work toward any greater good other than our own.

---

Errr....and? We eat, live, and reproduce. And we have an urge to explore the unknown. What "greater good" are you talking about?

quote:

---

According to Xian belief, God creates each and every one of us - and he also knows exactly how we will turn out ahead of time and is therefore aware of what choices we will make.

---

That's not the way it was taught to me in Sunday School. We make our own choices.

But if god is omniscient, that by definition must include knowing what choices we will make.

The reconciliation in logic I hear most often is that we *do* make our own choices. God knows what we will choose, but it is still our choice.

Bugs, I'd be very interested in knowing what you think about the various "sinful" behaviors that have been shown to be caused by irregularities in the brain. God made that brain....which causes a person to behave "sinfully". How is the person guilty for this? Why is god not guilty for this?

Yes, you make your own choices, sure. I never suggested the opposite.

But God is all knowing, and Omniscent. Therefore, He knows what you are going to choose, and how things will end with you, before your creation. Since He knows this, why make you, and sentence you to hell (for example), if He already knows you are going to be going to hell through the choices that you make? Better not to create you in the first place.

By creating you, He is guilty, because He already knows what choices you will make that will lead to you going to hell (for example) before your creation.

The same is true with Adam and Eve, with Sin, with Satan, etc. God knew before hand, how all that was going to turn out - so He is guilty because He went ahead and did it anyway.

This was the first "Sin" - God committed it.

This "revelation", if you will, was but one of the many reasons I turned from the xian belief. It makes absolutely no sense, whatsoever.

No, I was taught that He puts us here and then it is up to us to make our own choices. He doesn't know what we are going to do, or what is going to happen to us, any more than we do. That is the reason He puts us here, to see what we will do and then choose the best of us to eventually join Him in Heaven to spend the rest of eternity praising Him.

quote:

---

The same is true with Adam and Eve, with Sin, with Satan, etc. God knew before hand, how all that was going to turn out - so He is guilty because He went ahead and did it anyway.

---

Same here, the way I was taught, God did not know that Adam and Eve were going to do what they did. And he was very disapointed about it which is why he banished them from the garden.

This just shows that there are different ways that Christianity is taught.

But I don't think there's a christian out there who would, if asked the question, answer that god is *not* all-knowing.

More than differences in how it is taught, is seems to me a simple fundamental flaw in the christian view of "God".

Now wait a minute - surely you are not suggesting that the xian God is not all-knowing and not all-powerful?

Are you seriously suggesting that the xian God has limits? That is a very interesting and fascinating belief.

What xain faith/denomination taught you this? Because the xian faith/denomination that I followed, certainly didn't teach that God had limits.

quote:

---

I was taught that He puts us here and then it is up to us to make our own choices. He doesn't know what we are going to do, or what is going to happen to us, any more than we do.

---

And if this is true, then it is certainly within the realm of possibility, that we could dispose of such a being (being that it is not all-knowing, and therefore not all-powerful) - we could learn to surpass such a being, and just...dispose of it.

Dispose of the myth...the sooner the better.

It is clear none of god-callers here can even agree amongst themselves about which, they claim a mutual belief.

Everytime they are challenged on something there is a 'reason" (excuse), or we (unbelievers) "...just don't understand", or some other weaseling out from under the contradiction or fact.

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

He can be all knowing about everything that is going on, and everything that everyone does, but still not know the future.

WS, you are basing your ideas about Christianity on what you were taught by one denomination. As with everything else, there are many different views on the subject. I was raised Protestant, specifically Congregational. There are so many different denominations of Protestants that I don't know all of them, and they all have differences. This doesn't even take into account the Catholics, who also have many denominations.

There is not just one Christian view of God.

quote:

---

WS, you are basing your ideas about Christianity on what you were taught by one denomination.

---

Errr...actually, all the different denominations that I have come into contact with have supported the position that I used to believe in. I wasn't even aware that there were denominations that were supporting the idea that God had limits.

Interesting.

Any other limits, besides not knowing the future?

It seems to me if there were a god...his believers would all know it the same way.

The fact that no two faiths can agree on the same basic mythology suggests to me there really isn't anything upon which to agree.

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

Briggl - I think what is more at issue, which I alluded to in my earlier post, is not necessarily the different views of god between sects, but rather different answers to a problem depending on the question.

I have found so many inherent contradictions in my conversations with christians (regardless of sect) that it makes me dizzy.

If you ask "is god omniscient" you will invariably (from my experience) receive a resounding "Yes!"

However, if you bring the specific example that you are talking about, the answer will certainly vary, as will the arguments backing them up.

DL - I agree completely.

quote:

---

This doesn't even take into account the Catholics, who also have many denominations.

---

This is not true. Though there are many in the Church who want their own agenda mandated like government policy, the RC is unwaivering in many doctrines. They may split, but are not recgonized as being Catholic. Once they spinter off in their own organized sect, they are in protest, so they are considered Protestants. There is only one catholic church family.


Remember you can't please everybody all of the time. Some will have periods of shaken faith and go on a journey to find what they lack.

quote:

---

the RC is unwaivering in many doctrines.

---

That pretty well sums it up all right.

http://www.rickross.com/reference/loc/loc19.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)

Diogenes


For the record, not all laws and precepts of the church are regarded as doctrine. So this issue of the priesthood regarding the scandal is regarded as personal sin. Not a sin of the whole family of the church. Those involved are accountable to God. Not to you. So don't throw stones.


Its not suprising that the only RC issue you can come up repeatedly is the scandal in this century regarding the Catholics. There are 2000 years worth of historical issues and this is the only thought you gravitate towards. No doubt, it makes one validate the preception one has about religious persons. Much can be learned from this issue being brought to light. As with any dark period in ones life, one can learn from mistakes as a period of cleansing. And so does the body of the church

quote:

---

jade said:

There are 2000 years worth of historical issues and this is the only thought you gravitate towards.

---

Funny. Whenever anyone brings up all the other problems in the church throughout its history, you say the same thing.

What a wonderfully selective memory you have.

quote:

---

Whenever anyone brings up all the other problems in the church throughout its history, you say the same thing.

---

DL

In most of post history regarding the RC faith, you always bring us the same issue as well and you say the same thing over and over and over.

I focus on persons doing evil acts in the church & you focus on the whole of RC since its corrupt beginnings to today. Its as if your accuisng me of doing the evil act as well. According to your way of thinking its a wonder, the church still stands today stronger than ever.

quote:

---

you focus on the whole of RC since its corrupt beginnings to today.

---

Well this is what 'some' of us have been saying all along and I must say it is gratifying you agree.

quote:

---

Though there are many in the Church who want their own agenda mandated like government policy, the RC is unwaivering in many doctrines. They may split, but are not recgonized as being Catholic.

---

OK, we have Benedictines, Jesuits, Salesians, Dominicans, Augustinians, Carmelites, Franciscans and many more. These are all Catholic Orders with some differences in what they believe about being Catholic. (Otherwise there would be no reason for having different orders.)

quote:

---

According to your way of thinking its a wonder, the church still stands today stronger than ever.

---

I would question whether it is actually "stronger than ever".

I wouldn't say stronger. They are not even allow to torture people without drawing some guff. I think they have ceded a boatloads of its strength.

Not to mention that if current trends continue Islam will overtake Catholic faith in numbers in less than 15 years.

Dan @ Code Town

OK

quote:

---

, we have Benedictines, Jesuits, Salesians, Dominicans, Augustinians, Carmelites, Franciscans and many more. These are all Catholic Orders with some differences in what they believe about being Catholic. (Otherwise there would be no reason for having different orders.)

---

These organizations or sects within the church and many more embace the magisterium of the Church. The pope's rule. There is no separation. We also have the basianians, sisters of Charity (mother theresa's order) knights of Columbus, legion of mary, the sacred heart society, Catholic Daughtes of American, Guadalupanias, Carmelite Nuns, Sisters of Divine Providence, Incarnate Word Nuns, Oblate Priest, and many many hundreds of more sects within the church who swear faithful allegiance to Rome. Check out Catholic Priest, monks, etc. sites. There is also Benedictine Nuns. In my church we use to have Franciscan priest. Now we have oblates. No differences. They all believe the same they just focus on an area or issue of the church they ender and pledge to it.

Whatever you want to use to explain it, it still comes down to multiple sects.

One more peice of reality for you to choose not to accept

On the structure Jade is correct.

The sects are much like divisions in a corporation. In a corporation you will have your accountants, and you human resource department, and your trainers. Althought they might do different jobs, they are still working for the same organization and share the same prime goals, but they have different jobs to do, to make sure the overall goals are met.

Not to say any of the other points mentioned by DL or Briggl are mute. They are cogent and on the money. But arguing a division in the RC over the different sects is just silly. (I am not actually sure this is the point, but I see this conversation heading in that direction and that is a bit silly)

Dan @ Code Town

quote:

---

Not to mention that if current trends continue Islam will overtake Catholic faith in numbers in less than 15 years

---

This is not true, escpecially in the US. And its unlikely given the state of Islamic climates today in many parts of the world. Look at Afganistan and Iraq just for starters. . Free democracy elections, giving women more rights, ( we are actually seeing more Islamic women without headscarfs and some legs. The new democracy will enable more commerce/trade/imports with other countries. This will open up new ideals for growing Islamic children in the years to come. So I don't agree. I believe in the years to come the far eastern and far western cultures will become more Westernized and open to Christianity.

And you base this on.......pure conjecture and wishful thinking?

Or.....do you ahve some actual information in regard to the growth rates of various religions that would shed some insight on this?

quote:

---

WarMage said:

But arguing a division in the RC over the different sects is just silly.

---

But nobody is arguing a 'division' based on the sects - simply that there *are* different sects, which Jade at first denied.

There was never a of denial. Just a confusion on your part DL. In regard to sects as opposing each other in the body of organizations within the church, there isn't any. Sects would not apply as Warmarge posted in his view, he is very correct. All the organizations within the church help build it up for a common goal. The Roman Catholic goal.

For instance, the body of believers who belong to the faith of Mel Gibson, is in a schism. They don't believe in the Vatican II change of the 1960s. They want to old traditional church rites to come back, so they believe all the Popes that came after Vatican II, are imposters....not the real thing. So they are in protest. What are they now? Dissident. Separated like our Protestant brothers and sisters. Though they pray the rosary, believe in the virgin mary honor, go to communion, believe in the real presence in the bread and wine. Go to Mass every day of the week. Their only problem is Vatican II change which they resist.

quote:

---

Just a confusion on your part DL.

---

When it comes to this subject this may well be your most erroneous statement to date.

quote:

---

briggl said:
This doesn't even take into account the Catholics, who also have many denominations.

---

quote:

---

jade said:
This is not true.

---

quote:

---

jade said:
There was never a of denial. Just a confusion on your part DL.

---

Oh.......right.
Explain how your denial of briggl's point is my confusion?

For the record:
http://www.answers.com/denomination&r=67
http://www.answers.com/sect

(Edited by DL-44 on 10-26-2005 00:16)

Well jade, unlike you I live in the modern era and the hideous abuse by church clergy is happening now...as you read this some priest or priests is/are diddling a little boy or girl.

The problem is the church's in it's hypocritical entirety.

The late and unlamented Pope, did everything he could to cover up, lie, transfer and protect pedophile priests around the world.

The current pope, like all those before him, is and will continue the practice...very likely both of them.

Like you though, I am deeply concerned about the Islamic practices which leave

quote:

---

Islamic women without headscarfs and some legs

---

.

It is a barbaric practice and one can only hope they have ready access to shapely prosthetics.

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

Jade,

quote:

---

This is not true, escpecially in the US. And its unlikely given the state of Islamic climates today in many parts of the world. Look at Afganistan and Iraq just for starters. . Free democracy elections, giving women more rights, ( we are actually seeing more Islamic women without headscarfs and some legs. The new democracy will enable more commerce/trade/imports with other countries. This will open up new ideals for growing Islamic children in the years to come. So I don't agree. I believe in the years to come the far eastern and far western cultures will become more Westernized and open to Christianity.

---

You are off your rocker, little girl. Take a look at Turkey. It is evolving into a Democratic entity. No increase in xianity there. The cold, hard fact of the matter is, that the Moslems are out-breeding you xians. If one goes by actual practicing Moslems vs. Catholics, there are more practicing Moslems than Catholics, by a long shot. Most of those counted as xians in Europe are just that in name - because of social pressures to be baptised and communion, etc. 99 percent of those that I know, for example, here in Northern Germany have been babptised/communion, but don't go to church, and could care less about God, etc.

Talk about reality denial...wow.

WebShaman | Asylum D & D | D & D Min Page

Think maybe she is funnin' us?

http://www.jade.co.uk/

hey, there is a handbook too: http://www.iro.umontreal.ca/~vaucher/Agents/Jade/JadePrimer.html

Seems accurate; http://www.iro.umontreal.ca/~vaucher/Agents/Jade/JadePrimer.html

Has her own website too: http://www.msjade.com/

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'm sorry for not getting back in here sooner...

quote:

---

DL-44 said:

But if god is omniscient, that by definition must include knowing what choices
we will make.

---

I have to agree with that, to a degree I'll explain in the next bit.

quote:

---

The reconciliation in logic I hear most often is that we *do* make our
own choices. God knows what we will choose, but it is still our choice.

---

For many, this is accepted as a paradox. I pretty much fall into that camp.

There are places in the bible that refer to predestination and there are other places that refer to free will. I find it impossible to reconcile both of them with my understanding. But I believe there are certain aspects of reality that we has humans are incapable of understanding and so I say they are both true. The doctrine of the Trinity is another one where I draw a similar conclusion.

quote:

---

Bugs, I'd be very interested in knowing what you think about the various "sinful" behaviors that have been shown to be caused by irregularities in the brain. God made that brain....which causes a person to behave "sinfully". How is the person guilty for this? Why is god not guilty for this?

---

That's an excellent question. The broad answer in my view is that the entire physical universe as we know it is in a fallen state as a result of sin. The Garden of Eden represents a world free from the terrible things we've all come to accept such as birth defects, disease, natural disaster, etc.

I do not believe anyone is guilty of any specific action if in fact the action is completely out of their control. A severely mentally handicapped person who harmed someone , I do not see the guilt in a case like that. But this would not be the case where someone chose to get drunk and then killed people in a car accident.

You may recall that I do not think we are born guilty of sin. So infants that die are innocent in my understanding. Once an individual comes to an age where they clearly know they have done wrong, that is when the sin counts against them.


Now I need to catch up on this last direction this thread has taken

: . . DHTML Slice Puzzle : . . .

quote:

---

WebShaman said:

You are off your rocker, little girl.

---

Am I the only one that thinks a retraction is in order here? I think this kind of condescension crosses the line.

As far as the relative numbers of Muslims and Xians in the world. I think it is correct to say that IF current trends continue Muslims will outnumber Xians in a few years. Of course, it is always possible those trends will change in the future but it seems unlikely to shift sooner than we see Muslims having the most followers.

WS, I agree with your take on Europe's "xians". As far as I've heard, Europe can be safely called a "post-Xian" society. Where you will find the greatest increases in Xianity is in South America but particularly in Africa. In fact, you now see African missionaries going to Europe! I find that very ironic.

: . . DHTML Slice Puzzle : . . .

quote:

---

WS, I agree with your take on Europe's "xians". As far as I've heard, Europe can be safely called a "post-Xian" society. Where you will find the greatest increases in Xianity is in South America but particularly in Africa. In fact, you now see African missionaries going to Europe! I find that very ironic.

---

I agree with this also, and now in many Catholic parishes we have priest from Africa and many Vietnamese priest presiding at parishes. I was reading an article about China, where the government is softening its presecution of Christians faiths which had to practice underground. There I read Christianity is growing. Catholic masses were allowed to continued in parts of China. This is because of good missonary work.
Praise God.


I did not expect or will not get an apology from Web. Though he knows I am no little girl, his aim is to portray a bigger man who knows more, so the little girl remark works for him. Anyway thanks for the defense.

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

Assumptions perhaps, but none I have to rationalize to myself on a daily basis and on chat forums.

Reality I don't think is an assumption though, except possibly in the philosophical sense.

Which is what makes it pretty damn obvious there are no gods.

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

Bugimus - you seem to be skirting the important part of the 'proof' issue.

No, science cannot disprove the existence of god.

But the inability to disprove is not of equal wieght with the inability to prove.

Using the fact that we can't disprove god to balance out the fact that you can't prove the existence of god simply doesn't work.

When there is a total void of evidence for the existence of something, it can reasonably said that it does not exist.

Using "you can't prove that" as refutation does nto further the argument any and is irrelevant.

Once again we go to the intentionally absurd: we cannot prove that our galaxy is not a snot molecule in the nose of a giant comet-farting hamster.
But we feel confident in saying that is not the case, and we would not under normal circumstances ask someone to prove that it is not the case.

You *must* understand that your notion of god does indeed fall under the same category.

And you must understand, as I stated above, that the inability to disprove and the inability to prove are *not* of equal weight.

^ Hey.... what happened to the penguin ? =)

(Edited by NoJive on 11-14-2005 00:29)

I wonder DL how many times your point has to be repeated before it sinks in?

Now, the jades of the world are simply incapable of accepting logic.

But damn it! Bug is otherwise, bloody well intelligent.

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

Bugs knows this and understands this, I am quite sure. He just likes to continually test the boards, I believe. At least, I hope so.

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

I hope you are right, I fear you are wrong.

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