Printable Version of Topic
Click here to view this topic in its original format
Utopia-Politics > Philosopher's Corner > Okay, you'll do...


Posted by: acow Mar 9 2006, 12:02 AM
http://www.thephatphree.com/features.asp?SectionID=11&StoryID;=2187&Layou;

Posted: 2/27/2006 by: Mike Polk

Hey, you, Some Guy. Itís me, Some Girl. I guess we might as well have a life together. Weíre on a schedule here. Iím in my mid to late twenties; youíre two years older than me. Weíre at about the same level of attractiveness. We have comparable educations. I need to mate, and youíll probably do as well as anyone else. Letís begin this typical courtship process, shall we?

You want sex? Fine. Roll around on me for a while. Whatever gets this moving. Are you done? Good. Now go tell your friends about it. And have a good time, you wonít be seeing much of them any more.

I guess we should go to some movies and maybe a concert or two. That was nice. Now letís get in a fight and then make up. Good. Now letís go camping. While camping, letís take some pictures of us camping that we can hang up in our cubicles to remind us of the time we went camping. That will be a cherished memory.

Okay, I guess itís time to move into an apartment together thatís about ten miles away from my parentsí house. Letís live in this apartment for a year. Letís go to a Memorial Day barbecue at my parentsí house. Good. Okay, time to get married.

When you propose, donít try to do anything cute like putting the ring in my wine glass or having a sports mascot bring it to me at a ball game. Itís all been done before, and you are not a very creative person. It would probably just come off as cheesy and forced. Just get down on a knee and get it over with. New Yearís Eve works fine for me.

Our wedding will take place a year-and-a-half from your proposal. It doesnít really take that long to set up a wedding; I just want to relish the fact that we are getting married for as long as I possibly can. During that time, I will be the center of attention. Sadly, this will be the highlight of my life. I have no aspirations to write a great book that will change the way people think, I donít want to travel the world and witness the majesty and diversity of foreign lands, I donít want to dedicate my life to intellectual or philosophical pursuits in an attempt to take my mind places that no one has ever gone- I just want to look skinnier in my dress than my bridesmaids. Okay, thatís done.

After the wedding, I will take a year to reflect upon the wedding. I will send thank-you notes, watch the wedding video countless times with whomever will sit through it with me, and show people pictures from the wedding that they have no interest in seeing.

Soon, everyone will tire of my wedding talk and I will no longer be the center of attention. It is time for us to buy a house, so that I have something else to talk about. It will be a three-bedroom ranch home with a semifinished basement.

You will turn the basement into a rec room with a bar. This will be pointless, as you will rarely see your friends any more, and when you do, they will have neither the desire nor the time to go down and drink in our basement because theyíll have mated too. Your masculine rec room will soon be cluttered with children's toys and my infrequently-used exercise equipment.

When people stop talking to me about our house, I will decide that we should have kids. I will take the fun out of sex by incorporating science and scheduling our intimacy around my ovulation cycle. We will conceive.

We'll Go Bowling Sometimes
When I am pregnant, I will have something to talk to people about again, and everyone will pay attention to me. I will act as if I am the first pregnant person ever. Eventually, I will give birth, just as billions have done before me.

Our children will be adequate, but not spectacular. You will want them to be athletes, but they will lack the size and skill. I will want them to be creative but they will lack the talent and drive. Despite this, they will eventually mate, too.

We will move into a larger house to accommodate our growing family. You will build a deck off the back of the house that we will use twice a summer. We will briefly contemplate an above-ground pool but in the end will decide against it, citing cost and practicality.

There will be several dogs.

We will vacation. Myrtle Beach will be our destination of choice, though we will be no strangers to Orlando.

Our kids will leave and we will move into a condo, citing cost and practicality. We will retire. Now the waiting truly begins.

Our children will provide us with unremarkable grandchildren. We will photograph them and discuss them at length.

You Will Mow Our Lawn
You will die of heart complications. Your funeral will be relatively well-attended and will last for just over an hour. Following it, some of us will go back to the condo where there will be a tray of cold cuts for sandwiches.

I will remain for eight more years, watching television and slipping away into dementia. I will die. Doctors will call it natural causes, but in reality, I will have semiconsciously willed myself to stop breathing out of boredom and defeat. It will be done.

You can pick me up at eight

Posted by: gnuneo Mar 9 2006, 04:57 AM
Choose Life. Choose a job. Choose a career. Choose a family. Choose a fucking big television, choose washing machines, cars, compact disc players and electrical tin openers. Choose good health, low cholesterol, and dental insurance. Choose fixed interest mortgage repayments. Choose a starter home. Choose your friends. Choose leisurewear and matching luggage. Choose a three-piece suite on hire purchase in a range of fucking fabrics. Choose DIY and wondering who the fuck you are on a Sunday morning. Choose sitting on that couch watching mind-numbing, spirit-crushing game shows, stuffing fucking junk food into your mouth. Choose rotting away at the end of it all, pishing your last in a miserable home, nothing more than an embarrassment to the selfish, fucked up brats you spawned to replace yourself. Choose your future. Choose life... But why would I want to do a thing like that? I chose not to choose life. I chose somethin' else. And the reasons? There are no reasons. Who needs reasons when you've got heroin?

Posted by: gnuneo Mar 9 2006, 04:59 AM
hey acow - 90% of what you posted sounds like absolute heaven to me - i guess its what you make of it.

Posted by: Stimulant Mar 9 2006, 06:59 AM
TITAYS TITAYS I LOVE TITAYS

Posted by: Sephiroth Mar 9 2006, 12:32 PM
Sounds like the typical family. Quickly state the philosophical ramafacations of it so it won't get moved to AHB.

Posted by: MindsWideOpen Mar 9 2006, 12:45 PM
QUOTE(acow @ Mar 9 2006, 01:02 AM)
Hey, you, Some Guy. Itís me, Some Girl. I guess we might as well have a life together. Weíre on a schedule here. Iím in my mid to late twenties; youíre two years older than me. Weíre at about the same level of attractiveness. We have comparable educations.

She forgot that he is taller.

Posted by: Dragonspirit Mar 9 2006, 04:53 PM
When you don't have God in your life, perhaps life really looks this depressing. The person who wrote this is spiritually starving, seeming to glorify only single life and intellectualism and then still is (not so surprisingly) utterly miserable. Condemnation for everything normal and traditional isn't insightful, it's just pathetic.

I wake up everyday grateful to God for my boys and wife. Sometimes work sucks, sometimes it's ok. Sometimes other things are frustrating, and sometimes they are great. But it's all making me wiser, and any barriers I see don't bother me because I have other plans I'm always working towards. Everyone should approach life that way - you should never ever be content within your station. Sometimes it's frustrating, and there can be lulls, but it's a challenge and it's one I will win.

Buying a house is in the cards soon, and where the author finds cynicism I find excitement. Because that house will be a home to those I love.

And yes, one day I will grow sick and die many years from now God willing. But that isn't the end. That is when, should God deem me worthy, that things shall truly get interesting for me.

Live the life you want.

Posted by: Dakyron Mar 9 2006, 06:43 PM
Lame article.


Posted by: Citadel Mar 9 2006, 08:38 PM
Yeah...lame...just definately lame. Lacked substance. :rolls eyes:

Posted by: Dakyron Mar 9 2006, 10:11 PM
QUOTE(Citadel @ Mar 9 2006, 01:38 PM)
Yeah...lame...just definately lame. Lacked substance.
[right][snapback]382540[/snapback][/right]


I have a feeling you hear that alot...

Posted by: Stimulant Mar 9 2006, 10:17 PM
serious now, this is the biggest bunch of emo bullshit i've read in a while.

Posted by: Citadel Mar 9 2006, 10:24 PM
QUOTE(Dakyron @ Mar 9 2006, 04:11 PM)
I have a feeling you hear that alot...
[right][snapback]382569[/snapback][/right]



Posted by: Forben May 12 2006, 05:46 AM
didn't really notice any 'life' to the post. Just automation.

Posted by: libvertaruan May 12 2006, 07:11 AM
QUOTE(Forben @ May 12 2006, 01:46 AM)
didn't really notice any 'life' to the post.  Just automation.
[right][snapback]392050[/snapback][/right]

That was the point?

Posted by: Molimo May 12 2006, 05:10 PM
QUOTE(Nashismydaddy @ Mar 9 2006, 11:53 AM)
When you don't have God in your life, perhaps life really looks this depressing.
[right][snapback]382508[/snapback][/right]


Yeah, I know when I ask people what the most exciting part of their week is, they pretty much all answer church.

Posted by: Dragonspirit May 12 2006, 06:22 PM
Who said anything about excitement? We are talking about fulfillment.

Cocacola & cheeseburger > Healthy Diet
Video games > School Work
Porno > Church
Gambling > Savings

When it comes to excitement. All of which are much less valuable for your long term growth and fulfillment.

You think this bitter woman is an avid churchgoer? I sincerely doubt it. Her philosophy on life is dull, sad and depressing. She sees death as the end of the misery of her common life. She sees all the great milestones in life as trite and redundant.

Anyone who shares her outlook on life is spiritually starving. She needs God in her life.

Posted by: MindsWideOpen May 12 2006, 11:06 PM
QUOTE(Nashismydaddy @ May 12 2006, 08:22 PM)
You think this bitter woman is an avid churchgoer?  I sincerely doubt it.  Her philosophy on life is dull, sad and depressing.  She sees death as the end of the misery of her common life.  She sees all the great milestones in life as trite and redundant.

She's probably Catholic.

Posted by: Dragonspirit May 12 2006, 11:07 PM
Why?

Posted by: MindsWideOpen May 12 2006, 11:12 PM
Because it reminded me of Dogma and I wanted to waste some time while waiting for my oatmeal to get done.

Posted by: Forben May 16 2006, 12:28 AM
whats your definition of fullfillment?

Posted by: Dakyron May 16 2006, 06:22 AM
EDIT:

Posted by: necrolyte May 16 2006, 05:44 PM
QUOTE(Nashismydaddy @ Mar 9 2006, 04:53 PM)
When you don't have God in your life, perhaps life really looks this depressing.  The person who wrote this is spiritually starving, seeming to glorify only single life and intellectualism and then still is (not so surprisingly) utterly miserable.  Condemnation for everything normal and traditional isn't insightful, it's just pathetic.

I wake up everyday grateful to God for my boys and wife.  Sometimes work sucks, sometimes it's ok.  Sometimes other things are frustrating, and sometimes they are great.  But it's all making me wiser, and any barriers I see don't bother me because I have other plans I'm always working towards.  Everyone should approach life that way - you should never ever be content within your station.  Sometimes it's frustrating, and there can be lulls, but it's a challenge and it's one I will win.

Buying a house is in the cards soon, and where the author finds cynicism I find excitement.  Because that house will be a home to those I love.

And yes, one day I will grow sick and die many years from now God willing.  But that isn't the end.  That is when, should God deem me worthy, that things shall truly get interesting for me.

Live the life you want.
[right][snapback]382508[/snapback][/right]


You don't need god to feel fullfilled or spiritually alive. Their problem is not a lack of spirituality-religious people could feel like that too-its their selfishness and living a live defined exactly by social norms, not their own will. When they think about others, they think about how to get a sense of entertainment from them, not how they can help them. Life is a list of achievements judged by how they compare to what society expects, not judged by what gives them a fullfilled life.

What you need is a feeling of something greater. This can be God, in your case it is. And this sort of life creates an angst in people who feel unfullfilled by that life. It is, I believe, what leads to mass movements. So for some people that sense of fullfillment can come from charity, protesting war, religion of all types, and unfortunately, movements like al-Quaeda and the Nazi party.

So in that regard, I agree with your comments about fullfillment. But not on religion. I could just as easily say she's not an avid Mosquegoer, or Taoist templegoer (you implied Christian faith is the best for this). She's also not an avid charity worker or social worker, she's also not driven by social justice.

Its also interesting how she's trying to feel important, yet she's trying to feel important by doing exactly what everyone else is doing. Its a contradiction-if your actions are redundant, and only benefit yourself and only interest you, you're not going to be important.

Posted by: Dragonspirit May 16 2006, 07:29 PM
QUOTE
I could just as easily say she's not an avid Mosquegoer, or Taoist templegoer (you implied Christian faith is the best for this).


That's because it's an actual connection to the real God, not merely philosophy or ritual like the others you mention.

Posted by: necrolyte May 16 2006, 08:02 PM
QUOTE(Nashismydaddy @ May 16 2006, 07:29 PM)
That's because it's an actual connection to the real God, not merely philosophy or ritual like the others you mention.
[right][snapback]392731[/snapback][/right]


Those people could just as easily say the same about you.

A Taoist would argue that their philosophy connects one to the ultimate truth/way.

A Muslim would claim that its the same God, they just understand that God better than you do.

A Bhuddist would claim that acheiving personal Nirvana is an actual connection to the universe, not a life run by misery and fear.

Taoism, Islam, Bhuddism, Judaism, and all other world religions are more than ritual and philosophy. They are religion. The closest thing to mere philosophy and ritual masquerading as religion is Confucaism, but Confucaists frequently combine pagan Chinese beliefs to Confucaism to form a real religion. Even if you feel that your God and bible is literal truth, they clearly feel equal fullfillment as you do. So how can you say then that they are merely unfullfilling philosophy and ritual? What argument do you have for that?

Posted by: Dragonspirit May 16 2006, 08:32 PM
They could all claim that, but they would still be wrong.

I know you don't like hearing it, but God is an objective truth. There is one God, only one God, and He is reality. The other belief systems might have redeeming qualities, but they are not actually based on that objective fact.

In the sense they feel they are serving a higher purpose, they have an edge on the woman in the thread starter. But they do not reach that same level, because ultimately the truth makes the difference.

Posted by: necrolyte May 16 2006, 08:35 PM
QUOTE(Nashismydaddy @ May 16 2006, 08:32 PM)
They could all claim that, but they would still be wrong.

I know you don't like hearing it, but God is an objective truth.  There is one God, only one God, and He is reality.  The other belief systems might have redeeming qualities, but they are not actually based on that objective fact.

In the sense they feel they are serving a higher purpose, they have an edge on the woman in the thread starter.  But they do not reach that same level, because ultimately the truth makes the difference.
[right][snapback]392748[/snapback][/right]


Its an objective truth? That the Bible is exactly fact? Actually the objective truth is that the Earth is 5 billion years old and that there is little more than conjecture when it comes to religion.

And last time I checked, Islam and Judaism believed in the same one God as you do biggrin.gif .

Now how do you KNOW that your sense of fullfillment is superior? You're assuming.

Posted by: Dakyron May 16 2006, 08:44 PM
QUOTE(necrolyte @ May 16 2006, 01:35 PM)
Its an objective truth? That the Bible is exactly fact? Actually the objective truth is that the Earth is 5 billion years old and that there is little more than conjecture when it comes to religion.

And last time I checked, Islam and Judaism believed in the same one God as you do  biggrin.gif .

Now how do you KNOW that your sense of fullfillment is superior? You're assuming.
[right][snapback]392752[/snapback][/right]


I know it is.

Posted by: Telum May 16 2006, 08:46 PM
QUOTE(Nashismydaddy @ May 16 2006, 04:32 PM)
They could all claim that, but they would still be wrong.

I know you don't like hearing it, but God is an objective truth.  There is one God, only one God, and He is reality.  The other belief systems might have redeeming qualities, but they are not actually based on that objective fact.

In the sense they feel they are serving a higher purpose, they have an edge on the woman in the thread starter.  But they do not reach that same level, because ultimately the truth makes the difference.
[right][snapback]392748[/snapback][/right]


DS, dont be an idiot.

Posted by: Dragonspirit May 16 2006, 09:28 PM
QUOTE
Actually the objective truth is that the Earth is 5 billion years old and that there is little more than conjecture when it comes to religion.


When God created life, do you really think a day to God was the same as a day to man?

QUOTE
Its an objective truth? That the Bible is exactly fact?


Of course.

QUOTE
Now how do you KNOW that your sense of fullfillment is superior? You're assuming.


It can't really be explained to the non-faithful. It's something I wish you luck on seeking. You won't find it with voodoo, or Islam, or new age, or scientology. You will only find it with belief in the one true God, because that is where the truth rests.

Posted by: Telum May 17 2006, 04:06 AM
QUOTE(Nashismydaddy @ May 16 2006, 05:28 PM)
When God created life, do you really think a day to God was the same as a day to man?
Of course.
It can't really be explained to the non-faithful.  It's something I wish you luck on seeking.  You won't find it with voodoo, or Islam, or new age, or scientology.  You will only find it with belief in the one true God, because that is where the truth rests.
[right][snapback]392803[/snapback][/right]


And Allah is that one true God. You believe in the same god, but you havent seen the light of his last and final prophet.

Posted by: Dragonspirit May 17 2006, 04:52 AM
Just because multiple people claim something, doesn't make them all equally right nor is it a moderate position to treat them as such.

Like I said, you're welcome to believe whatever you want, but until you find the truth you're living a lie.

Posted by: necrolyte May 17 2006, 06:48 AM
QUOTE(Nashismydaddy @ May 17 2006, 04:52 AM)
Just because multiple people claim something, doesn't make them all equally right nor is it a moderate position to treat them as such.

Like I said, you're welcome to believe whatever you want, but until you find the truth you're living a lie.
[right][snapback]392890[/snapback][/right]


If Islam and Judaism are false, which branch of Christianity is correct? One that believes in the Trinity? Or is the trinity a fabrication? Does recognizing the Trinity then make you more able to see this or less? And what about people who think Christ was born in May, not December, because the shepherds were tending to their flocks? What about people who think Christ was only a prophet and not the literal son of God? What about people who think the Earth is 6,000 years old, and people who think its 5 billion, with the universe being 20 billion? What about people who think the Great Flood was an impossibility? Or that the existence of Moses is doubtful, if not an outright fabrication? What about people who think homosexuality is fine in God's eyes or wrong in God's eyes? There are too many little differences within your faith to say that your faith is objective truth.

The interesting thing is that from a theological standpoint, Christ puts as much emphasis on care for the poor and needy, and non-contradiction in one's life as he does faith in God. He is also a Jew. Christianity puts a lot of faith into the Old Testament, and "Israel" means to "Struggle with God", so if the Bible is truth does that not mean that to not struggle with the existence of God means that the sense of fullfillment you have is a false one? Nowhere does Christianity, to my knowledge, call for the kind of blind faith that you possess. And heaven is a sham if you get in by blind faith.

Now how do you explain people who may have felt God, but reject Christianity for other faiths for some personal event in their lives? It goes the other way too, just showing how faith is a personal thing, and is not influenced directly by the supernatural. That does not mean that there is not a God, it just means that the feeling of true connection to "God" or the "Truth" does not discriminate.

Your ultimate assumption is that the happiness you feel is superior. You don't know that by knowing them, you think that because your faith seems powerful, but ultimately you don't know if their fullfillment is equivalent to your own or not, you can only bet that its not.

Posted by: Dragonspirit May 17 2006, 05:49 PM
I never claimed to be able to prove it, only to know it. I know you see a great sensitivity for other beliefs, but if a belief is predicated on a false presumption, is it really respectful not to speak the truth? Do you really help your fellow man by letting him walk over the proverbial cliff without a heads up, because he thinks walking off the cliff is the right way to go because it is a tradition for those close to him to walk off said cliff?

As to the various churches, my opinion on that is the individual church is far less important than the purpose. Satan can not obstruct the truth from you, but he CAN mislead you. You can't be misled if you choose to follow God (and only God) first and foremost, and His will as expressed in the Bible.

The Bible is not meant to fully and wholly be an instructural document. And I think that is where many people go wrong. It possesses instructures, specifically in the Commandments, but it also gives you historical insight and a glipse (as best as we mere mortals can comprehend) into the mindset of God as well.

Far too much importance is placed by some (yourself included) on the age of the earth, or whether you can eat shellfish, or baptism, and misses the forest for the trees. You need to get back and focus on what is actually important. Doing God's will.

Posted by: Telum May 17 2006, 06:01 PM
QUOTE(Nashismydaddy @ May 17 2006, 01:49 PM)
I never claimed to be able to prove it, only to know it.  I know you see a great sensitivity for other beliefs, but if a belief is predicated on a false presumption, is it really respectful not to speak the truth?  Do you really help your fellow man by letting him walk over the proverbial cliff without a heads up, because he thinks walking off the cliff is the right way to go because it is a tradition for those close to him to walk off said cliff?

As to the various churches, my opinion on that is the individual church is far less important than the purpose.  Satan can not obstruct the truth from you, but he CAN mislead you.  You can't be misled if you choose to follow God (and only God) first and foremost, and His will as expressed in the Bible.

The Bible is not meant to fully and wholly be an instructural document.  And I think that is where many people go wrong.  It possesses instructures, specifically in the Commandments, but it also gives you historical insight and a glipse (as best as we mere mortals can comprehend) into the mindset of God as well.

Far too much importance is placed by some (yourself included) on the age of the earth, or whether you can eat shellfish, or baptism, and misses the forest for the trees.  You need to get back and focus on what is actually important.  Doing God's will.
[right][snapback]392972[/snapback][/right]


You dont worship god though. You are a polytheist.

Posted by: Dragonspirit May 17 2006, 06:04 PM
It's God, not god, and I worship Him and only Him.

Posted by: miltonfriedman May 17 2006, 08:14 PM
QUOTE(Nashismydaddy @ May 16 2006, 03:32 PM)
I never claimed to be able to prove it, only to know it.


wait, wait...
you cannot prove an "objective" concept like the existence of one true God? That's really a new spin on the term "objective", wouldnt you say?

QUOTE
Satan can not obstruct the truth from you, but he CAN mislead you. You can't be misled if you choose to follow God (and only God) first and foremost, and His will as expressed in the Bible.


when you hit strip clubs and gambe in Vegas, would you say Satan was misleading you, or you are not really following God's teaching? I am very interested in how you deal with such "deep" religiousity.

Posted by: necrolyte May 17 2006, 08:26 PM
QUOTE(Nashismydaddy @ May 17 2006, 05:49 PM)
I never claimed to be able to prove it, only to know it.  I know you see a great sensitivity for other beliefs, but if a belief is predicated on a false presumption, is it really respectful not to speak the truth?  Do you really help your fellow man by letting him walk over the proverbial cliff without a heads up, because he thinks walking off the cliff is the right way to go because it is a tradition for those close to him to walk off said cliff?

As to the various churches, my opinion on that is the individual church is far less important than the purpose.  Satan can not obstruct the truth from you, but he CAN mislead you.  You can't be misled if you choose to follow God (and only God) first and foremost, and His will as expressed in the Bible.

The Bible is not meant to fully and wholly be an instructural document.  And I think that is where many people go wrong.  It possesses instructures, specifically in the Commandments, but it also gives you historical insight and a glipse (as best as we mere mortals can comprehend) into the mindset of God as well.

Far too much importance is placed by some (yourself included) on the age of the earth, or whether you can eat shellfish, or baptism, and misses the forest for the trees.  You need to get back and focus on what is actually important.  Doing God's will.
[right][snapback]392972[/snapback][/right]


How do you know that your faith is not mere misleading by Satan? And how can you be sure that Islam and Judaism are? And Bhuddism?

And what about nominally Christian faiths, such as Rastafarianism, which is Christian, but only in the broadest sense. They follow the Bible, but have certain other beliefs involving African origin and African nationalism. What about Syncretic Pagan Christians (especially in Native America, Haitian Voodoo, and African communities) who believe in the Bible on one hand, but believe in a certain group of other beleifs as well? What about Mormonism? If those faiths don't count, why does Catholicism? Why does Orthodoxy? I'm assuming you think they are all Christian, and recognize all as Christian, because they follow God's will in the way you describe.

And do you worship God or do you worship the Trinity? Does the Bible specifically state the nature of the Trinity?

How do you justify meaning changes over time due to translation error?

How do you justify repeated re-editing due to reported "Apocraphyl texts"?

If you do not think Voodoo-Catholicism of the form practiced by many Haitians is true Christianity, how can a Christian that worships Christmas be Christian? Or a Christian that believes in ghosts? You have repeatedly described Voodoo as an anathema to Christian thought, however its very clearly Syncretised with Catholicism in Haiti.

Do you believe that a Christian that literally reads the Bible and ignores the points of the love of God-Pat Robertson for example-is a true Christian? He is not looking for the finer points of the Bible, but literally believes the earth was made in 4004 BC, that God literally hates homosexuals, that God metes out divine punishment?

Posted by: Dragonspirit May 18 2006, 12:06 AM
MF:

QUOTE
you cannot prove an "objective" concept like the existence of one true God?


Nope. Maybe others could, but I can't. There are many objective truths I can not prove. I can't prove gravity or the earth to be round. I can't prove that a man walked the moon or that the sun is hot either.

QUOTE
when you hit strip clubs and gambe in Vegas, would you say Satan was misleading you, or you are not really following God's teaching? I am very interested in how you deal with such "deep" religiousity.


I've already explained this to you for about the thousandth time. It seems you don't want to actually listen and would rather just troll and carp.


Necro:

Sheesh man, I'd need an hour to address all of that. Let me hit some of the broader points.

* The trinity and God are three parts of the same whole. The are not seperate divinities.

* Actually, the translations have been authentic. Given that some get confused or disagree over certain texts, but again, I have a more broad view of the Bible. As pointed out, this frankly isn't that important. You read the book, and soon you will understand the penumbra of it. It's not a legal text. It's highest relevence and pertinence is to simply see God's will within it and do it. The commandments are very clear. The ritualism, splintering, etc are things done by man.

* You ask me essentially to judge other subsections, and I frankly am not qualified to do that. No one really is. If you notice, I've never once said nor will I say (should I have my wits) that person X is going to hell or heaven. I don't know, I couldn't even answer the question for myself. God, and only God, is fit to judge us and his judgement is absolute and perfect bound by no rule or expectation of man. To put it more clearly, I don't think any one church has the monopoly on God's will or correct interpretation of the Bible. It might be some little church in North Dakota for all anyone knows. But do not be confused that that ambiguity is permissiveness towards any behavior or any belief system either. It doesn't mean everything is ok or that other worship of gods is just as good. God requires faith. God requires obediance and absolute loyalty. And most of all, God requires repentance for our wrongdoings.

* What is put into the Bible was guided by God and decided by men with far more knowledge than you or I. If you are referring to the so-called 'Book of Judas', it has long been proven to have been a fake. What more, common sense dictates that a man who hangs himself hardly has time to write a book within the three days inbetween Christ's death and resurrection.

* On ghosts, I don't think many (if any) alleged sightings are anything more than superstition and myth. However, God doesn't necessarily tell us everything that has happened or how He operates. A lot of people expect God to explain everything to us. Who the hell are we to ask for it? God has told us what He wants, very clearly, and that's all we really need to know of His business. For what He has told us, that we can have eternal life should we demonstrate our worth, is a gift not any requirement on His part. He would be more than justified to have never told us.

* Does God meet out divine punishment? Absolutely, but not always. On the issue of individuals and controversial things they have said, I can't sit in judgment of them. But to the broader question of what I think is right? I don't think we ever put ourselves in the seat of judge when it comes to these matters. Unless God has give you prophetic duty or insight, to assume just seems arrogant.


It looks like my short post grew a little more than I anticipated. biggrin.gif

Posted by: miltonfriedman May 18 2006, 12:50 AM
QUOTE
Nope. Maybe others could, but I can't. There are many objective truths I can not prove. I can't prove gravity or the earth to be round. I can't prove that a man walked the moon or that the sun is hot either.


there is no extant evidence on gravity and round-earth? this is a starkling revelation.

QUOTE
I've already explained this to you for about the thousandth time. It seems you don't want to actually listen and would rather just troll and carp.


actually, your only explanation was that it's "a good way for christians to relax." i merely wonder how you go about in resolving this relaxation technique whenever you opened a bible. Do you think strip joints are okay for someone who gets fulfillment of life from knowing God while getting a few lap dances and gambling online periodically?

there is no need to evade. we are simply interested in your thought process regarding to the conflict between bible and lap dances that you so frequently enjoy.

Posted by: Dragonspirit May 18 2006, 01:49 AM
QUOTE
there is no extant evidence on gravity and round-earth?


I said *I* could not prove it. I merely believe all those things to be true.

QUOTE
Do you think strip joints are okay for someone who gets fulfillment of life from knowing God while getting a few lap dances and gambling online periodically?


Do you think only athiests go to Vegas?

By the way, what's with this "we" junk. Is this a royal we? Are you a princess?

Posted by: miltonfriedman May 18 2006, 02:11 AM
QUOTE
I said *I* could not prove it. I merely believe all those things to be true.


you could not find evidence to prove that the earth is round? again, absolutely mind-boggling. and b/c you are unable to find any literature/theorem/experiment to prove that the earth is found, it is equivalent of the existence of one true God?

amazing.

QUOTE
Do you think only athiests go to Vegas?


why the evasion, DS? i asked you several simple questions. 1. do you feel lap dances are necessary to someone who has God for fulfillment; 2. do you feel that those who follow the Bible should get lap dances; and 3. how do you reconcile?

QUOTE
By the way, what's with this "we" junk. Is this a royal we? Are you a princess?


me and a couple of others, upon hearing about your belief that lap dance is "a good way for christians to relax" to be uprorariously funny and would like to hear more about it.

Posted by: necrolyte May 18 2006, 03:05 AM
DS-is his divine punishment on earth or after life? How can an ethical being punish Fred for something he caused the situation for? Free will aside, God already knew how their free will would go? If God is the ultimate arbiter, how do you know that he does not let all souls find their way to him?

The way I see it, its illogical to think that God would directly intervene on earth after its creation to "Fix" something, because that would imply that there was something that would have to be "Fixed", which would imply that he was not all knowing. Being omnipotent, he would have inspired all faiths simply by his creation of the universe as it was.

So you think Rastafarianism could be a form of Christianity as valid as Catholicism? If you think so, or if you think you're in no place to judge Rastafarianism, you're a better Christian than most I know, who think a religion devoted fairly closely to Christ (despite some homophobia and ethnocentrism) might be more than an excuse for Jamaicans to get stoned.

If God is the only thing that knows the ultimate truth and who to let into heaven, how can you be sure that he did not also inspire Islam, Bhuddism, Judaism, and even atheism or agnosticism? Whose to say that he did not create those faiths for the specific purpose of guiding that individual to the light, with full knowledge that all individuals are different and that Christianity may simply be inadequate for some?

Apocraphyl texts exist other than the Gospel Of Judas. Many are old testament texts, with all sorts of oddities that make the Bible sound a bit closer to the other religious thoughts of the Semetics.

Posted by: Dragonspirit May 18 2006, 03:06 AM
QUOTE
you could not find evidence to prove that the earth is round?


I might be able to, I dunno. Haven't tried. But I probably couldn't prove it. Doubtful most people could.

QUOTE
why the evasion, DS?


Already answered, and this will be my last reply to you in this thread.

QUOTE
me and a couple of others


Princess, I've already answered. Btw, putting quotes around your lie is not going to convince anyone but the extremely gullible.

Posted by: Dragonspirit May 18 2006, 03:19 AM
QUOTE
DS-is his divine punishment on earth or after life?


Both.

QUOTE
How can an ethical being punish Fred for something he caused the situation for?


Fred made Fred's choice, Fred is punished for Fred's choice. The situation is irrelevent, Fred made his decision within that situation. God's foreknowledge is also irrelevent. I know that Milton is going to troll some more like a retarded monkey in his next posts, that doesn't mean I shouldn't ban him when he does.

QUOTE
If God is the ultimate arbiter, how do you know that he does not let all souls find their way to him?


QUOTE
If God is the only thing that knows the ultimate truth and who to let into heaven, how can you be sure that he did not also inspire Islam, Bhuddism, Judaism, and even atheism or agnosticism?


God has already explained the means to get to Him, thus making it clear not everyone does. He has specifically told us at least one of the things that happens to those that don't that He deems unworthy. What God decides to do to anyone but myself is not my business, and of course I would hope He would reprieve all but the most vile people, but I would never dare second guess Him. Were He to pardon or condemn everyone, well, so be it. None of us have a right to heaven or to question God.

QUOTE
So you think Rastafarianism could be a form of Christianity as valid as Catholicism?


I honestly don't care much for denominations, and were I to offer my novice view I would say that Catholicism has little reason to "brag" as far as one goes. In fact, I find it focuses far too much on ritual & heirarchy and too little on the spirit of the Bible in general. So, yes, Rasta or whatever could be as valid depending on how true the individual decides to live to God's will.

QUOTE
Apocraphyl texts exist other than the Gospel Of Judas. Many are old testament texts, with all sorts of oddities that make the Bible sound a bit closer to the other religious thoughts of the Semetics.


Name one you'd like to discuss and we can. There are reasons why they would be excluded from the Bible. I just used the most famous example I could think of to discuss.

Posted by: necrolyte May 18 2006, 03:26 AM
Dunno where I'd want to start biggrin.gif

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Old_Testament_Apocrypha

Now the point is that despite Fred's free will, God created it already knowing the outcome his free will would come up with, and how he could change the circumstance so that Fred finds his way. So he is directly responsible for fred's decision. You do not create Milton Friedman, you are not responsible for his behavior. However, if he flames someone, and you do not ban him or delete his post, and he flames again, you are responsible.

Now you say as long as someone gets the general idea of the Bible, they get to heaven. But the Bible preaches fraternal love and tolerance, and God's willingness to forgive all and guide all. Both would exclude divine punishment, and would also exclude him judging a faith on whether or not it recognizes him, but only on whether or not it makes them love and seek to serve humanity.

Posted by: miltonfriedman May 18 2006, 03:31 AM
QUOTE(Nashismydaddy @ May 17 2006, 10:06 PM)
I might be able to, I dunno.† Haven't tried.† But I probably couldn't prove it.† Doubtful most people could.


shocking. with modern internet that is distributing information at a rapid rate, most people in this world would have trouble finding evidence to show that the earth is found. absolutely shocking.

QUOTE
Already answered, and this will be my last reply to you in this thread.
Princess, I've already answered.† Btw, putting quotes around your lie is not going to convince anyone but the extremely gullible.
[right][snapback]393093[/snapback][/right]

i can see you that you have backtracked.
was the reply "do you think only the atheists go the Vegas" supposed to be a "response"? actually, on the previous occasion, the same evasion was found. it appears that you have trouble reconciling and prefer to run away when your spirituality is being probed. why is that? i am only here to try to understand what thought processes are going through your mind when you type about how you get fulfillment from knowning God personally while hitting the strip joints on numerous occassions. When this question surfaced last time, there was only evasion. i hope you will not show the same cowardice about your spirituality and religiousity at the face of questioining.

as most of us already know, trying not to defend your religious belief is also considered a sin in the Bible. I hope on top of your gambling and lap dances, you could seriously defend, answer, and elucidate on your idea about how a Christian who knows God personally can "relax" with some strippers.

no need to run. state your belief once and for all. you are all open and no secrets, right? it appears that you are more persistent at FW than defending your taste for gambling and lap dances while telling how you personally are touched by God and his words. your conviction at bad flames runs more deeply than defending Christianity? why?

Posted by: Dragonspirit May 18 2006, 03:53 AM
QUOTE
Now the point is that despite Fred's free will, God created it already knowing the outcome his free will would come up with, and how he could change the circumstance so that Fred finds his way. So he is directly responsible for fred's decision


Doesn't matter. Fred made his choice, it wasn't predetermined. Also, God has omnipotent ability. It doesn't mean He does everything He could. Your premise is very legalistic rather than pragmatic. If God doesn't choose to see the future, does free will suddenly imply responsibility?

QUOTE
Now you say as long as someone gets the general idea of the Bible, they get to heaven. But the Bible preaches fraternal love and tolerance, and God's willingness to forgive all and guide all. Both would exclude divine punishment, and would also exclude him judging a faith on whether or not it recognizes him, but only on whether or not it makes them love and seek to serve humanity.


The problem is you are reaching the wrong conclusion off of your presumptions.

God is not willing to forgive all. He is willing to forgive under the right circumstances. Those include repentance and recognition. What's more, until you have been forgiven, you are guilty. And as long as you are guilty, God will punish you if He deems fit. And God has made it perfectly clear that He is not going to tolerate other religions as acceptable. "You shall have no other God" is quite clear.

Posted by: necrolyte May 18 2006, 04:26 AM
So is "You shall not eat shellfish". And why would that exclude Judaism and Islam, which worship that god?

The way I see it, the bible could at best be only influenced by the will of God, that some pragmatic human considerations were thrown in. Like "Do not eat Pork". And the Jews, to preserve their culture, said "Thou shalt not worship another God". This makes sense, as Judaism at the time was threatened by the Polytheism of the other Canaanites. The greater message is of fraternal love, and that God loves all of his creations.

The thing is that God, being all-knowing, knows everything. He can't chose not to know something.

And about free will, the possibility of an all-knowing all-powerful creator god excludes the possibility of total free will, that all decisions we make were made by him at the point of creation.

Posted by: Telum May 18 2006, 11:42 AM
QUOTE(necrolyte @ May 18 2006, 12:26 AM)
The way I see it, the bible could at best be only influenced by the will of God, that some pragmatic human considerations were thrown in. Like "Do not eat Pork". And the Jews, to preserve their culture, said "Thou shalt not worship another God". This makes sense, as Judaism at the time was threatened by the Polytheism of the other Canaanites.
[right][snapback]393111[/snapback][/right]


Not quite. Jews at that time acknowledged the existance of other gods, but believed their god was the best.

DS- The bible says God forgives everyone.

Posted by: miltonfriedman May 18 2006, 11:45 AM
DS, I found your evasion regarding your religious lifestyle to be disappointing. for someone who proclaims to be "a complete openbook", this will certainly be a damning counter-evidence. some would say a religious person would not hesitate to put forth his religiousity for all to probe, but it appears that you have realized the hypocrisy with your decision. to sum up: very sad.

Posted by: Dragonspirit May 18 2006, 03:47 PM
MF:

Come to me with an honest question, and I will give you an honest answer. Continue to badger and troll, and I'm not going to respond. I never claimed I would accept your ridicule, only that I would be open and I always have been. The very fact that you know I've been gambling, to strip clubs, out drinking, etc is ample proof of that. Were I closed or deceptive, I wouldn't have acknowledged such things. I always endeavor to be truthful.

It's quite clear to everyone as well that you are not here to openly discuss religion, but to harass me. By all means, use this as your proof of my willingness to discuss things in every thread. Because whether or not someone agrees with you more often than me, they will come here and see who is telling the truth.



Telum:

QUOTE
DS- The bible says God forgives everyone.


Should repentance be sought. You must ask for it first, and come to God with a true heart. God will forgive the sin, He does not simply view it as acceptable.



Necro:

QUOTE
So is "You shall not eat shellfish".


Which commandment was that?

QUOTE
And why would that exclude Judaism and Islam, which worship that god?


It's not "that god", it's God. And simply being a monotheist does not mean you worship God.

QUOTE
The thing is that God, being all-knowing, knows everything. He can't chose not to know something.


Since when does Necro write the rules for God?

QUOTE
And about free will, the possibility of an all-knowing all-powerful creator god excludes the possibility of total free will, that all decisions we make were made by him at the point of creation.


Couldn't disagree more on that point. The fact that God could have foreknowledge of our choices does not mean we are bound by fate. If, say, we were able to build a computer sophisticated enough to predict the probable future outcome of any given person, would we have lost free will? If there were no God, would we suddenly have it simply because there is no one around to predict the future anymore? I mean, we know something is going to happen. We know it's going to turn out some way. And eventually, it does. So did we not have a free choice?

Frankly, God's existance has no bearing on free will, other than God could have forced us to do the right thing - in which case, we truly wouldn't have it then.

Posted by: MindsWideOpen May 18 2006, 05:44 PM
QUOTE(Nashismydaddy @ May 18 2006, 05:47 PM)
It's not "that god", it's God.

Given that God is that god you are talking about, God is that god which is God.

Posted by: Dragonspirit May 18 2006, 05:59 PM
"That" god inplies that there are others. There's not. There is the one actual real God, and then there are of course the mythical gods like Zeus, Hera, Aries, The Goddess, Allah, etc.

Posted by: miltonfriedman May 18 2006, 07:44 PM
QUOTE(Nashismydaddy @ May 18 2006, 10:47 AM)
MF:

Come to me with an honest question, and I will give you an honest answer.† Continue to badger and troll, and I'm not going to respond.† I never claimed I would accept your ridicule, only that I would be open and I always have been.† The very fact that you know I've been gambling, to strip clubs, out drinking, etc is ample proof of that.† Were I closed or deceptive, I wouldn't have acknowledged such things.† I always endeavor to be truthful.


Pardon me, DS. Were I the one who openly flamed a poster when approached with a question? The question "what are your thought processes behind the reconciliation of 'knowing God personally' with strip clubs/gambling is a very interesting question. why this would consider "trolling" is quite beyond me when i am one of the least likely person to evoke morality/ethics in explaining optimal decision-making.

the fact of the matter is that you have always strived to be deceptive. you would divulge some absolutely immaterial things such as "i enjoy strip clubs" as if this is something worthy of an interest. but when your personal belief is being questioned, others will stand and defend their values while you resort to a few quick flames before running away. this is a recurring problem.

QUOTE
It's quite clear to everyone as well that you are not here to openly discuss religion, but to harass me.† By all means, use this as your proof of my willingness to discuss things in every thread.† Because whether or not someone agrees with you more often than me, they will come here and see who is telling the truth.
[right][snapback]393172[/snapback][/right]

I don't know what "truth" you were referring to when your two chief arguments were consisted of: 1. are you a princess; and 2. not only atheists visit LV. Again, DS, I simply find your quickness in resorting to equivocation and flaming to be puzzling and uncalled for as I have posed only two very simple questions:

1. When you "know God personally", why do you still feel the need to hit strip clubs?
2. Do you consider lap dances a sin? If so, do you have problem with this after "knowing God"? If not, why not?

These questions cannot be construed as in anyway a "ridicule" as they are clearly legitimate questions to ask. When prominent pastor was caught on television with prostitutes, are we not allowed to ask if he has lived his life in a consistent way?

Posted by: Dragonspirit May 18 2006, 08:06 PM
QUOTE
1. When you "know God personally", why do you still feel the need to hit strip clubs?


I go to have fun. God has nothing to do with it. Same with gambling. Same with watching a basketball game. Same with drinking a hurricane.

QUOTE
2. Do you consider lap dances a sin? If so, do you have problem with this after "knowing God"? If not, why not?


I don't consider it a sin, or I wouldn't do it. What would be sinful is if I lied about it, or committed adultery at one. I don't. In fact, my wife always knows when I go and has absolutely no problem with it. If she did, I wouldn't go back.


Posted by: miltonfriedman May 18 2006, 08:11 PM
so let me get this straight-- you see no conflict between Bible and lap dances? will you tell us right now that "Christian doctrines have no say on lap dances"?

Posted by: Dragonspirit May 18 2006, 08:43 PM
No, I will not say that. There are Christian doctrines against women wearing pants after all. It depends on which church you belong to.

I've already made it perfectly clear that I follow The Bible. I follow the Commandments. I do not hold myself accountable to you, or a Pope, or a minister, or a preacher, or anyone other than God.

Do you?

What do you follow Milton?

Do you see a conflict? If so, please share it. If not, then is there a conflict with a non-athiest going to Las Vegas? Or how about starring at a girl who walks past? Would that be a sin?

Posted by: necrolyte May 18 2006, 09:04 PM
You realize that Allah is the Arabic word for God, correct? That Arabic Christians call God "Allah"?

tongue.gif

Now the point is not that we have no free will, its that God created the universe with a single plan. He was all powerful, he has a single wish. Therefore if anyone fails he created them to fail, because this is the best of all possible universes.

Posted by: Dragonspirit May 18 2006, 09:14 PM
Necro, again, the problem is you put your preconditions on God.

Did God ever say "I have a single plan. If anyone fails it's because I created them to fail?"

He doesn't. God in fact makes it quite clear that the onus for our actions is on us.

Posted by: miltonfriedman May 18 2006, 09:27 PM
QUOTE(Nashismydaddy @ May 18 2006, 03:43 PM)
No, I will not say that.† There are Christian doctrines against women wearing pants after all.† It depends on which church you belong to.


so which church do you belong to?

QUOTE
I've already made it perfectly clear that I follow The Bible.† I follow the Commandments.† I do not hold myself accountable to you, or a Pope, or a minister, or a preacher, or anyone other than God.


So lap dances then, is okay because God made no judgments on this issue? Or has he? this is of particular interest, so maybe we could expand on this. Is it your contention that God has not spoken a word on gambling/drinking/lap dancing?

QUOTE
What do you follow Milton?


i follow simple economic calculus of utility maximization.

QUOTE
Do you see a conflict?† If so, please share it.† If not, then is there a conflict with a non-athiest going to Las Vegas?† Or how about starring at a girl who walks past?† Would that be a sin?
[right][snapback]393219[/snapback][/right]

not being the person who is clamoring for God on internet, I see no problem with any of such behaviors. I merely wonder how someone who "knows God personally" would view this as opposed to someone like myself who makes little religious and moral judgments.

Posted by: necrolyte May 18 2006, 10:40 PM
God is described as perfect, all-knowning, all-powerful and all-good. In that regard, yes he would create the best of all possible universes. And yes, the nature of the universe does decide how people sin or not. So the "onus is on us" is simply a contradiction.

Posted by: libvertaruan May 19 2006, 12:16 AM
I think the point is, as it was put in Something Positive, that half the fun of God's forgiveness is having reasons to ask for it.

Posted by: necrolyte May 19 2006, 02:43 AM
QUOTE(libvertaruan @ May 19 2006, 12:16 AM)
I think the point is, as it was put in Something Positive, that half the fun of God's forgiveness is having reasons to ask for it.
[right][snapback]393270[/snapback][/right]


But that was said by a very un-Christian Christian tongue.gif

Posted by: Dragonspirit May 19 2006, 05:48 PM
QUOTE
God is described as perfect, all-knowning, all-powerful and all-good. In that regard, yes he would create the best of all possible universes. And yes, the nature of the universe does decide how people sin or not. So the "onus is on us" is simply a contradiction.


Until you move beyond that assumption, you're not going to progress.

Posted by: necrolyte May 19 2006, 06:38 PM
QUOTE(Nashismydaddy @ May 19 2006, 05:48 PM)
Until you move beyond that assumption, you're not going to progress.
[right][snapback]393354[/snapback][/right]


So God is not perfect, or all good, or all powerful, or all knowing?

Then why is he incapiable of making unethical decisions?

Posted by: Dragonspirit May 19 2006, 07:13 PM
God does not have to answer to you on why He allows the things He does. Did God require His son to be executed in order to redeem man? Yes. Could He have stopped it? Yes. God allows imperfect things to occur, so that man may make His own choices. In a perfect world, there would be no choice. It would be automatic. Without struggle, we could not grow.

By the way, God already gave us our chance at a perfect world, and we proved incapable of handling that with obedience. Let's not blow this one.

Posted by: necrolyte May 19 2006, 08:05 PM
But see, its pointless to simeltaneously give people total free will, give them the ability to fuck it up, and then expect obedience. Also, unquestioning obedience and one's ability to do things on a reward basis are not good character traits. One does not become unquestioningly obedient as they grow up, they experience existential dilemmias as they grow up and question their preset beliefs. They also learn to do things on a higher level than reward-punishment.

The problem is that the imperfect world allows some people to grow and others not to grow. And thats not an issue of choice, that really is an issue of enviroment. Abused kids for instance have a far higher rate when it comes to becoming an abusing parent. Likewise, Christians are much more likely to accept Christianity than someone raised Jewish (assuming that converting to Christianity is a state of growth-I'd argue that many, many Christians are far more immature and less developed than non-Christians).

Posted by: Dragonspirit May 19 2006, 09:24 PM
QUOTE
its pointless to simeltaneously give people total free will, give them the ability to fuck it up, and then expect obedience


Not at all. Many people successfully do exactly that. When a teacher gives you a test, is that not a similar situation? The teacher doesn't force you to study, he or she will simply offer you the tools and grade you accordingly. You can't say you didn't pass the test because the teacher should have made you pass automatically.

QUOTE
One does not become unquestioningly obedient as they grow up, they experience existential dilemmias as they grow up and question their preset beliefs. They also learn to do things on a higher level than reward-punishment.


It is vanity to assume that you grow beyond God's requirements. You are not on a higher level than God, nor are you on an equal one. In any event, the servitude of God does not come solely of fear or desire for reward. It's sourced first and foremost through respect and gratitude for all that you have since all of it is only possible by God's grace and forgiveness.

Now, you have asked many questions, I think I am due a few.

Have you read the Bible entirely? If so, when was the last time you did?

Do you approach the issue with an open mind?

When was the last time you genuinely prayed to God?

Do you know that many of the events of the Bible are historically either verified or have strong supporting evidence, including geological evidence of a Great Flood?

If God could be completely proven to you, would you not agree that it would be sheer foolishness to defy Him? Would you not seek to do His will? He would, effectively, become a law of the universe to you and the cornerstone of reality.

Posted by: necrolyte May 20 2006, 12:30 AM
QUOTE
Not at all. Many people successfully do exactly that. When a teacher gives you a test, is that not a similar situation? The teacher doesn't force you to study, he or she will simply offer you the tools and grade you accordingly. You can't say you didn't pass the test because the teacher should have made you pass automatically.


Different situation. Failing the test is an important chance to grow. Failing that test means you're in hell or that your soul ceases to exist.

QUOTE
It is vanity to assume that you grow beyond God's requirements. You are not on a higher level than God, nor are you on an equal one. In any event, the servitude of God does not come solely of fear or desire for reward. It's sourced first and foremost through respect and gratitude for all that you have since all of it is only possible by God's grace and forgiveness.


I could also argue that its vanity to assume you're right in this regard.

QUOTE
Have you read the Bible entirely? If so, when was the last time you did?


Not for a while, and I only ever read the interesting parts tongue.gif like Noah.

QUOTE
Do you approach the issue with an open mind?


Of course, otherwise I wouldnt be asking you questions I'd be dictating things to you.

QUOTE
When was the last time you genuinely prayed to God?


When I was like 9. And it was the only time in my life.

QUOTE
Do you know that many of the events of the Bible are historically either verified or have strong supporting evidence, including geological evidence of a Great Flood?


Like which ones? There's little to no historical evidence that Moses and large numbers of Jewish slaves worked for Ramsees the Great. Evidence of the Great Flood? I think evidence of vast numbers of species and genetic strains, of ice over 10,000 years old, and of the fact that there's not enough water on the earth to flood the planet high enough to leave a boat on Mount Ararat is enough evidence that there was no worldwide flood as described in the Bible. The only evidence I've seen is in the Epic of Gilgamesh, which also works to brove Sumerian mythology biggrin.gif

QUOTE
If God could be completely proven to you, would you not agree that it would be sheer foolishness to defy Him? Would you not seek to do His will? He would, effectively, become a law of the universe to you and the cornerstone of reality.


Of course not. I would want to understand him, why he created the universe, and why he expected this of us, to make sure I was doing the right thing in not defying him. For instance, I wouldn't want to serve a God that created the universe because he liked to send people to hell.

Posted by: acow May 20 2006, 01:02 AM
QUOTE
Have you read the Bible entirely? If so, when was the last time you did?


Yes. Last time was about 2 to 3 years ago.

QUOTE
Do you approach the issue with an open mind?


Indeed. On top of that I was baptised, went to sunday school when I was a child, our public school in brisbane had religious instruction, I went to a private catholic school, and majored in religious studies.

My mind wasn't just open, god was always the default option.

QUOTE
When was the last time you genuinely prayed to God?


When I was a teenager I do believe. I have since recieved greater reaction/benefit praying to my pet rock, but only because the rock might actually be able to be thrown at and effect things...

QUOTE
Do you know that many of the events of the Bible are historically either verified or have strong supporting evidence, including geological evidence of a Great Flood?


I actually know there's no such thing. Evidence of the great flood has always been trumpted out by the likes of creation scientists (ie. Not scientists). That there have been historical floods is not at issue, but that one such as mentioned in the bible happened is completely unsupported by any evidence.

In fact its quite the opposite. There is no evidence that the jews were ever enslaved as a people in egypt, no evidence of any pharoah letting them go or dissapearing in the red sea, no evidence of their journey through the desert.

There is positive direct archaelogical evidence that jews, and jewish religion/monotheism developed directly out of the polytheistic ancient caananite religion/area, that many parts of the bible are almost direct plaguarisms from this polytheistic older religion which has left its mark on the bible and jewish culture/language.

The distinctions between which rules in the bible ie the commandments and which are not neccesary to follow are completely arbitary, not to mention some of the rules themselves.

The historical evidence of jesus, when we come to that, is just as bad. There's really sweet fuck all evidence for an historical jesus, or at least if we accept his existence, no hard evidence of anything actually concrete about him. None of the gospels were written by anyone who had any contact with him, some are even ignorant of basic geography of the judean area and fuck up jewish dates, and then you get letters from the likes of paul, who's main contact with jesus is in a fucking vision (which we rightfully mock the historicity of the gnostic sources for), and who has rules and opinions, which, no offence DS, you completely ignore and are completely different from gospel theoloy.

If we treat the gospels with the same degree as we do the claims made by the supposedly "historical" books of the other regions and religions (ie. stories about buddha or articles about krishna), we must admit they have absolutley no historical validity whatsoever essentially.

The only reason we take them seriously, or think that any of the stuff mentioned in them in regards to jesus is real or even vaguely historically accurate is exactly the same reason that all those other religious people believe in the stories about buddha or krishna. Because they always have and because they have always been told its real.

QUOTE
If God could be completely proven to you, would you not agree that it would be sheer foolishness to defy Him?


If we accept the proviso that freedom is present, and we must accept that it is if we believe there is any choice in defying god, then if god was hypothetically actually satan, and hated us and wanted us to feel pain, it would then make sense that we could, and should, defy him, for we could be at least somewhat better off in doing so.

One can emotionally ask whether one would defy satan if he were god, and we could reasonably say yes, because even if satan wants what is worst for us, through our choices we can at least create some good.

The mere existence of god therefore, does not neccesarily imply the best action is devotion to him.

QUOTE
Would you not seek to do His will? He would, effectively, become a law of the universe to you and the cornerstone of reality.


Freedom and choice removes all connection we have with god, at least morally, as a cornerstone of reality. Because, as has been shown, the existence of god, both in christian theology and if satan were in fact god, does not deem us to follow him, our dilemma is one of being personally responsible for our choices and actions. God coudl not force us to do anything which we would then be personally responsible for, and in that regard, it is our choices, and not the quality of god that plays any part.

To think otherwise is to simply beg the question.

Of course there is no choice to defy god if your starting assumption is that god is good, you know everything about god and good, and you want to be good. But in such a state of mind, there is similarly no room for discussion, growth, or debate.

Posted by: necrolyte May 20 2006, 02:04 AM
Acow-while I for the most part agree with you, I've heard that there is some historical evidence of Jesus, but just nothing significant about his claims about being a prophet. They more have to do with a land reform (Socialist? hint hint) rabbi who wanted to do good for the poor by teaching merchants that they should not rip people off, ect.

Posted by: Lady Bitememan May 21 2006, 11:48 PM
QUOTE(Nashismydaddy @ May 16 2006, 08:32 PM)
They could all claim that, but they would still be wrong.

I know you don't like hearing it, but God is an objective truth.  There is one God, only one God, and He is reality.  The other belief systems might have redeeming qualities, but they are not actually based on that objective fact.

In the sense they feel they are serving a higher purpose, they have an edge on the woman in the thread starter.  But they do not reach that same level, because ultimately the truth makes the difference.
[right][snapback]392748[/snapback][/right]

*Agrees with Dragon Spirit. Completely.*

Posted by: Cerian May 22 2006, 01:50 AM
The fact that people seriously believe that is one of the most ridiculous and absurd things about humanity.

God is irrelevant.

Posted by: Dakyron May 22 2006, 11:54 PM
People who spend their life trying to disprove something, ie: acow, really need to think about what they are doing...

If you are an atheist, and you go out to try and prove that the Bible is historically inaccurate, I must at least wonder about the bias in your conclusions. You wonder about the bias in the conclusions of those who take the opposite path and are devout Christians who try to prove the Bible's existence. You say they are not scientists because they believe in God... laugh.gif

I have actually watched television shows which depicted an acow with actual scientific credentials argue against an historical reference from the Bible. Meanwhile, a 'non-scientist' (according to acow no scientist can believe in God or Christianity since that immediately makes you stupid) argued the opposite view that not only was it possible, but likely the event occured.

If was quite honestly the most interesting documentary I have ever seen. I wish I could remember the name of it. The fact that it had two intelligent people who could clearly demostrate, using "real" evidence their own viewpoint from the same data and come up two completely different conclusions was quite an eye opener. There was little doubt in the minds of either scientist. It was not like when you see a bigfoot hunter speak of evidence of sasquatch attacking a stray dog, it was a genuine scientific approach to analyzing the historical accuracy of the Bible.

The thing is though, if two respected and intelligent scientists can look at the same data and give oppositie conclusions with such conviction, then how can you, acow, look at me and say that the Bible is fiction because it has contradictions, inaccuracies between two different parts written by different people. That because someone who lived 2000 years ago and had to walk everywhere was not completely accurate in his geographical assessment. Hell, Ive seen college students look at a map and be unable to find something given the gosh darn longitude and lattitude coordinates. Does this mean I should discount their story about how they got drunk over the weekend and did (something stupid)?

I pity you, acow... You claim to have an open mind, but in reality you are nothing more than just some kid rebelling against his parents who put through Catholic school...

You will understand one day, I think... Though you may never admit it...

Posted by: necrolyte May 23 2006, 03:33 AM
There's still an overwhelming lack of evidence in terms of Ramsees II losing a large number of Jewish slaves and possibly dying in the Red Sea, or a global flood that left nothing except Mount Ararat standing (should be noted that Mount Ararat is hardly the tallest mountain in the world).

Posted by: Dakyron May 23 2006, 05:15 AM
QUOTE(necrolyte @ May 22 2006, 08:33 PM)
There's still an overwhelming lack of evidence in terms of Ramsees II losing a large number of Jewish slaves and possibly dying in the Red Sea, or a global flood that left nothing except Mount Ararat standing (should be noted that Mount Ararat is hardly the tallest mountain in the world).
[right][snapback]393880[/snapback][/right]


I doubt the Egyptians would really want to record a slave revolt and the humiliation of the egyptian army. Thus, it would not be out of the realm of possibility that it was just never recorded.

As for Mount Ararat, well, to the people in the area, it was the tallest, or at least the best known. Not surprising that when describing such an event, God/Moses/Whomever would choose to use Mount Ararat to show the depth of the flood rather than describe Mount Everest in the Himalayas(which they probably didnt even know existed).

I think even you would find such things interesting Necrolyte.

Posted by: QWOT May 23 2006, 05:48 AM
QUOTE(Nashismydaddy @ May 19 2006, 01:24 PM)
Not at all.  Many people successfully do exactly that.  When a teacher gives you a test, is that not a similar situation?  The teacher doesn't force you to study, he or she will simply offer you the tools and grade you accordingly.  You can't say you didn't pass the test because the teacher should have made you pass automatically.

But what about people who are not given the same "tools"? Presumably you've heard of the concept of "setting someone up to fail", where a person is given a position of responsibility but not given the authority or resources to do the job properly? Isn't this what happens when God puts a person in the position of either stealing or seeing his family starve (e.g. Jean Valjean)?

What about a person who is kind, compassionate, and charitable to his fellow man? Would he somehow not be forgiven simply because he used the wrong name in his prayers; even if his concept of J__H or Allah was identical to your concept of God?


QUOTE(Nashismydaddy @ May 19 2006, 01:24 PM)
It is vanity to assume that you grow beyond God's requirements.  You are not on a higher level than God, nor are you on an equal one.  In any event, the servitude of God does not come solely of fear or desire for reward.  It's sourced first and foremost through respect and gratitude for all that you have since all of it is only possible by God's grace and forgiveness.

Exactly, now apply that to your assertion that you are right and all other religions are wrong. You are presuming that you have been given revelations showing the Trinity to be the One True God as fact. Isn't that a bit presumptious and arrogant, thinking that you came to the correct conclusion after reading the Bible while many others didn't? Or, if you feel that grace comes from God and not yourself, isn't it presumptious for you to state that God gave you the sure knowledge that He is the One True God after reading the Bible; but neglected (or refused) to impart that sure knowledge to others who read the Bible and looked for Enlightenment and Truth?


One last side point: objective truth must by definition be proveable, otherwise it is subjective truth.



QUOTE(Nashismydaddy @ May 19 2006, 01:24 PM)
Have you read the Bible entirely?  If so, when was the last time you did?

Never read cover-to-cover; though I've read all the New Testament at one time or another.

QUOTE(Nashismydaddy @ May 19 2006, 01:24 PM)
Do you approach the issue with an open mind?

Actually, no, but not the way you imply. I was raised Catholic, so most of the time I read the Bible, it was with the assumption that it was true.

QUOTE(Nashismydaddy @ May 19 2006, 01:24 PM)
When was the last time you genuinely prayed to God?

Honestly, I no longer see the point. Prayers asking for something are IMHO the height of arrogance. Prayers of thanksgiving? Sure, I pray to whatever put me on Earth and gave me this very fortunate life (e.g. "there but for the grace of God go I"); but I believe it arrogant for me to give any sort of name or attribute any sort of characteristics to whatever being (if any) that is. I suppose that would make me more of a Deist ("I believe there's someone/thing out there") rather than agnostic ("I don't know if there's anything out there"); but that's the kind of academic mental masturbation I really don't care to engage in very often.

QUOTE(Nashismydaddy @ May 19 2006, 01:24 PM)
Do you know that many of the events of the Bible are historically either verified or have strong supporting evidence, including geological evidence of a Great Flood?

Actually, you're very badly mistaken if you believe this. Of course there were catastrophic floods in ancient times; but the evidence is very much against there being a Global flood that inundated the earth and wiped out most of humanity. I've known some absolutely brilliant scientists who were profoundly religious in believing that Jesus is the Truth, the Way, and the Light; but they are nearly universal in stating that the Creationists who say the Bible is historically accurate are idiots.

QUOTE(Nashismydaddy @ May 19 2006, 01:24 PM)
If God could be completely proven to you, would you not agree that it would be sheer foolishness to defy Him?  Would you not seek to do His will?  He would, effectively, become a law of the universe to you and the cornerstone of reality.
[right][snapback]393403[/snapback][/right]

If the government of the United States suddenly became as evil as Nazi Germany, and you had absolutely no chance of affecting it, would you support it or oppose it? Just because something is all-powerful (whether a person, or a government, or Nature, or God) doesn't make it "right" or "moral" to follow it blindly.

Posted by: QWOT May 23 2006, 05:54 AM
QUOTE(necrolyte @ May 22 2006, 07:33 PM)
There's still an overwhelming lack of evidence in terms of Ramsees II losing a large number of Jewish slaves and possibly dying in the Red Sea, or a global flood that left nothing except Mount Ararat standing (should be noted that Mount Ararat is hardly the tallest mountain in the world).
[right][snapback]393880[/snapback][/right]

Side note: Mount Ararat doesn't have to be the world's tallest mountain; it just has to be the tallest point of land right under the Ark when the flood waters fell enough for the Ark to be grounded.



Dakyron,

Don't put words in acow's mouth. He never said that religious people can't be scientists. He also isn't "setting out to disprove the Bible"; he initially believed in the Bible and then found reasons that it wasn't right.

If you had based your entire life and world-view on one doctrine, and then found inconsistencies in that doctrine, wouldn't you spend a lot of time trying to reconcile those inconsistancies one way or another? You and Dragonspirit did, and found the inconsistancies weren't important (or were just mis-translations); acow did the same and came to a different conclusion. You take acow to task for asserting one side is absolutely right; but you allow Dragonspirit to make the same assertion in the same situation (intelligent, reasonable people diametrically opposed)?

Posted by: necrolyte May 23 2006, 07:40 AM
QUOTE(Dakyron @ May 23 2006, 05:15 AM)
I doubt the Egyptians would really want to record a slave revolt and the humiliation of the egyptian army. Thus, it would not be out of the realm of possibility that it was just never recorded.

As for Mount Ararat, well, to the people in the area, it was the tallest, or at least the best known. Not surprising that when describing such an event, God/Moses/Whomever would choose to use Mount Ararat to show the depth of the flood rather than describe Mount Everest in the Himalayas(which they probably didnt even know existed).

I think even you would find such things interesting Necrolyte.
[right][snapback]393891[/snapback][/right]



I've heard the "It was probably unrecorded" story before. Its highly unlikely that something of that magnitude would go unrecorded. The Egyptian pharaohs were not ones to record their failures, but usually their failures left significant ripples which can be noted historically. For instance, the Battle of Khadesh (led by the same Ramses the Great believed to have ruled over Moses's escape) we know did not go exactly how Ramses said it went, and we have a clearer picture.

Ramses the III, and Akhenaten apparently had significant problems during their reigns because non-state propaganda records exist. Papyrus, for example, stories from other civilizations, or hieroglyphics from their successors. Yet there is no evidence that says of a large slave uprising, possible plagues killing a large portion of Egypt's population, the death of the Pharaoh's elite, and possibly the greatest Pharaoh, Ramses the II (not to mention we have his body in a museum.)

Also, the story as presented in Exodus contradicts much of what we know about Egyptian slavery. Slaves were captured as prisoners of war, yet Israel and Judeah spent much of their time subjugated, not warring, with the Egyptians. The Egyptians didn't just collect slaves from subjugated peoples. Also, the standard of living provided to slaves was better than what we think Slaves get, often times better than Egyptian peasants. Slaves even had legal protections to some degree. Because of the growing patterns (could only plant during some of the year-Nile floods made it too hard to plant for the rest of the year, yet the Nile valley was fertile enough to compensate for that), the Egyptians had free labour for half of the year anyways, and did not need to partake in the ugly kind of slavery seen in the Americas 3,000 years later..

Whats probably more likely is that its metaphor, or just an epic story that the Rabbis thought worked to show the excesses of their Egyptian Polytheistic neighbors.

On the Great Flood, do you think that the flood literally covered all of the Middle East except Mount Ararat? Do you believe the 2 animals? Or do you think much of that is hyperbole, metaphor, ect? There's simply not enough H2O on the planet to allow for a flood like that, not to mention much ice we know has been frozen for 10s of thousands of years.

Posted by: Dakyron May 23 2006, 04:03 PM
QUOTE(QWOT @ May 22 2006, 10:54 PM)
Dakyron,

Don't put words in acow's mouth.  He never said that religious people can't be scientists.  He also isn't "setting out to disprove the Bible"; he initially believed in the Bible and then found reasons that it wasn't right.

If you had based your entire life and world-view on one doctrine, and then found inconsistencies in that doctrine, wouldn't you spend a lot of time trying to reconcile those inconsistancies one way or another?  You and Dragonspirit did, and found the inconsistancies weren't important (or were just mis-translations); acow did the same and came to a different conclusion.  You take acow to task for asserting one side is absolutely right; but you allow Dragonspirit to make the same assertion in the same situation (intelligent, reasonable people diametrically opposed)?
[right][snapback]393896[/snapback][/right]


He did call Christian scientists 'not scientists', thats where I drew my conclusions from. Acow's problem is that it was someone else's view that was forced on him, and when he went into teenage rebellion mode(something everyone does to one extent or another) he targeted Catholicism. Now, he feels he has to prove to everyone that he is a 'free thinker' and shows his independence by bashing Catholicism... I've seen it before with some of my friends and I've had the same conversation with them. Its hard for them to reconcile my belief in God with my distrust of organized religion... If acow could separate a belief in God from a belief in the Catholic Church then maybe his mind might change, at least he might be less sure of himself... Then again... I've been wrong about people before, so maybe I'm completely off on my assessment of acow...

As for my lack of criticism of DS... he is on the same side of an argument as I am. Its not my place to criticise, that is for those who disagree with him. biggrin.gif

QUOTE(necrolyte @ May 23 2006, 12:40 AM)
I've heard the "It was probably unrecorded" story before. Its highly unlikely that something of that magnitude would go unrecorded. The Egyptian pharaohs were not ones to record their failures, but usually their failures left significant ripples which can be noted historically. For instance, the Battle of Khadesh (led by the same Ramses the Great believed to have ruled over Moses's escape) we know did not go exactly how Ramses said it went, and we have a clearer picture.

Ramses the III, and Akhenaten apparently had significant problems during their reigns because non-state propaganda records exist. Papyrus, for example, stories from other civilizations, or hieroglyphics from their successors. Yet there is no evidence that says of a large slave uprising, possible plagues killing a large portion of Egypt's population, the death of the Pharaoh's elite, and possibly the greatest Pharaoh, Ramses the II (not to mention we have his body in a museum.)

Also, the story as presented in Exodus contradicts much of what we know about Egyptian slavery. Slaves were captured as prisoners of war, yet Israel and Judeah spent much of their time subjugated, not warring, with the Egyptians. The Egyptians didn't just collect slaves from subjugated peoples. Also, the standard of living provided to slaves was better than what we think Slaves get, often times better than Egyptian peasants. Slaves even had legal protections to some degree. Because of the growing patterns (could only plant during some of the year-Nile floods made it too hard to plant for the rest of the year, yet the Nile valley was fertile enough to compensate for that), the Egyptians had free labour for half of the year anyways, and did not need to partake in the ugly kind of slavery seen in the Americas 3,000 years later..

Whats probably more likely is that its metaphor, or just an epic story that the Rabbis thought worked to show the excesses of their Egyptian Polytheistic neighbors.

On the Great Flood, do you think that the flood literally covered all of the Middle East except Mount Ararat? Do you believe the 2 animals? Or do you think much of that is hyperbole, metaphor, ect? There's simply not enough H2O on the planet to allow for a flood like that, not to mention much ice we know has been frozen for 10s of thousands of years.
[right][snapback]393902[/snapback][/right]


For the escaped slaves, it was probably an exaggeration of a real event. The difference between slavery and peasantry wasn't a whole lot... A group of Jews could have just dropped everything and left... got confronted by a small force of egyptians and somehow managed to get past them... Or maybe it didnt happen, or maybe it happened exactly as it is written...

As for the flood, that is probably just metaphor and hyperbole. An actual flood and ark probably didnt occur.

Posted by: QWOT May 23 2006, 04:21 PM
Dakyron,

QUOTE
He did call Christian scientists 'not scientists', thats where I drew my conclusions from.

I didn't see where he said that; but he might have meant either Christian Scientists (a denomination of Christianity that certainly is not scientific), or meant Christian "scientists" = Creationists (which is bad phrasing, but IMHO perfectly accurate to say Creationists aren't scientists).

I've heard that bullshit before (that religious people can't be "real scientists"), but I've never seen that attitude from acow.

Meh, just wondering...

Posted by: JLord May 23 2006, 04:24 PM
QUOTE(Dakyron @ May 23 2006, 10:03 AM)
As for the flood, that is probably just metaphor and hyperbole. An actual flood and ark probably didnt occur.
[right][snapback]393945[/snapback][/right]


Yeah, and the part where God is said to exists was probably metaphor and hyperbole as well.

And I think acow has a point when it comes to Christian scientists. I encountered this in the study of early Christian communities. There is the general views of scholars that are open minded and and come to conclusions based on evidence. Then there are Christian scholars who already have the conclusion they want in mind (which supports whatever the church's view of early Christianity is) and then work to try to make evidence fit the conclusion. It is somewhat backwards. I can't say that this is every Christian scholar. But there is a distinct community of Christian scholars that operate outside of the world of regular scientific analysis. At least in the field of early Christian communities.

(just read any book on the topic and they discuss the various theories and then at the end almost like a disclaimer they will mention that Christian scholars believe the traditional view of whatever it is)

Posted by: Dakyron May 23 2006, 04:26 PM
Well, actually he said creation scientists = not scientists... but I've heard enough people claim that you cannot believe in God and still be a scientist that even the implication of that annoys me... Basically, its like someone telling me I'm stupid simply because I believe in God... because if I wasn't stupid, then I wouldnt believe...


Posted by: miltonfriedman May 23 2006, 04:51 PM
QUOTE(Nashismydaddy @ May 19 2006, 04:24 PM)

Do you know that many of the events of the Bible are historically either verified or have strong supporting evidence, including geological evidence of a Great Flood?

Do you know that this statement is false?

Posted by: necrolyte May 23 2006, 04:59 PM
QUOTE(JLord @ May 23 2006, 04:24 PM)
Yeah, and the part where God is said to exists was probably metaphor and hyperbole as well.

And I think acow has a point when it comes to Christian scientists.  I encountered this in the study of early Christian communities.  There is the general views of scholars that are open minded and and come to conclusions based on evidence.  Then there are Christian scholars who already have the conclusion they want in mind (which supports whatever the church's view of early Christianity is) and then work to try to make evidence fit the conclusion.  It is somewhat backwards.  I can't say that this is every Christian scholar.  But there is a distinct community of Christian scholars that operate outside of the world of regular scientific analysis.  At least in the field of early Christian communities.

(just read any book on the topic and they discuss the various theories and then at the end almost like a disclaimer they will mention that Christian scholars believe the traditional view of whatever it is)
[right][snapback]393952[/snapback][/right]


Scientists with strongly-held preconceived notions who find the evidence to fit the theory, not the other way around, are barely scientists.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Piltdown_Man

And in that regard, scientists who run around ignoring evidence against and only using evidence for creation, or a great flood, or the like can barely be called scientists, as clearly their respect for the scientific method is minimal compared to their ideological loyalties..

Posted by: JLord May 23 2006, 05:02 PM
QUOTE(necrolyte @ May 23 2006, 10:59 AM)
Scientists with strongly-held preconceived notions who find the evidence to fit the theory, not the other way around, are barely scientists.

And in that regard, scientists who run around ignoring evidence against and only using evidence for creation, or a great flood, or the like can barely be called scientists, as clearly their respect for the scientific method is minimal compared to their ideological loyalties..
[right][snapback]393967[/snapback][/right]


That's what I'm talking about. Good post. It is these kind of Christian scientists that I have a problem giving equal respect to.

Posted by: Dakyron May 23 2006, 05:50 PM
QUOTE(JLord @ May 23 2006, 10:02 AM)
That's what I'm talking about.  Good post.  It is these kind of Christian scientists that I have a problem giving equal respect to.
[right][snapback]393968[/snapback][/right]


Evidence should be judged on its own merit, not on who is presenting it.

Posted by: JLord May 23 2006, 07:08 PM
That's right. But there are people who go into the field with a conclusion already decided on. Then they just try to make whatever they find fit that conclusion. People who do this should not be listened to.

Posted by: Dakyron May 23 2006, 08:04 PM
QUOTE(JLord @ May 23 2006, 12:08 PM)
That's right.  But there are people who go into the field with a conclusion already decided on.  Then they just try to make whatever they find fit that conclusion.  People who do this should not be listened to.
[right][snapback]394003[/snapback][/right]


You just contradicted yourself.

True or false? Evidence should stand on its own merit, and not who it is presented by(including horribly biased people who have already drawn their own conclusions).

Conclusions, or opinion can certainly be based on who is presenting the opinion or conclusion, but the evidence itself stands on its own.

Posted by: JLord May 23 2006, 09:31 PM
QUOTE(Dakyron @ May 23 2006, 02:04 PM)
You just contradicted yourself.

True or false? Evidence should stand on its own merit, and not who it is presented by(including horribly biased people who have already drawn their own conclusions).

Conclusions, or opinion can certainly be based on who is presenting the opinion or conclusion, but the evidence itself stands on its own.
[right][snapback]394013[/snapback][/right]


Obviously evidence should be judged on its own merit. But if the methods used to obtain that evidence are tainted, then I don't trust it.

Posted by: Dragonspirit May 23 2006, 10:50 PM
Good discussion so far, way too much to reply to individually (I hate how that happens).

To address some of the more interesting points --

QUOTE
Different situation. Failing the test is an important chance to grow. Failing that test means you're in hell or that your soul ceases to exist.


Life isnít just one test, itís a series of tests. You can fail one test and still grow from it. Everyone, after all, sins. But of course you can not fail entirely, or more accurately to the point of Godís disapproval, and expect the same benefits as someone who earns Godís approval.

QUOTE
If we accept the proviso that freedom is present, and we must accept that it is if we believe there is any choice in defying god, then if god was hypothetically actually satan, and hated us and wanted us to feel pain, it would then make sense that we could, and should, defy him, for we could be at least somewhat better off in doing so.


You could not be better off in defying God, whether or not you agree with His judgment. Do you think you would win? God struck down the second most powerful being in history, along with a large host of angels. God molded the earth and created life. He made the hereafter. What are you going to do? There can be no victory against God. So defiance for itís own sake? Why? Because you, a regular ordinary man with a limited intellect disagree with the infinite intellect and wisdom of the creator? So you really think any rational 3rd party would choose your logic over His? You have, in conflict with God, no basis for either argumentation or war, only an egotistical pride.

QUOTE
What about a person who is kind, compassionate, and charitable to his fellow man?  Would he somehow not be forgiven simply because he used the wrong name in his prayers; even if his concept of J__H or Allah was identical to your concept of God?


Iíve never said that God would or wouldnít forgive someone. God simply makes it clear what He desires from us, and itís only a reasonable conclusion that false worship would weigh against us. Whether it is a deal maker or breaker, thatís as always Godís call.

QUOTE
Exactly, now apply that to your assertion that you are right and all other religions are wrong.  You are presuming that you have been given revelations showing the Trinity to be the One True God as fact.  Isn't that a bit presumptious and arrogant, thinking that you came to the correct conclusion after reading the Bible while many others didn't?  Or, if you feel that grace comes from God and not yourself, isn't it presumptious for you to state that God gave you the sure knowledge that He is the One True God after reading the Bible; but neglected (or refused) to impart that sure knowledge to others who read the Bible and looked for Enlightenment and Truth?


First, itís a mutual relationship. God doesnít give faith, He simply gives reason for it. Man must be the one to make the move towards Him. Also, itís neither presumption nor arrogance that motivates me. If you see a truth, and you see others are being harmed (even without their knowledge) by not having that truth, isnít it your duty to speak it even if it means offending them? Just like a true friend, a person who really cares will let you know when you are making a mistake. Not condescendingly, but plain and honest. Especially when itís a matter of such great importance.

QUOTE
One last side point:  objective truth must by definition be proveable, otherwise it is subjective truth.


God exists, with or without me.

QUOTE
Honestly, I no longer see the point.  Prayers asking for something are IMHO the height of arrogance.


We absolutely agree on that. Prayer is not magical wishing. It can, however, connect you to God and can be purposeful in showing thanks and seeking forgiveness.


Posted by: necrolyte May 24 2006, 12:56 AM
QUOTE
You could not be better off in defying God, whether or not you agree with His judgment. Do you think you would win? God struck down the second most powerful being in history, along with a large host of angels. God molded the earth and created life. He made the hereafter. What are you going to do? There can be no victory against God. So defiance for itís own sake? Why? Because you, a regular ordinary man with a limited intellect disagree with the infinite intellect and wisdom of the creator? So you really think any rational 3rd party would choose your logic over His? You have, in conflict with God, no basis for either argumentation or war, only an egotistical pride.


Sometimes its better to be right than to win. Someone (or something) can be dead wrong, and still all-wise and all-powerful.

QUOTE
God exists, with or without me.


Proof? What reason do you have to think he's God and not a really powerful being that hates Bhuddism, or Allah, or Osiris?

QUOTE
We absolutely agree on that. Prayer is not magical wishing. It can, however, connect you to God and can be purposeful in showing thanks and seeking forgiveness.


But... I though our victory in Iraq came from Bush and Pat Robertson praying for it! I'm so confused!

Posted by: QWOT May 24 2006, 06:04 AM
Dakyron,

I think you're unfairly projecting the attitudes of your classmates onto acow. I strongly agree that Creation Scientists are not scientists; and it isn't just that their conclusions are refuted by the preponderance of evidence. My disagreement with most of them (not all) is that they allow their bias to affect their methodology. Biased methodology => tainted evidence and theories. I also believe that acow would agree that "scientists that are Christian" =/= Creation Scientists. You really can't blame him for what other people have said to you. dry.gif

I also have yet to see acow do any serious Catholic or Christian bashing. He disagrees with Christianity; but he always does his best to give reasons and support his statements. I guess I see "bashing" as following in the vein of "d00d, you're a fucktard because...", and I've never seen him take that approach.



DS,
QUOTE(Nashismydaddy @ May 23 2006, 02:50 PM)
You could not be better off in defying God, whether or not you agree with His judgment.  Do you think you would win?  God struck down the second most powerful being in history, along with a large host of angels.  God molded the earth and created life.  He made the hereafter.  What are you going to do?  There can be no victory against God.  So defiance for itís own sake?  Why?  Because you, a regular ordinary man with a limited intellect disagree with the infinite intellect and wisdom of the creator?  So you really think any rational 3rd party would choose your logic over His?  You have, in conflict with God, no basis for either argumentation or war, only an egotistical pride.

Are you saying that your basis for "good" is power? Since there is no hope to overcome God, it is "good" to submit no matter what your own ideas/beliefs might be? Does might make right?


QUOTE(Nashismydaddy @ May 23 2006, 02:50 PM)
Iíve never said that God would or wouldnít forgive someone.  God simply makes it clear what He desires from us, and itís only a reasonable conclusion that false worship would weigh against us.  Whether it is a deal maker or breaker, thatís as always Godís call.

But you see, you are judging others by saying "I'm right, they're wrong." That's where I have a problem with your assertion, that you know what God wants. As you said above, you are a "regular ordinary man with a limited intellect"; how can you claim to know what God wants? How can you assert with absolute certainty that you are not either (1) being fooled by another powerful entity impersonating God (e.g. Satan), or (2) misinterpreting what God is saying and what He really wants?

If God is omniscient, he already knows our motives for doing what we do. What reason is there for insisting on using the right name to address Him, or the proper Book (or version of the Book) when he knows whether we believe or have faith or not?



QUOTE(Nashismydaddy @ May 23 2006, 02:50 PM)
God exists, with or without me.

Your subjective truth may match that objective truth; but then again, it might not. Unless you can prove it, then you can't state that you know the objective truth; since "objective truth" means something that can be proven to others by outside evidence. Since we can't hear God speaking to your conscience/soul, that can't be considered an argument for "objective" truth.

I suppose some of this is just semantics; but some of it goes to my distrust and dislike of assertions like "I can't prove, but I know." This especially goes when mortals with finite intellects talk about knowing what God wants without allowing the possiblility of error in interpretation.

Posted by: libvertaruan May 24 2006, 08:47 AM
QUOTE(necrolyte @ May 23 2006, 03:40 AM)
I've heard the "It was probably unrecorded" story before. Its highly unlikely that something of that magnitude would go unrecorded. The Egyptian pharaohs were not ones to record their failures, but usually their failures left significant ripples which can be noted historically. For instance, the Battle of Khadesh (led by the same Ramses the Great believed to have ruled over Moses's escape) we know did not go exactly how Ramses said it went, and we have a clearer picture.
[right][snapback]393902[/snapback][/right]

We have records of such a thing happening, though, and you can find it in pretty much any hotel room.

Posted by: necrolyte May 24 2006, 02:54 PM
QUOTE(libvertaruan @ May 24 2006, 08:47 AM)
We have records of such a thing happening, though, and you can find it in pretty much any hotel room.
[right][snapback]394136[/snapback][/right]


Credible recordings tongue.gif

As far as I'm concerned, the contemporary recordings of the Pharaohs and members of the court are more credible than rabbis who lived 600 years later.

Posted by: JLord May 24 2006, 03:46 PM
Even if a religious text were a credible record of history, the bible suffers from other problems. We don't know who wrote most of it for one. And where we do know, it was often a pretty poor source such as someone who lived long after the events they are describing. And it's hard to explain why the texts of the NT were chosen over other texts of the period without believing in some kind of divine intervention.

Posted by: necrolyte May 24 2006, 04:12 PM
QUOTE(JLord @ May 24 2006, 03:46 PM)
Even if a religious text were a credible record of history, the bible suffers from other problems.  We don't know who wrote most of it for one.  And where we do know, it was often a pretty poor source such as someone who lived long after the events they are describing.  And it's hard to explain why the texts of the NT were chosen over other texts of the period without believing in some kind of divine intervention.
[right][snapback]394214[/snapback][/right]


Also, most biblical records we have are not first-hand. The walls of the Egyptian pyramids ARE first hand-people alive at the time wrote that, not someone apparently copying something else.

Posted by: Dakyron May 24 2006, 09:54 PM
Walls of the pyramids were also the writings chosen by those building them. I dont think the Pharoah would let them write just anything on there...

EDIT:

Nevertheless, what does the accuracy of the Bible have to do with the crock of shit that was posted orginally?

Posted by: necrolyte May 24 2006, 11:05 PM
No but the Rabbis would not just write anything in the Bible. One issue is that the Jews had hundreds of years of censors, the Pharaoh only had one.

Posted by: Dragonspirit May 24 2006, 11:28 PM
QUOTE
Are you saying that your basis for "good" is power? Since there is no hope to overcome God, it is "good" to submit no matter what your own ideas/beliefs might be? Does might make right?


Not the basis for good, but part of the basis of God. Part of faith is belief in God's goodness (without that, there's no point after all). God tells you to do something, you don't think it would be the best course of action. Consider that you know far, far less than God and that you have faith, you do the act.

QUOTE
But you see, you are judging others by saying "I'm right, they're wrong."


There is a difference between judging right and wrong, and presuming to judge individuals as worthy of God's grace or not. Of course we judge right and wrong. You do it everyday, so do I. To cloak yourself in moral or religious ambiguity in that regard isn't humility, it's equivocation, and it does your fellow man no good. No one wants to hear that they are wrong, but sometimes they need to.

QUOTE
how can you claim to know what God wants? How can you assert with absolute certainty that you are not either (1) being fooled by another powerful entity impersonating God (e.g. Satan), or (2) misinterpreting what God is saying and what He really wants?


God makes it clear what He wants. The Commandments, quite simply, are God's most clear and unambigious instructions. Satan can't fool you from being faithful. He can deceive you, he can tempt you, but he doesn't get to take your free will. He can't stop you from doing what is necessary to please God.

QUOTE
What reason is there for insisting on using the right name to address Him, or the proper Book (or version of the Book) when he knows whether we believe or have faith or not?


God says we are not to worship other things. Would you expect God to think a polythiest should be considered one of His worshippers? You seem to acknoledge that at the least belief and faith to some degree are required.

Posted by: libvertaruan May 25 2006, 12:50 AM
There's not much writing on the walls of the pyramids; none at all, really (minus something graffiti-like). There's stuff around it, but that's all.

Posted by: acow May 25 2006, 01:22 AM
QUOTE
The Commandments, quite simply, are God's most clear and unambigious instructions.


How do you know that?
(no seriously. How did you, DS, come upon the knowlege that the 10 commandments were instructions from god and that you were not mistaken in this knowlege.)

Posted by: necrolyte May 25 2006, 03:15 AM
QUOTE(Nashismydaddy @ May 24 2006, 11:28 PM)
God makes it clear what He wants.  The Commandments, quite simply, are God's most clear and unambigious instructions.  Satan can't fool you from being faithful.  He can deceive you, he can tempt you, but he doesn't get to take your free will.  He can't stop you from doing what is necessary to please God.
God says we are not to worship other things.  Would you expect God to think a polythiest should be considered one of His worshippers?  You seem to acknoledge that at the least belief and faith to some degree are required.
[right][snapback]394325[/snapback][/right]


I'm with Acow, how did you come to that? There are plenty of laws in the Bible, many are contradictory. The New Testament lays down some more general, but much more generous requriements for the followers.

Now how do you KNOW that Satan cannot fool you from being faithful? How do you know that the God you worship is not in fact an imp which hates Bhuddism and wants to drive humanity down the path of war, desire, and spiritual decline?

Now God says we are not to worship other things, but its clear that the early Jews recognized foreign Gods as the Egyptians recognized Baal, the Greeks recognized Osiris, and the Romans recognized Isis.

Posted by: Dakyron May 25 2006, 03:54 AM
QUOTE(acow @ May 24 2006, 06:22 PM)
How do you know that?
(no seriously.  How did you, DS, come upon the knowlege that the 10 commandments were instructions from god and that you were not mistaken in this knowlege.)
[right][snapback]394344[/snapback][/right]


God told me.

biggrin.gif


Seriously though, the commandments were the actual words of God himself, while the Bible was the word of man inspired by God...

Posted by: QWOT May 25 2006, 04:50 AM
QUOTE(Dakyron @ May 24 2006, 07:54 PM)
God told me.

biggrin.gif
Seriously though, the commandments were the actual words of God himself, while the Bible was the word of man inspired by God...
[right][snapback]394364[/snapback][/right]

So you've seen the actual stone tablets? Where else have you learned the Commandments except through the writings of mortals?

Posted by: Dragonspirit May 25 2006, 05:40 AM
QUOTE
How do you know that?
(no seriously. How did you, DS, come upon the knowlege that the 10 commandments were instructions from god and that you were not mistaken in this knowlege.)


How can you not? It's weird to me that you lack that perception.

Read them, understand them and then follow them. Your very question is simply reasking the main question - how do I know there is a God? If you read the Bible, if you pray to God, and most importantly if you live the words in deed and in spirit you will find the truth. You will find faith. And you will know.

Frankly, the question is just like asking how do I know I am really alive and not just a computer program or can I prove love exists to someone who hasn't felt it. I don't have a deep "I think therefore I am" to respond with. I can't answer the question for you. I can only tell you where to begin looking to find the answer.

There are a lot of obstacles, and it's not easy. People will mock you. People will try to distract or confuse you. You will be given every easy opportunity and temptation to do just the opposite. You think that's by chance? There are forces out there that WANT you to fail. You might not know it, but your whole life has purpose in it's test. And you have hope. While those other forces might have means to distract you, they can not obstruct your path if you'll take it.

Posted by: acow May 25 2006, 08:15 AM
QUOTE
How can you not? It's weird to me that you lack that perception.


What's weird is that you can ask how someone can't have that perception. Why don't you ask every child that's ever been born, and every person on earth that's ever lived in a non-christian culture. We're born without it. That's how.

That you can find it weird that someone lacks that perception, given that every person on earth has presumably done so, including yourself, at least until you were introduced to a bible or the 10 commandments is...weird...to me.

And if i may be so forthright in saying so, my notion of not realising the 10 commandments as inherently truthful is not the position that requires us to go against the empirical evidence of every human ever born and all evidence on earth that clearly shows humans are not born with this knowlege, and are not destined to recieve it without direct access to the bible.

Posted by: Dakyron May 25 2006, 04:00 PM
QUOTE(QWOT @ May 24 2006, 09:50 PM)
So you've seen the actual stone tablets?  Where else have you learned the Commandments except through the writings of mortals?
[right][snapback]394366[/snapback][/right]


In regards to the accuracy of the creation of the commandments, I have no answer. I was answering in regards to how to know the commandments take precendent over anything contradictory in the Bible.

Posted by: JLord May 25 2006, 04:46 PM
Well the bible just says what somebody thought the tablets say. There are other places in the Bible where the words of God or recorded. I don't see how the commandments should be given any priority over other words of God.

Posted by: Dragonspirit May 25 2006, 06:46 PM
ACow:

First, I'll save Necro the time with "Appeal to Majority"... but he doesn't usually care about fallacies if it's for his side of the argument so NM. smile.gif And if you'd claim that such isn't an appeal, then how do you reconcile that so many (in fact, most) people believe in a 'monotheistic' God.

Second, I was referring specifically to those who had been exposed to The Bible and the word of God, had made a genuine effort to find that connection, and failed to realize it. That's quite weird, because it's right there for all to see.

People obviously can live ignorant of the truth, but that doesn't change what actually IS the truth.

Posted by: JLord May 25 2006, 07:00 PM
QUOTE(Nashismydaddy @ May 25 2006, 12:46 PM)
how do you reconcile that so many (in fact, most) people believe in a 'monotheistic' God.
[right][snapback]394437[/snapback][/right]


Well I think it goes back to the days when most people in the world were essentially forced to believe in such a God. The fact that most people were also uneducated adds to this. If you are forced by penalty of death to believe in a certain God, and you don't know any better because you are uneducated, you will end up following that God. And there are many countries today where this is nearly the case.

Since then, people have been raised from birth generation after generation to believe in a certain God. It is not hard to indoctrinate someone to believe something that is false if you do it from birth, and if all of society supports you endeavor. Now, as more and more people become educated and governments are forced to seperate themselves from religion, you see less people believing in God or following a religion. Of course, in poor countries without education you don't have this decline. Same goes for countries where the religion is still enforced by the state.

Posted by: Dragonspirit May 25 2006, 07:23 PM
That's an interesting theory, but I would refer to any decline in belief as not attributable to education (that is not to say the educational system doesn't propagandize people against religion) but rather to the corruption of culture largely through Hollywood and the media in current times.

Selfishness, greed, arrogance are all glorified. The temporary, the trendy, hell, even rebellion against good is made to be glamourized.

So, whereas you see any trends against belief in God as progress, I know them to be quite regressive. There were historical examples of corruption, of athiesm, and other debauchery. From the Roman Empire to examples in the Bible of Sodom and Gamorrah.

This is nothing new.

Posted by: JLord May 25 2006, 07:54 PM
QUOTE(Nashismydaddy @ May 25 2006, 01:23 PM)
That's an interesting theory, but I would refer to any decline in belief as not attributable to education (that is not to say the educational system doesn't propagandize people against religion) but rather to the corruption of culture largely through Hollywood and the media in current times.
[right][snapback]394447[/snapback][/right]


That could be part of it. As I mentioned, in the past society supported religious views much more than today. So it is more likely that someone who is raised to believe in God will change their beliefs. This is also due to the fact that people are much better educated today and therefore less likely to follow illogical belief systems.

QUOTE
So, whereas you see any trends against belief in God as progress, I know them to be quite regressive. There were historical examples of corruption, of athiesm, and other debauchery. From the Roman Empire to examples in the Bible of Sodom and Gamorrah.


Believing in other Gods besides yours can hardly be called atheism. Of course the Bible lists numerous problems that come to anyone who worships other Gods.

Things like homosexuality are seen as a negative by many due to religion. Same goes for things like pronography, violent movies, promiscuous attire, etc. Lots of people agree with you that this represents a corruption of culture, but that is due to religious beliefs.

Posted by: JLord May 25 2006, 08:10 PM
It takes a lot of work to indoctrinate someone with a false belief to the point that they will reject reason. You would have to do it from birth, and have the support of that person's society. You have to set it up so that most people who the child deals with are in on the joke, or believe themselves in the same false belief. Take Santa for example. If you were the only person who had ever heard of Santa it would be hard to convince your kid Santa was real for very long. But in North America everyone knows to keep up the Santa line around kids. Kids see Santa all over in the media and whatnot as well. So kids generally believe until they are old enough to realize the impossibility of it all.

It also helps if people are uneducated. If a kid never learned about things like how big the world is, how airplanes fly, etc. they might never realize that it would be impossible for Santa to visit every kid, or for a sled to fly. Same goes for religion, back when people didn't know how the world was created, how the planets moved, what a rainbow is, how we evolved, etc., things like that were attributed to God. As more and more facts are discovered about the world, it becomes harder and harder to maintain the spell.

And certainly the media has hurt the spread of religion in North America. Like the "gay agenda" for example. Religious people view this an evil corruption of values. But I think when more and more people started "coming out" people relalized that religion was illogical in this regard. So people were faced with either supporting an irrational fear of homosexuality, simply ignoring what their religion says about homosexuals, or giving up religion. Some people obviously chose the latter.

Posted by: necrolyte May 26 2006, 05:25 AM
QUOTE(Nashismydaddy @ May 25 2006, 06:46 PM)
ACow:

First, I'll save Necro the time with "Appeal to Majority"... but he doesn't usually care about fallacies if it's for his side of the argument so NM. smile.gif  And if you'd claim that such isn't an appeal, then how do you reconcile that so many (in fact, most) people believe in a 'monotheistic' God.
[right][snapback]394437[/snapback][/right]


I didnt see any appeal to majority. However, as JLord said, Mithraists, Manicheists, Pagan Europeans, Aztec, Inca, Maya, many Africans, and others were FORCED to convert to Christianity, and Hindus, Zoroastrians (monotheistic but not one of the "Big three"), Manicheists, and African Pagans have been forcefully converted to Islam. You see Christianity of ex-Slaves or ex-Aztecs, its much different than your Christianity. Its because they did not wilingly give up their old traditions.

QUOTE
Second, I was referring specifically to those who had been exposed to The Bible and the word of God, had made a genuine effort to find that connection, and failed to realize it.  That's quite weird, because it's right there for all to see.


If the truth is all there, and they were open to it and trying to see it, how could they have missed? Is it not more reasonable to think that the "truth" is really subjective?

QUOTE
People obviously can live ignorant of the truth, but that doesn't change what actually IS the truth.


And you've given us no reason to believe that your truth is the truth in question.

QUOTE
That's an interesting theory, but I would refer to any decline in belief as not attributable to education (that is not to say the educational system doesn't propagandize people against religion) but rather to the corruption of culture largely through Hollywood and the media in current times.

Selfishness, greed, arrogance are all glorified. The temporary, the trendy, hell, even rebellion against good is made to be glamourized.

So, whereas you see any trends against belief in God as progress, I know them to be quite regressive. There were historical examples of corruption, of athiesm, and other debauchery. From the Roman Empire to examples in the Bible of Sodom and Gamorrah.

This is nothing new.


The Roman Empire, Sodom/Gommorah, and those other examples were not atheist. You DO realize that Atheists do not believe in any sort of religious affiliation, and if you believe in Zeus, Mithra, Jupiter, or Osiris, you are NOT ATHEISTIC?

Now debauchery and corruption have little to do with educated agnosticism. A Christian can be incredibly corrupt and hedonistic, an agnostic or atheist or pagan can be incredibly generous and empathetic.

Posted by: Telum May 26 2006, 12:44 PM
QUOTE(Nashismydaddy @ May 25 2006, 03:23 PM)
From the Roman Empire to examples in the Bible of Sodom and Gamorrah.
[right][snapback]394447[/snapback][/right]


Christianity contributed to the fall of Rome, not athesim.

Posted by: Nalvaros May 26 2006, 04:11 PM
Side note:
QUOTE
Then they just try to make whatever they find fit that conclusion. People who do this should not be listened to.


In theory, scientists judge evidence on its own merit. However while its all nice and well to accuse "Christian scientists" of being biased, or ignoring evidence it should probably be recognised that this is far from limited to them. I am aware of a number of instances (many of which inidentally have nothing to do with religion) where the scientific community, secure in the dogmatic belief that they were right outright rejected theories/evidence contradicting conventional view, only capitulating when the accumulated evidence was so overwhelming they could no longer ignore it. If they had followed the scientific principles commonly espoused, I would have thought they would at least consider the merits of proposed theories and evidence backing supporting it instead of dismissing it offhand.
The first example that comes to hand is stress and stomach ulcers, but there are others if you look for them.

Edit: I also get the general impression that a widespread and prevalent attitude amongst scientists is that if a theory is currently generally accepted, evidence contradicting the theory is summarily ignored, and unless an alternate theory is offered that can account for it, the conventional theory is held to be correct. Not the best available but incomplete explaination, but correct.
The exception to this is if the area is currently receiving alot of interest from the sicentific community. Only then are alternate theories considered with any real seriousness without having to produce reams of incontrovertible evidence.


Posted by: JLord May 26 2006, 04:47 PM
QUOTE(Nalvaros @ May 26 2006, 10:11 AM)
In theory, scientists judge evidence on its own merit. However while its all nice and well to accuse "Christian scientists" of being biased, or ignoring evidence it should probably be recognised that this is far from limited to them. I am aware of a number of instances (many of which inidentally have nothing to do with religion) where the scientific community, secure in the dogmatic belief that they were right outright rejected theories/evidence contradicting conventional view, only capitulating when the accumulated evidence was so overwhelming they could no longer ignore it. [right][snapback]394572[/snapback][/right]


True, and would criticize those scholars or scientists in the same way.

Posted by: necrolyte May 26 2006, 08:56 PM
QUOTE(Nalvaros @ May 26 2006, 04:11 PM)
Side note:
In theory, scientists judge evidence on its own merit. However while its all nice and well to accuse "Christian scientists" of being biased, or ignoring evidence it should probably be recognised that this is far from limited to them. I am aware of a number of instances (many of which inidentally have nothing to do with religion) where the scientific community, secure in the dogmatic belief that they were right outright rejected theories/evidence contradicting conventional view, only capitulating when the accumulated evidence was so overwhelming they could no longer ignore it. If they had followed the scientific principles commonly espoused, I would have thought they would at least consider the merits of proposed theories and evidence backing supporting it instead of dismissing it offhand.
The first example that comes to hand is stress and stomach ulcers, but there are others if you look for them.

Edit: I also get the general impression that a widespread and prevalent attitude amongst scientists is that if a theory is currently generally accepted, evidence contradicting the theory is summarily ignored, and unless an alternate theory is offered that can account for it, the conventional theory is held to be correct. Not the best available but incomplete explaination, but correct.
The exception to this is if the area is currently receiving alot of interest from the sicentific community. Only then are alternate theories considered with any real seriousness without having to produce reams of incontrovertible evidence.
[right][snapback]394572[/snapback][/right]


Sure, I linked the Piltdown hoax, which was not religions it was racial.

Powered by Invision Power Board (http://www.invisionboard.com)
© Invision Power Services (http://www.invisionpower.com)