"Don't macro so much - make more units instead"
-DarkHawke
|
#1  [56932] | | 208.196.35.239 | Sorry about the fan fic, I was bored at work and thought you guys might enjoy this.
Cheers,
Dref | #2  [56933] | | csdi2-proxy.support.compaq.com | Wow, I have no idea what the hell I just read. But it was written by Drefsab SO IT HAS TO BE GOOOD! hehe
Fox^1 | | #3 SCV~007[56934] | | t1o957p92.telia.com | | Early comment yeehaw | | #4 The..Scarab[56936] | | ACA9BC6C.ipt.aol.com | eeeeeeheeeheeeheeeheeeeeeee
that was somethign else man
awesome, ive always wanted to see one of those pussy chucrch boys go down. Especially to that bitch kerrigan.
-Scarab | | #5 CynicalMagician[56937] | | px1cl.gv.wave.shaw.ca | Ummm.... Ok. That was fun Dref, although I don't really know what to say... it's like you got more and more drunk as you wrote, and the story got exponentially weirder. Kinda fun though. Are these 2 weird fan fics signs of things to come?
-CM | | #6 ChinksWithGuns[56938] | | adsl-63-193-153-8.dsl.lsan03.pacbell.net | | so The Den = Hydralisk Den? cool | | #7 Fractal_Wave[56939] | | 24.64.214.37.bc.wave.home.com | Dref has issues. But we still love him.
All the best,
Fractal_Wave | | #8 SlingsNArrows[56940] | | bgm-24-95-150-230.stny.rr.com | some twisted coincidences that freaked me out as I read this. I have a den, it's where I play star craft. It has only one window and a little heater unit for the winters. the venetian blinds are always closed because the sun shiens in my eyes during the day and people stare into my window at night :o(
also, I had an unusually deep chicken pock mark on my forehead. Dref... are u messing with me here? eh? u don't happen to work at Binghamton General Hospital do you? | | #9 Dialtone_[56941] | | athe530-p236.otenet.gr | | Dref... dude... bro... pass the weed please? :D | | #10 SlingsNArrows[56942] | | bgm-24-95-150-230.stny.rr.com | | in addition there is a "tent revival" going on in the parking lot of an abandoned grocery store 3 blocks away and the crazy churchies are out in force. fuxing weird man. | | #11 JawaAvenger[56943] | | d6-22.hntnny.optonline.net | This was pretty...ummm...
Strange? No...
Demented? No...
Wack? No...
Bad? No...
Kick Ass?
| | #12 SqueakyMonkey[56944] | | osh1-72d.twcny.rr.com | This was funny, in a very sick, disturbing kind of way.
I have a creep rug of my own, it used to be a pizza box. Now it's just...creepy (HAHAHA, I MADE FUNNY!).
Definetly gold, probably an 8/9. | | #13 [56945] | | as530063.infocom.com | Slings... haha, My queen has you parasited... ;-)
Chinks... it was a little subtle, but good job picking it up... :-)
CM... I don't know, we'll see... ;-)
Cheers,
Dref
| | #14 [56946] | | as530063.infocom.com | By the way guys, its okay to rate this. This is Report #11 since Mark posted so this is not part of the Rater Test... ;-)
So Fox, what are you waiting for?
Dref | | #15 Napoleic[56947] | | 24.66.179.206.bc.wave.home.com | | haha I hate those bible banging door to door bastards! Good call Dref! | | #16 Breeze[56948] | | 213.177.1.250 | Heh Dref... that was a surprise... as ever... I enjoyed it
Have fun | | #17 IceKiller[56949] | | 207.1.112.136 | Simply outrageous, weirdo, nuts, loco, strange... in other words good work dref. You're still the number one writer. :P.
IceK
WWW.ZSFA.COM
| | #18 [56950] | | as530015.infocom.com | Thanks for the links IceKiller... on this one and the last one... :-)
Dref | | #19 SpendingG's(TH)[56952] | | spider-ti012.proxy.aol.com | | Drefsab have you ever considered writing a novel? At first it sounded depressing then interestingly odd. Good Job! | | #20 Shepherd[56953] | | cm-24-161-50-141.nycap.rr.com | | Restraining myself from commenting. | | #21 [56954] | | csdi2-proxy.support.compaq.com | Alright Dref! =P This report was bizzare, and funny, but then again it wasn't as good as I hoped it to be. Kinda quick IMO. But your writing none the less is still top notch.
7
Fox^1 | #22  [56955] | | dt031nab.tampabay.rr.com | | fun-kay | | #23 wangsonn[56956] | | fcs01gsp.gsp.bellsouth.net | | Are there door to door bible seller guys? I never seen any. Anyways your very strange dref. | | #24 testosterone[56957] | | mkc-94-167-4.kc.rr.com | | u must be really bored at work eh? a "little" different from the other "normal" fan fics, daydreaming can be fun eh :) | | #25 Dr.Zchivago[56959] | | proxy1-external.bremtn1.wa.home.com | Dref,
<b><font size="+2">I love this stuff<i>!!!</i></font></b>
This is so dark, morbid, demented, and just plain fucked up, I love it.
I was laughing the whole time. =)
-Dr.Z
| | #26 TempleMan[56960] | | ilmtzn264.one-eleven.net | I well dref I'm sorry to say that I was looking for something else man....
Something that didn't get me to laugh my ass off most of the time.
good job man keep it up | | #27 ~Moronic_Storm~[56961] | | win-al-pm4-148.pepperlink.net | Scarab, do you have something against "church boys?" Because I happen to be one of them.
~Moronic_Storm~ | | #28 DaGeek[56962] | | dhcp31171194.columbus.rr.com | | Excellent writing, Dref. I enjoyed the story. The protagonist hit a little too close to home for me, though... as I sit my 31-year-old ass in my den here in the midwest... | | #29 The..Scarab[56963] | | AC8D69DE.ipt.aol.com | The people I have something against are the kind of fagots that come up to me at school with there bibles and start preaching shit and im like go away and there like no i must send the word of god and im like um shut up and there like the lord will fogive that comment and then i go nuts being pissed off at how they wasted about 30 minutes of my day and here is the period to this sentence
. | | #30 The..Scarab[56964] | | AC8D69DE.ipt.aol.com | and btw,
religion should NEVER come online
also btw im aeithest, argh i dont care how u spell it.
| | #31 Anti-Progress[56966] | | bay1-38.daktel.com | | You know what Dref? You have the coolest writing style that I have ever seen. You should seriously think about writing a novel, that was sorta Stephen King like when you had taken a remotely normal situaltion and twisted it to be completely insane. you should take all this crazy inspiration that you get and write a big ol' novel about a StarCraft addict like we all are. | | #32 Sp|nE[56967] | | dialup1722-pri.voicenet.com | | People, things like this are why Dref is in the HOF | | #33 livingexception[56968] | | spider-tl053.proxy.aol.com | | Dref, you have gone nuts I think. First lesbo love, and then the Zerg as a religion. It was really wierd, especially the creep carpet. I would like to say I am Christian, but not a door t door evangelist. Those guys' efforts are a little misguided. I believe that if people want to find God, they will find him on thier own. If people don't they don't.I agree with Scarab though: the internet and religion don't mix. | | #34 Napoleic[56969] | | 24.66.179.206.bc.wave.home.com | Exactly. When you get religious over the net, things can turn ugly real fast. I've always been a fervent atheist, and proud of it :)
Once I started a cult for the fun of it, but it didn't really fly... I was in grade 8, so it was pretty hard. Come on, cut me some slack here! | | #35 Snork~Dimmy[56970] | | async224-per2-isp-2.nas.one.net.au | well that was a little different than normal, but once again i loved this fan-fic, the lesbo BW game was great and now a zerg religion, what can u come up with next...
cant wait to see your next one!!
8
<font color="red">Snork~Dimmy</font> | | #36 oooooo[56971] | | spider-wb083.proxy.aol.com | | Boyz Boyz be my boyz i wanna feel your body boyz boyz be my boyz......boyz boyz be my boyz i wanna feel your body boyz boyz im feelin happy...... O YEAH BABY !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! | | #37 The_Star[56972] | | spider-wb083.proxy.aol.com | This is a story about a girl named Lucky.
Early Morning, she wakes up
Knock, Knock, Knock on the door
It's time for makeup, perfect smile
It's you they're all waiting for
They go...
"Isn't she lovely, this Hollywood girl?"
And they say..
THIS BATTLE REPORTS ROCKED MAN!! KEEP IT UP!!!!
The_Star | | #38 Skullbattalion[56975] | | krypton.shreve.net | | Well damn. That scared the shit out of me damnit! Next time worn me your going to type somthing like that. Now if you will excuse me i have to go and change my underwear. Thanks alot drefs! | | #39 ummm[56978] | | 169.philadelphia-08-09rs.pa.dial-access.att.net | | I think you might need counseling . . . | | #40 [56979] | | as530072.infocom.com | Wow<i>!</i> A Stephen King comparison<i>!</i> Gotta love that... :-)
**<i>Dref's head swells</i>**
Cheers,
Dref | | #41 Sonneillon[56981] | | tsdlsk01d01010130.sk.sympatico.ca | Indeed, Drefsab has many <i>issues</i>, but if a person's writing can make me belly laugh, they are doing something right.
A well deserved 7. Keep this up, I love it.
-Sonny Bouy | | #42 [56982] | | dt031nab.tampabay.rr.com | The..Scarab : idiot
dref : too bad stephen king sucks | | #43 [URA]DumB_@$$[56986] | | 203.185.24.18 | | That story was so FUBAR. I still confused about what to think about it i liked the chicks one better. | | #44 King_[LSRS-13][56988] | | c1081558-a.clmba1.mo.home.com | | Ummmmm..........ummmmmm...........ahhhhhhhhh.....uhhhhhhhh.....no comment...... | | #45 [56989] | | as530058.infocom.com | Hmmm, Stephen King is a "pop" writer and while his stories don't have a lot of substance, he does a good job of fleshing out his characters and making them seem like real people.
Other than that I agree with you, most of his work is pretty sensational... I did enjoy <i>The Stand</i> and <i>Needful Things</i> though.
Cheers,
Dref | | #46 BW-sux[56993] | | spider-wb072.proxy.aol.com | Fuxed up, demented sort of funny again.
9
BW-sux | | #47 Mogalin[56994] | | ACA2A4FE.ipt.aol.com | Erm
Speechless.
Battlereports.com? | | #48 Total~2bh[56995] | | sy-ce-01.free.net.au | i liked this fan fic 10x more than the lesbian one..
Everything was good expcept it got a bit over the top when u said he " banged his head three times against the desk " i just couldnt picture it.. And i could picture the throw rug swallowing the bible basher so thats saying something :)...
All in all i liked it | | #49 Dark0n3[56997] | | host-209-214-161-190.rdu.bellsouth.net | Surprising, i didn't expect the swarm to be your god, just thought this was about a geek....
Funny IMO - I wouldn't mind living forever as a cereberate as long as I could turn into my original human form (NO KERRIGAN-ATED HUMAN FORM EITHER). Being able to control zergies would be fun, and since you could make any animal who's DNA you have pop out of a spore you plant in the ground would e REAL nice. Well, that and being able to turn into a Bio-Gundam of sorts would be appreciated...
Scarab - if you're athiest, i hope there is an afterlife of some type: Ceasing to exist in all ways when U die would be the worst thing this universe could do to U since the Universe has made life hell for most all thier life! | | #50 CynicalMagician[56998] | | px1cl.gv.wave.shaw.ca | Call me cynical, but I really dont think that writing a 4 page fan fic qualifies Dref to be able to be able to write a novel. Short stories, yes. Most of the HOF'ers here would be excellent at that, but novels are a whole different can of worms, as they say. Even .Praetor's epic is 75 or 80 pages, which is enough for a short novella (or a long short story), but it takes a helluva lot to write a novel.
I'm not trying to rain on anyone's parade, but rather be realistic. Don't let reality get in the way of your dreams. (I'm not being sarcastic there)
-CM | | #51 CynicalMagician[56999] | | px1cl.gv.wave.shaw.ca | Dark0n3 (L33T hax0r writing duly noted): The practice of 'making one cease to exist' has been implemented in interrogations, or they have been trying to implement it that way. Basically the victim is placed in a scuba suit, has his or her nose and ears filled with cotton, has a general freezing/anesthetic put in them, and is lowered into a big inky black vat of stuff that is exactly room temperature (so it doesn't feel like anything) and basically the person is left in there for an hour or so with almost no sensory stimulation. When they come out the idea is that they've been so deprived of any kind of contact that they will give their info or whatever. I thought it was kinda neat. Hellish too.
-CM | | #52 WarLeaderJustin[57000] | | spider-wq062.proxy.aol.com | The only kind of religion there is is that "DREFSAB-ISM."
This BR:
<font face="10"><font color="yellow">200%
Drefsab:
<font face="10"><font color="yellow">500% | | #53 [57003] | | as530058.infocom.com | Geez Cynical, cut me some slack. For all you know, I am a world famous writer and I do battlereporting to cure my writer's bloc.
He was just trying to compliment me. There was no reason for you to butt in there.
Dref | | #54 Wisest~Yoda[57007] | | pm3-1-153.boscobel.mwt.net | this was extremely fucked up but dref wrote it so ownage.
er ya
later
yoda | | #55 Phobos_ColZ[57008] | | spider-wg041.proxy.aol.com | Well, I'm almost afraid to comment on anything controversial for fear of Shock posting another rebuttal that puts Lincoln and Douglas to shame :] but here goes: A story about false gods is nothing new but putting it in a Starcraft setting is certainly, uhhh, original and unexpected. Just as Johnny from “A Day in the Life of Johnny” had his escape from life revolves around Starcraft, so does this guy. Problem is, adults are supposed to have a better grip on reality. So while having some guy obsessed with Starcraft is believable, turning it into a religion is, well, bizarre. The reason so many people liked Day in the Life of Johnny was that it was frighteningly believable, while Love Story was so obviously unrealistic that it was hilarious. This kinda falls in the middle, and while some parts were certainly funny (I have had some bad experiences with Jehovah’s Witnesses) this really didn’t feel like a Drefsab fan-fic. But for something spawned by boredom, its still pretty damn good. All in all sold 7.
As ever,
Phobos_ColZ | | #56 KetchupFactory[57011] | | webcache.hat.netdoor.com | | Very enjoyable, far more so then the lesbian sex scene in my opinion (though im a minority on that issue). | | #57 JFeTT[57017] | | ro04-204-210-189-182.ce.mediaone.net | | Careful when you say everyone has a god drefsab. When you say everyone, That implies the whole majority of the world depends on a god. Not everyone does have a god. I know this is a fanfic and not to take it seriously...but I just had to say that.. | | #58 KetchupFactory[57018] | | webcache.hat.netdoor.com | Blah blah blah
Look at me im an aethist
blah blah blah
Im big and bad I have no god
Yada yada yada
Im so coolishly scientific...
Ohhhh!
Wait!
Scientific....maybe science is your god?
WOOHOOO! Vindication, the statement "everyone has a God" still stands.
Ok, im going to sleep | | #59 JFeTT[57019] | | ro04-204-210-189-182.ce.mediaone.net | | Careful when you say everyone has a god drefsab. When you say everyone, That implies the whole majority of the world depends on a god. Not everyone does have a god. I know this is a fanfic and not to take it seriously...but I just had to say that.. | | #60 JFeTT[57020] | | ro04-204-210-189-182.ce.mediaone.net | | Damn refresh button | | #61 Garett[57021] | | proxy.netsetter.org | | OMFG, this was immensely gay, and not to mention really stupid. | | #62 Phoenix-S-[57023] | | r-174.51.alltel.net | OMG this rox!
Dref > All
<center><font color=gold>10</font></center>
I seriously like these Dref fanfics better than most reports :o
Start doing these on a regular basis PLZ! | | #63 Phoenix-S-[57024] | | r-174.51.alltel.net | | Hm, once again KetchupFactory proves he is an immature idiot, insulting the religion of others. Hm, I wonder how many people here at BR.com are aethiests? So far I know of me, and The..Scarab. Any others? | | #64 Krebster[57028] | | spider-te022.proxy.aol.com | | rofl | | #65 Flisk[57029] | | cwipnc01.bigpond.com | | Morbid plus :P | | #66 Breeze[57031] | | 213.177.1.250 | | Judging from the way it's pronounced in Bulgarian, isn't it ATHEIST in English? | | #67 Breeze[57032] | | 213.177.1.250 | | Oops I posted it before reading Zumbooruk comment =] | | #68 [57035] | | 208.196.35.239 | Phobos,
You make some excellent points. What I was trying to accomplish, was turning a slightly unusual but not unbelievable situation into something strange and completely unexpected.
I didn't spend as much time on this as I could have and going back through, a couple of changes may have made the story better.
Someone commented on the head banging and I agree that may have been a little overdramatic. Also the ending turned out being more comic then sinister and sinister probably would have gone better with the first half of the story which had a sort of dark feel to it.
Anyhow, it still turned out pretty well and I'm not totally displeased with it.
Thanks for the comments guys, the critiquing really helps.
#69 owns you... :-)
Cheers,
Dref | | #69 [57036] | | 208.196.35.239 | Oh, and as for religon, I didn't specifically single out any particular group of Christians although if you read what the men say, you can probably see 3 or 4 different groups represented in their point ofview.
Cheers,
Dref | | #70 KetchupFactory[57041] | | webcache.hat.netdoor.com | Insulting the religion of others?
Im horribly Agnostic, and likely know more about Aethism, Christianity, and Agnostism then you ever well (go ahead, try me :)
I wasnt insulting. The fact is that Aethism in and of itself is the worship of science. It places empirical thought and scientific theory above all, and when in doubt, it suggest you turn to science. Listening to an Aethist describe evolution and why it proves the non-existance of God is much like listening to a Jehovah witness tell me how God is the way and the light. There isnt anything wrong with that, its the facts of life.
Oh god, oops...you dont know what am saying do you? Me and my 3 syllable words again...damn!
| | #71 KetchupFactory[57042] | | webcache.hat.netdoor.com | Oh yeah Pheonix, dont call anyone an idiot unless you can actually say something in your comment semi-intelligent besides
"Look at me, im such a dolt I misunderstood someone comment. Oh yeah, im also real cool cause I dont believe in god! Wooohooo!"
Last point, its intresting that you consider Aethism a religion..... (ohhhhh!) "insulting the religion of others." | | #72 [57046] | | 208.196.35.239 | Phoenix,
Before you go off on a tangent you should probably keep in mind that there is a distinct difference between Athiesm and Agnosticism... :-)
Cheers,
Dref | | #73 Phoenix-S-[57049] | | lrar5pp60.alltel.net | | Maybe I have my termanology wrong? As far as <b>I</b> know, agnosticism means you are not sure about your religion, and athiesm is when you have no religion. Either way I'm kindof in between the two. | | #74 Phoenix-S-[57050] | | lrar5pp60.alltel.net | | Oh yeah, I'm only angry about him mocking Aethiests, nothing else. | | #75 CynicalMagician[57051] | | px1cl.gv.wave.shaw.ca | Agnostic: You don't believe in God, and you don't not believe in god.
Aethiest: You don't believe in God.
Dref: Referring to a comment I made quite a while ago, I'm still looking for a hack that makes people read the end of the things I write.
<i>"I'm not trying to rain on anyone's parade, but rather be realistic. Don't let reality get in the way of your dreams."</i>
When I find it, I'll let everyone know.
-CM | | #76 [57052] | | 208.196.35.239 | Cynical,
Bah, you said it, then you took it back. Better to not say it at all...
Don't worry about it though. I'll just make fun of you in my next story to make up for it... ;-)
Cheers,
Dref | | #77 CynicalMagician[57054] | | px2cl.gv.wave.shaw.ca | | I should've put 'But' in front of my second sentence. Point is is that there is a fine line between optimism and being niave. | | #78 [57061] | | 208.196.35.239 | Hmmm, true...
However, I am still going to make fun of you in my next story... :D
Cheers,
Dref | | #79 FoxDragoon[57073] | | dialup-209.245.7.198.Denver1.Level3.net | I don't know what is wrong with you people, why do you bash on people that belive in God?Have they ever done anything wrong other than possibly try save your eternal life?! These people have found a way of healing themselves from the harsh scars of the world have done to them. They are smart enough to realize that the world sucks! They are happy that they have found someone to hang on to in their tough times; God. Christians have actually have left their old ways, sometimes being abusive to their children or compulsive drinkers, belive me, ive seen it. And if you dont belive in Jesus i couldnt care less, frankly I do also oppose the door to door preaching thing too. Just don't bother people who have found joy in their lives. And even if He might not exist (which i dont doubt that he does exist) it gives people a purpose in their lives. And if you want to be an atheist, i couldnt care less. These are just words to the wise...
"I'll see you in hell!...from heaven"
- Reverend Lovejoy (The Simpsons) | | #80 bihary[57075] | | chili.ps.uci.edu | I dont think the point is about existing religions or sectas and whether they are good or bad. The point in this story is that starcaft can become a religion itself, and that of the worst kind. Why? Because
1. You become fanatic
2. You lose contact with real world (which is OK, but you also lose control with other people)
3. You are eager to involve others in your mindset not to feel alone
4. You are eager to involve others because you grew to believe that starcraft is the only thing.
Dont take me wrong, not all of you out there are like that, but I definitly am.
I find dref's story great, because for me it means the ability to criticise something from within. And it is rare.
Bihary | | #81 [57089] | | as530065.infocom.com | FoxDragoon,
I'm not sure if you were responding to my story or to one of the comments. I will go ahead and make this point just in case there is anyone out there who was offended by it.
This report was not meant to bash God or people who believe in God. This turned out to be more of a spoof on organized religon. Organized religon, in my opinion, is something completely different from God.
The distinction? Organized religon is simply a political tool used to control large groups of people. Historically, it has been used since very ancient times and is still used today.
I like to think that God is separate from all this and exists in the context that each individual person finds him in when they stop to look.
So anyway, I wasn't trying to offend any church going folk. Just a small spoof on how seriously some people take their church going.
Cheers,
Dref
| | #82 TerranTurtle[57091] | | pc68dn03.fcc.net | | gj, Dref. This was much funnier than your porno fan-fic and even more well written. I dunno why this got a lower score. Fuckin' gay-ass Bob!! | | #83 ~Moronic_Storm~[57092] | | win-al-pm4-154.pepperlink.net | I know it's been a while since the whole "no religion on the internet" thing, but, I have to ask, why exactly? How do "things turn ugly real fast?" If religion shouldn't be on the internet, there shouldn't be anything devoted to the lack thereof.
Dref: I agree with what you said about organized religion. Not only is it one big political game, but many bad things come out of it.
Okay, I'll shut up after this. Here is the reason why Christians go door-to-door:
"And He said unto them, Go ye into all the world, and preach the gospel to every creature."
-Luke 16:17 King James Trans.
I know there are better verses that say the same thing, but I have to go to church now. =P
~Moronic_Storm~
| | #84 ~Moronic_Storm~ the idiot[57094] | | win-al-pm4-154.pepperlink.net | | Ack! That was Mark 16:17. (bangs head against desk three times) =] | | #85 KetchupFactory[57095] | | webcache.hat.netdoor.com | Agnosticism is the questioning of everything. Since God cannot be proven nor disproven, God is an open issue to Agnostics. However, Aethist believe there is no God despite their inability to disprove it. Etc etc etc, does anyone really care?
You can email me at Chris282@aol.com if your actually intrested in a discussion (im also on AIM as Chris282), but I dont see any need to take up anyone elses time with this, especially in a section where Drefsab would like to see a critique of his story, not a discussion of religion...
Oh yeah, small word of Organized religion, its a crutch created by people, for people. Church is not created by God, no matter whether you believe in a literal interpetation of the bible or not. Jesus walked around, sat down, and talked. He never had a church. | | #86 [57096] | | as530065.infocom.com | KF, good point about the church thing...
Moronic Storm... hahahaha... I just have to laugh at the head banging<i>!</i>
Cheers,
Dref | | #87 ~Moronic_Storm~[57105] | | win-al-pm4-144.pepperlink.net | Melodramatic? Nah. Enjoyed the story, even if it was a bit crack-heady. The fan fic is looking pretty good so far. Keep it up. BTW, what if the creep really swallowed people? That would own.
MR. T WILL BE ON CONAN O'BRIEN THIS WEEK (TUESDAY?). I PITY THE FOO THAT DOESN'T WATCH IT.
~Moronic_Storm~
| | #88 Phoenix-S-[57108] | | r-174.32.alltel.net | Hm. Thanks for clearing up those definitions for me.
For a long time I doubted everthing (starting in 3rd grade really). I am an aethiest because, well there is actual evidence supporting the scientific theories, and I dont see any real evidence proving that any deity exists. | | #89 Phoenix-S-[57109] | | r-174.32.alltel.net | | Oh yes, this is just my opinion, but a lot of times, very serious Christians appear fanatical to me, and sometimes it seems as if their religion promotes that. Just my opinion there. | | #90 Phoenix-S-[57111] | | r-174.32.alltel.net | | One last thing... I depise those door-to-door people... I hate anyone who attempts to force their belifes upon anyone else. | | #91 Phoenix-S-[57112] | | r-174.32.alltel.net | | One last thing... I depise those door-to-door people... I hate anyone who attempts to force their belifes upon anyone else. | | #92 Phoenix-S-[57113] | | r-174.32.alltel.net | | Ack, gay refresh. | | #93 Wedge88[57116] | | m4bhSs6n10.midsouth.rr.com | First off I don't think anyone cares about what I am about to write but I am going to write it anyway:
The reasons I am not an Atheist:
I consider myself a Christian and I think that the morals I have personaly learned from my reilgion are good. I am not saying any other religion (or no religion) can't teach you morals either, just that my religion did it for me. I think alot of the major science theorys of today are true or partly true (ie. Relativity, Big bang, ect.) yet I still think of myself as a Christian.
My Church does lots of things for the community and I respect that. I pertisapate in them. I am not saying people that have other religions or no religion can't be good people, just that my church helped me do good things.
I admit I could stop going to church and stuff and still have the morals I learned there, but I continue to learn there! I may go to Hell, I don't know, I admit I think the Jesus story is kinda strange and hard to belive.
So, to sum up: the main reasons I stil lgo to church and am not an Atheist are:
I have learned good morals at my church, and i continue to learn them. It is a place to get together with people. It has good cummunity restoration based programs (our church was founded on helping the homeless and poor in the area).
I am not trying to say my religion is better than any other! Hell, I don't tottaly belive in it (heh, that comes out weird)! I am not trying to bash any other religion or people that don't have one! I just thought I would tell why I think my Church is important to me and how it has helped me.
It may sound like I am preaching..... so sue me....
I tell what I think!
| | #94 Phoenix-S-[57120] | | r-174.32.alltel.net | BAH! Uo > EverCrack
Of course thats only because UO can run on my comp and EQ cant... | | #95 [57121] | | as530065.infocom.com | Yes, a lot of my friends have made the journey to Everquest. However, I really don't get into that kind of a game.
I will be a swarm worshipper until another RTS grabs my attention... :-)
Cheers,
Dref | | #96 Sp|nE[57122] | | dialup0728-pri.voicenet.com | 100
"mock" | | #97 Sp|nE[57123] | | dialup0728-pri.voicenet.com | Wedge88:
That's all nice - we know that churches teach good morals, but you see, these are the morals of Jesus. That's why Christians do all that giving crap. So by following along with all the morals that they teach you, you are pretty much getting a good dose of jesus.
hey, that's totally a good thing. helping homeless people and stuff is nice, but you gotta realize christians motives behind that. The "real" christians are doing it to abide by what jesus says! Oh, and there's that little added bonus called "heaven"
and most people are christians because there parents are. please don't give me that bullshit that you would be a christian if your parents weren't, cuz if you were born in anywhere but the US (or probably europe), you wouldnt be christian, and you wouldnt even consider the idea.
So your common everyday fool thinks: "i'd better do all this, because, uh, its what my parents did, plus if i do all this stuff, i get into heaven!"
In conclusion, if i happened to offend any christians that read this, GOOD | | #98 Sp|nE[57124] | | dialup0728-pri.voicenet.com | | oh, and to that dude who said i was an athiest, i'm more agnostic than athiest. I accept that there COULD be a creator being, but just not in the context of any modern day religions. | | #99 Wedge88[57125] | | m4bhSs6n10.midsouth.rr.com | Spine:
I tottaly agree on the parents thing! Thats why I go to church. But I still like helping do stuff with the church...
It weird. | | #100 [57126] | | m4bhSs6n10.midsouth.rr.com | | Its* | | #101 anal-banana[57127] | | bcfw1d.ext.bridge.com | You are a sick, sick man Drefsab.
I LIKE IT!
I LIKE IT A LOT! | | #102 Oddity[57128] | | px1he.ss.wave.shaw.ca | Anyone else ever notice that Jesus was a communist?
I don't have any quotes to back this up, but that's what the whole share and share alike thing is. It's communism.
Btw, i'm not trying to bring down Jesus in any way, I am a supporter or christiannity, i'm tryin to bring up communism :P
I have no clue why any americans were against communism at all during the cold war, it's a sound theory and works well in practice on a small scale. The only thing that screws it up is when you force it on people in masses(large countries like Russia and China).
| | #103 ~Moronic_Storm~[57130] | | win-al-pm3-116.pepperlink.net | 1) "A little added bonus called 'heaven'?" I guess that's better than the alternative. Gee Sp|ne, some Christians actually do things for their fellow man ("giving crap" in your words) because "Love thy neighbor" is one of the ten commandments and they actually believe it's the will of God. Man, some people only think about themselves.
2) Ummm...my mom (no father) isn't a Christian. Becoming a Christian was something that was not forced upon me. I was agnostic for a couple of years until I became a Christian in 1995. Now I go to church on Sunday mornings, evenings, and Wednesday evenings alone--not dragged there by my mother. She doesn't even go.
3) One minor note here: I wouldn't consider Christianity a "modern day" religion, other than the fact that it's still practiced today. It's almost two-thousand years old.
4)You're glad if you offended any Christians? That's just sad.
I'll probably be branded a "fanatic" or a "bible-thumper" after I post this, but I don't really care. When my faith is criticised so sarcastically, I tend to get a little bit defensive.
~Moronic_Storm~ | | #104 [57131] | | as530065.infocom.com | Oddity, you are definitely right in a sense, although I don't think there was a name for it back in that time (besides Christianity... ;-) )
Communism is really the political term. I think you're thinking more along the lines of Socialism.
In the book of Acts there is a lot of discussion about rich people giving up large portions of their wealth and distributing it among the poor. That's about as anti-Capitalism is you can get... ;-)
On another note, Sp|ne, you are very likely correct. Had Wedge been born to Iranian parents instead of American parents, chance are he would have been Muslim from birth until death. Not an absolute cetainty, but a very high probability. Religon is very regional (Funny how the two words are so similar eh?)
Cheers,
Dref | | #105 [57132] | | as530065.infocom.com | Moronic,
Funny how you're such a devout Christian and yet you stumble on something so simple.
Go read Exodus 20 again. You'll notice that "Love thy neighbor" is not found there... ;-)
Cheers,
Dref | | #106 KetchupFactory[57133] | | webcache.hat.netdoor.com | "Yes, a lot of my friends have made the journey to Everquest. However, I really don't get into that kind of a game. "
WOOOOHOOOO!
Everquest is a vile disease, and Diablo2 is a passing phase. Brood War is the only way...
Now I wish I could find my fucking CD.... | | #107 KetchupFactory[57134] | | webcache.hat.netdoor.com | Americans are hardly against Socialism. See FDR and the New Deal. Welfare, CCC, WPA, Social Secruity, all socialist. AT&T (the old) Cable TV (the old), all socialist.
Communism is a political concept of totalitarian dictatorships. Democracy doesnt like Dictators. Hence, we dont like communism. But Americans, or at least Democrats :), love socialism. | | #108 ~Moronic_Storm~[57135] | | win-al-pm3-116.pepperlink.net | Actually, it was the Apostles (after Jesus was crucified) that were communists (they divided everything equally within the groups they were in, just so nobody gets the wrong idea). I guess the reason why Americans were afraid of Communism was because of the violent Bolshevik Revolution and the atrocities committed by Russion leaders. I'm not sure if my source is entirely accurate (world history textbook), but I've read that Joseph Stallin was responsible for the deaths of an estimated nine million people (Hitler was responsible for the deaths of an estimated five million people). If you get the chance, read <i>The Communist Manifeso</i> by Karl Marx. It's pretty...intersting. =]
~Moronic_Storm~ | | #109 KetchupFactory[57136] | | webcache.hat.netdoor.com | Ok folks. Organized religion is NOT bad. But it doesnt work like people think it does/should, nor is it all holy like people would like to believe.
Lets face it, some christians are pusses. They couldnt be a christian in a group of aethist if their life depended on it (hehe, it does if you believe in God :) Those people NEED a group of christians to stand around, pat each other on the back and say "Ill pray for you". They need a place to go and talk about how the rest of the world is going to hell and how glad they are to have meet jesus. Without a church, theyd feel alone, and give up their religion (because people are fickle).
But church is created by man, for man. God didnt create church. Jesus didnt make a church, or even go to one except to piss of the pharisee's (ironic...) Who started the church? David and his temple (a man), the Apostles (men), etc etc.
So is church bad? No, as long as you realize its a crutch for new christians and the weak willed. Or a fun diversion. But dont pretend its Gods house. God doesnt need a house. He's like....God....
| | #110 KetchupFactory[57137] | | webcache.hat.netdoor.com | Moronic~Storm (DAMN that name fits...)
COMMUNISM IS NOT AN ECONOMIC SYSTEM
Communism = Political Totalitarnism. It means giving up individuality for the state. Yes it includes Socialism, but SOCIALISM IS AN ECONOMIC SYSTEM WHICH IS INCORPERATED BY MOST NATIONS TODAY INCLUDING AMERICA.
You are thinking of SOCIALISM. That is where you share everything, yada yada yada.
Please stop making yourself look like an idiot to even the least learned reader of this board. | | #111 KetchupFactory[57138] | | webcache.hat.netdoor.com | | One more thing, your sources discount WWII where hitler and stalin combined for 22 million losses (not counting the 6 million jews of hitler) alone.... | | #112 ~Moronic_Storm~[57139] | | win-al-pm3-116.pepperlink.net | Dref, stop trying to make me look bad. =]
"Jesus said unto him, <i>Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy mind. This is the first and great commandment. And the second is like unto it. Thou shalt love thy neighbor as theyself. On these two commandments hang all the law and the prophets</i>."
--Matthew 22:37-40
I messed up though. I did actually say "one of the ten commandments." My bad =P
~Moronic_Storm~
| | #113 ~Moronic_Storm~[57140] | | win-al-pm3-116.pepperlink.net | KetchupFactory: whoa, what's with the hostility? I made a mistake. I had a brain-fart while I was writing that and kept saying "communism" instead of "socialism." I don't think that makes me the least learned reader of this board. You're right, I'm wrong. About the death tolls, like I said, I wasn't entirely sure about my source.
(puts the "dunce" hat on)
~Moronic_Storm~ | | #114 ~Moronic_Storm~, extra moron[57141] | | win-al-pm3-116.pepperlink.net | dang...that name really IS starting to fit. I just read that last sentence again...I feel stupid =[
(grafts "dunce" hat to skull)
~Moronic_Storm~ | | #115 [57142] | | as530065.infocom.com | Moronic,
I'm sure you're tired of this but one quick trivia question for you. "What book in the bible tells the story of the apostles after Jesus' resurrection?"
Answer: Acts<i>!</i>
See comment #108.
Cheers,
Dref | | #116 ~Moronic_Storm~[57144] | | win-al-pm3-89.pepperlink.net | Yes, I am a little bit tired of it. Ahhh...well. I know now it's all part of your plot to recieve 200 comments YET AGAIN. =] Why the trivia question though?...or is that another stupid question? =[
~Moronic_Storm~ | | #117 JFeTT[57150] | | ro04-204-210-189-182.ce.mediaone.net | Since everyone is posting there thoughts I might as well do my bit....The thing about religion is that it is about faith; the doctrines of any religious establishment are supposed to be accepted on faith alone, without the need of any proof. For many people, the existence of what they believe to be sacred documents are all the proof they need. Unfortunately, the problem with this "argument from scripture" is that those documents were written by men. To lend any credence to the supernatural events described in those scriptures would first necessitate some proof that a diety exists and that the documents themselves are divinely inspired. This achievement has so far eluded all religous establishments as the "proofs" that theists have come up with are often so unsound that they rarely merit philosophical attention.
Among the flimsiest of these arguments is the "argument from agreement", which attempts to prove the existence of God by theorizing that since so many people in the world believes in God, it must be true. The obvious weakness with this argument is that it places the "truth" in the hands of the majority's opinion. As we should know, a vast majority believing something does not necessarily make anything true. Hitler carried out a campaign of xenocide with his ideals of race superiority and a large majority of Aryans either followed along or at least did nothing to hinder him. The fact that they believed they were superior did not make them right, nor will it ever justify the holocaust. Look at little children, kids all over the world believe in Santa, but that does not make the fat guy any more real. If people could make something exist by just believing in it, the world would be truly disturbed.
The "first cause" argument, perhaps the strongest argument I have seen, is also the most paradoxical. It states simply that everything in the universe must have a cause, and if you follow the chain of causes backwards you'll eventually come to the first cause. To theists, this first cause is their god. At first glance this argument seems perfectly valid since logically, objects can not come into existence on their own. Even the majority of the scientific community believes that the universe must have a first cause, except in their case the first cause is the "Big Bang." The problem with this argument is that the requirement of everything having a cause creates a paradox: if all things must have a cause, just what caused a diety to come into existence? Perhaps the universe has always existed, impossible as that might seem. What most creationists seem to believe is that the way our world works is simply too perfect to be caused by random chance alone. They point out that the speed of our planet's rotation, our distance from the sun, the slant on the axis, and so on are just right for life to survirve. For that to happen by chance would involve enormous odds.
Now, I would be among the first to admit that for our world to exist the way it is would involve enormous odds, but is our world truly perfect for human habitation? Perhaps the only reason why the way things work seems perfect to us is because we know of no other way for it to work. Look at our planet, nearly 80% of it is water, most of it useless to humans. Does that look like the work of a divine being creating a masterpiece for his greatest creation, the humans? Not to mention the slew of imperfections that give rise to the natural disasters that occur so frequently, such as the weather conditions that create hurricanes and the constantly shifting crust which causes earthquakes and volcanoes. These are just a few examples of "God's" genius that we could have done without. No I don't think the world we live in is created by an intelligent superbeing. An intelligent creator would not have created a world with so many imperfections, especially one designed for humans. Better to say it was made for cockroaches or bacteria for the world is so much more suitable for them.
Our need to believe that everything must have a beginning is only a limitation of our imagination. A friend of mine once said, "We can not comprehend infinity so why try? Perhaps the universe has always existed." Not an easy idea to accept, but not one easily dismissed either. For if it is impossible for a universe to come into being on it's own, how much harder would it be for an omnipotent and omniscient creator to do so?
| | #118 JFeTT[57151] | | ro04-204-210-189-182.ce.mediaone.net | | hehe..That's long and everyone will probably skip it.. | | #119 Phoenix-S-[57154] | | r-174.32.alltel.net | Actually... Stalin is known to have killed over 25 million... And then add the 20 million more Russia lost in each world war...
Almost 60 million people in a period of around 30 years. Ouch.
"Everquest is a vile disease, and Diablo2 is a passing phase. Brood War is the only way...
Now I wish I could find my fucking CD.... "
Fractal, put that as a quote dammit 8) | | #120 Phoenix-S-[57155] | | r-174.32.alltel.net | OMG I just realized something! In communism you give up individuality and your life is to serve the state...
The Zerg are a bunch of commies! For the swarm! | #121  [57156] | | proxy.tirol.chello.at | wow. spine isnt that much of an idiot as i thot
preach it brother | | #122 Phoenix-S-[57158] | | r-174.32.alltel.net | JFeTT could not have stated his argument better. In fact, I doubt many people could have.
I belive the universe has always existed, and accept that. I dont try to think about it because, well, its the fastest way to drive yourself insane that I have ever heard of.
Hm... It is true that very great odds for life existing in the Sol system (our sun is also known as Sol, and I belive that at leaste microbial life once existed on Mars, as shown (but not proven) by the metorite fossils), but you must consider the number of planets that are thought to exist. There are an estimated (forgive me if my sources are wrong here) 10,000,000,000 stars in our galaxy alone. There is a calculation that estimated a <i>one in ten thousand</i> chance that life would exist in any givin system, with a sun like ours (a medium sized yellow star).
Now, I feel that estimate is a little optimistic, but even if it were a one in one-hundred thousand chance, or a one in one million chance, the number of planets with life, as we know it, would still be vast. The number in <b>our galaxy alone</b>. The number of galaxies in our universe is vast beyond belife. The number of planets that could sustain life according to that theory, is vast.
Oh yes, a lot of life in our universe. But that is only counting life as we know it... Carbon-based life forms, like those which exist on Earth. Who is to say that all life forms in the universe are carbon-based? That they need warm temperatures to survive? That they breath oxygen? That they need water to live?
Now... I'm goign to get into the type of things you would hear on the Sci-Fi channel in the early morning hours... Lets assume that one in a million planets that harbor life, as we know it, might harbor sentinate life. Even with conservative estimates such as that, the number would be HUGE... So we shouldnt really feel that we are special for some reason, or that we are alone in the universe as some would have you belive.
Phoenix-S- | | #123 Wedge88[57160] | | m4bhSs6n10.midsouth.rr.com | Haha, this started as most comments sections do(no not people saying "First"), comments about the report. Then it became a religious debate kinda thing, now we have vered to science and space!
Where will we go next? You might wake up tomorrow morning and everyone will be talking about Elephants! Or people flaming me for my stupidity...
Ahh well..either way...i make no sence.
| | #124 SluggyTheZealot[57163] | | AC93FA94.ipt.aol.com | This reminded me of a funny quote from the simpsons™
"Religion has no place in school just like fact has no place in religion" -Principle Skinner | | #125 Krebster[57170] | | spider-tm041.proxy.aol.com | | If you eat all the cheese, where do the holes go? | | #126 Rim_Jobe[57174] | | 188.fort-worth-08-09rs16rt.tx.dial-access.att.net | | Man. And I thought answering the door with... (a look over the shoulder) "GO BACK TO UR ROOM BEFORE I TURN THE DAMN PIT BULLS ON YER ASS'S!!!!" was good enough. Damn Dref, got anything for a Terran?? I give it a 1000%. ; ) | | #127 Rim_Jobe[57175] | | 188.fort-worth-08-09rs16rt.tx.dial-access.att.net | | Ok.... maybe 999%.... but that's if I was forced to. | | #128 -Merry-[57177] | | CWIP-T-011-p-226-93.tmns.net.au | This wasn't one of the best stories Dref has ever written contrary to his previous efforts which rocked on the entertainment scale. This story sort of trailed off in the end into some silly and poor ending. This was very morbid, and sort of reminded me of the game Alone in the Dark moreso than Starcraft.
And end this religion bashing bullshit. If you have one, it is your beliefs. It is not us to critisize. | | #129 [57181] | | 208.196.35.239 | "<iI accept your challenge. My first question is: how do you spell atheism?</i>"
Holy mother of God, I just fell out of my chair laughing. Zem, that was hilarious<i>!!</i>
A quick comment to JFett. Your theory on the creation of an imperfect world is easily explained away by records of the worldwide flood found in Genesis.
Creationists theorize that before the flood, most of the water that covers the earth today was under ground. Natural disasters, same thing. The flood supposedly wreaked havoc on the weather patterns.
Anyway, that's what a creationist would tell you if you presented that argument... ;-)
Cheers,
Dref | | #130 [57182] | | 208.196.35.239 | Hmmm, try that again. The quote by Zem was, "<i>I accept your challenge. My first question is: how do you spell atheism?</i>"
Not sure what happened there. Again Zem, funny man... that's Reader's Digest materiel there... :-)
Dref | | #131 ~)V][nCeNt(~[57187] | | ch2blm.bellglobal.com | WTF is this crap.
This is the most horrid fan-fic i've ever read.
I know pushing in new things makes these more interesting, but COME ON, this is the lamest i've heard of.
It's becoming the downfall of fan fic.
First your lesbian thing, now this?
There are limits to what you can put down.
I agree with the 7, because of the great writting.
but this should be in the other place away.
Vincent.
P.S.
New things are good with moderation (unlike alchool) | | #132 jcboath[57199] | | in005.mellon.com | | ummm... yeah. | | #133 T_Mac[57200] | | apollo.tdsb.on.ca | | Man im too tired to read all that, anyway, this=dref this=good | | #134 Nietchze[57203] | | cache-kno.cableinet.net | | I don't believe in god, therefore I must be god | | #135 Prester John[57204] | | 137.187.50.72 | Hmmm... A really warped story, to be sure. I wasn't expecting it to go in that direction.
I have some comments on the religion discussion, since I (lamentably) missed the last one that happened here.
1. Atheism is definitely a religion. It's an assertion made about the nature of God, and one that needs to be accepted on faith. The existence of God might be provable logically, but the non-existence of God is not proveable. In fact, you can't prove the non-existence of anything, even unicorns, or statues of Kerrigan that heal people. Try it some time.
2. Agnosticism is not a religion, but rather a refusal to make any religious claims. An agnostic holds himself in epistemic suspension, demanding to be satisfied with proof before he will assent to a proposition. Unfortunately, there's a foundational problem with this stance: there's no way to prove that it's better to be an agnostic than a believer, in the first place. So the agnostic still ends up making the most foundational decision of his life (the decision to demand proof) without proof.
Another problem for the agnostic is that he's forced to be inconsistent to one extent or another just to make any sense of the world at all. We're so dependent on our senses to learn about the world... but how do we know we can trust our senses? Right now I seem to be typing at my keyboard, but it's conceivable that I could really be just a brain suspended in a vat of chemicals, with aliens playing my synapses in such a way that I see and feel things that are quite literally only in my head. All of us (barring the possibility that there's some mad solipsist out there reading this post (or imagining that he is)) get past this doubt by making an _assumption_ about the reliability of our senses. Yeah, it's an assumption, but just try living without it.
So any agnostic who is still sane has already compromised the "proof" principle, making a compromise with the world so that he can live in it. Of course, it's a lot easier to be agnostic on the subject of a relatively abstract question such as the existence of God, but here's a challenge to thinking agnostics. The next time you decide that the theistic argument from design isn't convincing to you because it can't demonstrate 100% logical necessity, ask yourself why you believe in the existence of your parents, and then try to prove _that_ to be 100% logically necessary. I think you'll find that being convinced or not being convinced is entirely a matter of personal preference, in the same way as preferring Pepsi over Coke. It ends up as a matter of the heart, not a matter of the brain. | | #136 Anti-Progress[57206] | | 207.70.232.30 | | I have to ask you people why this became a religious discussion. Why? Why? Why? This is a br, it would have worked if Dref changed those 2 godfaring people into two door to door clowns. It would not have been quite as ironic or funny, but it still would've been quite good. This is not about what religion makes more sense, or which one is better. This is about one sick person (Dref) making a totally awsome br about 2 door to door people (the witnesses) being shown the way that is StarCraft. | | #137 ~Moronic_Storm~[57208] | | win-al-pm3-128.pepperlink.net | Prester John: second to last paragraph--shades of <i>The Matrix</i>? =]
~Moronic_Storm~ | | #138 BackStabingLiar[57217] | | 63.239.42.130 | | nice story i liked it, but i was hoping that jesus would prevail :P | | #139 KetchupFactory[57219] | | webcache.hat.netdoor.com | Atheism is in fact a religion, or rather a "faith" if your looking to have webster in your corner. The reasons are simple.
Atheism rest firmly on the foundation that God does not exist. They cannot disprove his existance so they try the next best thing...dispute the bible. The easiest and most popular way has been the Evolutionary Theory. And while there is considerable scientific evidence in support of it, it is still, a theory. It has not, and likely will not, be proven, because its empirically impossible to do so (short of getting a time machine, an entirely diffrent discussion). There is no test or proof for it. There is only fact strung together by conjucture.
Now, im not attempting to debunk evolutionary theory, I believe in evolution. But im not so base and high schoolish to believe it to be fact when it isnt.
So, we have a bunch of people who believe in unprovable idea's, relying on faith (or ignorance depending on who it is). Sounds like a bunch of Christians doesnt it?
I am NOT making fun of Atheist. I am just tired of their "holier then though, arent I cool cause im all mature enough to accept that life sucks and then you die". They should grow up and take a lesson from Agnostics, accept reality.
As to Prester, im sensing a lot of "I think therefore I am" junk. I thought Kant threw all that gooble-de-gloop out in the late 1700's :)
Anyways, yes, Agnostics are faced with the prospect of explaining nothing, since you have to accept these fundemental facts. 1) the world is beyond our comprehension. 2) we are flawed, and so even what little we DO explain is likely wrong
With that in mind, how do I keep on living if I refuse to wuss out and explain it all through some divine being or unproven theory? Simple, accept reality, and stop trying to explain it.
Its made me a lot happier....
"Everquest is a vile disease, and Diablo2 is a passing phase. Brood War is the only way...
Now I wish I could find my fucking CD.... "
| | #140 Prester John[57223] | | 137.187.50.72 | Ketchup:
Kant didn't throw it out. To the contrary, he saved it from Empiricism by incorporating it into his great synthesis. And call it gooble-de-gloop if you will, it still remains that "I think, therefore I am" is the only self-evident proposition that pure reason can come up with. In any case, I wasn't dealing with that side of things at all. My post was Cartesian only in its appeal to Skepticism, not in its metaphysical conclusions. Those were much closer to Kierkegaard.
It's funny that you call it "wussing out" when someone appeals to theism to make sense of the universe, when your "solution" is to "accept reality and stop trying to explain it." The first approach involves a lot of hard thinking and enables one to probe beyond the physical world. The second is a refusal to think, and a determination to live life as the animals do, at the level of stimulus/response.
Which is really the "wussy" path, then? Or, to put it in terms that actually matter, which of these two approaches befits an intellectual creature?
| | #141 blah[57236] | | 63.210.199.30 | hmmm... 7's? i would've given this an 8.5.
well written, but more importantly, i like weird stuff. a bit short though, but I don't think you should be knocked for that because it didn't detract from the story. | | #142 Digriz[57240] | | dhcp703.mis.earthlink.net | Drefsab, I'm a fan of your reporting and enjoyed this story as entertainment.
I found it entertaining. Thanks for writing it, and thanks for the time you put into writing all your reports.
Having to scroll through all these personal opinions on their own beliefs and the beliefs on others is tedious to say the least. You don't get many actual *comments* in your comments nowadays, but I guess that's ok; you need to have a *peer* to receive constructive criticism, and while you have people to look up to as far as report layout and graphic design are concerned, in the creative writing department, you have *no* peer.
So quit listening to these losers (myself including) and go write another.
Regards,
-=Digriz=- | | #143 Agent_of_Sol[57245] | | nav-34c.dsl.navpoint.com | First Jesus is a proper noun. It has to be capitalized. Second, this was REALLY cool until the Kerrigan miracles. That was well.....i dunno, but you could have done something funnier.
Becasue you are Dref and did not live up to expectations, you get a ZERO!!!
lol
j/k | | #144 Sp|nE[57253] | | dialup0639-pri.voicenet.com | replying to post #107:
<i>"1) "A little added bonus called 'heaven'?" I guess that's better than the alternative. Gee Sp|ne, some Christians actually do things for their fellow man ("giving crap" in your words) because "Love thy neighbor" is one of the ten commandments and they actually believe it's the will of God. Man, some people only think about themselves."</i>
Yes. And they do it because they fear god. Without the <b>threat</b> of god and going to hell, the majority of those people wouldnt do any of that good stuff
<i>"2) Ummm...my mom (no father) isn't a Christian. Becoming a Christian was something that was not forced upon me. I was agnostic for a couple of years until I became a Christian in 1995. Now I go to church on Sunday mornings, evenings, and Wednesday evenings alone--not dragged there by my mother. She doesn't even go."</i>
You're the rare exception. Being very prejudgemental i'll guess that since you have no father, your childhood was a bit troubled. You became weak and maybe depressed, and found a way out of your troubles in the church.
<i>"3) One minor note here: I wouldn't consider Christianity a "modern day" religion, other than the fact that it's still practiced today. It's almost two-thousand years old."</i>
Certain sects of christianity are more old school (catholicism), while others are more modern day - more flexible (protestinism) .. yes i know i spelled that wrong. All in all it varies, but is still modern day based on the fact that it has lasted so long .. *cough* propoganda
<i>"4)You're glad if you offended any Christians? That's just sad."</i>
Yeah. go cry in the corner
<i>I'll probably be branded a "fanatic" or a "bible-thumper" after I post this, but I don't really care. When my faith is criticised so sarcastically, I tend to get a little bit defensive.</i>
a natural reaction when what you have believed in so unquestioningly for so long is thrown back in your face.
~Moronic_Storm~ | | #145 Sp|nE[57254] | | dialup0639-pri.voicenet.com | | ahh shit i forgot to delete his name after i copied and pasted the damn thing | | #146 [57259] | | rliv130.infocom.com | Thanks Digriz...
I'm working on a pretty good sized story this time so stay tuned... ;-)
Agent,
I chose to leave jesus in lowercase intentionally although I thought about that one. The reason was because I used the term as follows. jesus freaks and jesus salesmen. In both cases, jesus is really only an adjective that describes the common nouns freak and salesmen. I could be wrong, but that was the thought process I went through...
The Non-English Major,
Dref | | #147 ~Moronic_Storm~[57280] | | win-al-pm3-128.pepperlink.net | Sp|ine...I'm through talking with you. There's no such thing as the last word here. When you have something to offer besides personal attacks, I'll be glad to have an intelligent discussion with you.
~Moronic_Storm~ | | #148 Sp|nE[57346] | | dialup0102-pri.voicenet.com | | whatever dude, just spell my name right next time you are crying about losing an argument. | | #149 Zumbooruk[57358] | | IPNAK1-C6.xtra.co.nz | Thanks Dref (as close to divine recognition I'll ever get).
KetchupFactory: Sorry about that cheap shot at the end. I somewhat agree that atheism is a religion (depends on your definition, and I'm not quite anal enough to pull out the dictionary again), in that it is a religious point of view or religious belief. If you want to talk about faith, my problem was with your statement that atheists have 'faith in science', which is wrong. If you're talking about faith that there is no God, I'll agree. I, however, think you can get to 'God doesn't exist' just as easily as 'werewolves don't exist'.
I don't want people telling me evolution is 'just a theory' ever again. Gravity's a theory. Newton's first Law of Physics is a theory. When you say something is a theory it means that it hasn't been proven, and as 'I think therefore I am' says (it still stands), you can't prove jack. What you can prove, though, is jack beyond reasonable doubt. So I am an atheist.
Compare atheism to religion, proof-wise. Atheism can be proven to be false (and - without unlikely and convenient circumstances - should have been proven false ages ago, if it is false). Religion, however, is unfalsifiable, like the Invisible Pink Unicorn.
"wuss out and explain it all through some divine being or unproven theory?"
Covered, I know, but I want to reiterate that that was ill-advised. You are saying it's wussing out to assume <i>anything,<i> which I think you should reconsider.
"I am NOT making fun of Atheist. I am just tired of their "holier then though, arent I cool cause im all mature enough to accept that life sucks and then you die". They should grow up and take a lesson from Agnostics, accept reality."
Hmm...I've never met an atheist who has offensively flaunted it, but I can imagine it, so I see your point of view. Many would argue - in fact, I would argue - that you've flaunted your view for popularity far more than any atheist in this comment section:
<i>holier than thou:</i> "Oh god, oops...you dont know what am saying do you? Me and my 3 syllable words again...damn!"
"[I'm] likely know more about Aethism, Christianity, and Agnostism then you ever well (go ahead, try me :)"
<i>Aren't I cool because I'm all mature:</i> "they should grow up and take a lesson from Agnostics"
| | #150 Zumbooruk[57359] | | IPNAK1-C6.xtra.co.nz | | Damn, messed up the HTML. | | #151 ~Moronic_Storm~[57365] | | win-al-pm3-119.pepperlink.net | An actual post relating to the battle report (or fan fic, if you prefer):
Dref, are you going to stick with standard battle reports or continue writing fan fic for the time being?
And Sp|nE: congratulations, you had the last word. Oh, and believe me, I am truly emotionally crushed by what you posted.
~Moronic_Storm~ | | #152 KetchupFactory[57369] | | webcache.hat.netdoor.com | Good points, I guess we should both just shut up since we are accomplishing nothing but trying to fuel our respective ego's by attempting to sway an obviously unconcerned audience.
But them in insecure enough to go through this again if you are :)
Actually, there isnt much to argue over. If you accept the vague assumption that Atheism is a religion in and of itself, then my original statement stands.
As to my ill slant towards atheist, I was trying to slant my comments against Phoenix without being so base to make it a blatant flame against him. I then tried to hint to it more with the "holier then thou" comment. I guess I just have to spell if out since we have gotten so far away from the original comment.
Check back to my original comment (which is in response to Phoenix) and read Phoenix's. You should see who I was sniping for.
| | #153 [57393] | | 208.196.35.239 | Moronic, my next release will again be a Starcraft related story... I'm not sure where I'll go from there though... :-)
Cheers,
Dref
| | #154 JFeTT[57404] | | ro04-204-210-189-182.ce.mediaone.net | The beauty of religious mania is that it has the power to explain everything. Once God (or Satan) is accepted as the first cause of everything which happens in the mortal world, nothing is left to chance...logic can be happily tossed out the window.
-Stephen King
Omeaha kekko yaru jannnei ka, oreha honki desteru hajimatta..
| | #155 Prester John[57421] | | 137.187.50.72 | Oh my. Bringing up Stephen King's name in relation to the short story is quite appropriate. Quoting him as an authority on the subject of religion, well...
The First Cause is the beginning of logic, its existence is demanded by logic, and without it, there would be no logic. So if you identify God as the First Cause, throwing logic out the window is just about the _last_ thing you can do. Sure, lots of religious people dispense with logic, but so do a lot of irreligious people. Hostility to reason is a mental weakness that shows up across the whole spectrum of humanity. It hardly derives from Christian metaphysics. | | #156 Rafe_Cardones[57426] | | PPPa54-ResaleSilverSpring4-3R7138.saturn.bbn.com | That story was...disturbing. But good in a literary sense, Drefsab. I assume the pizza sauce stains were supposed to invoke images of splattered Terrans?
Now, about the theology discussion...
I'm glad you all established that atheism is a religion. An inherently unprovable one, at that. Here's why: to prove atheism you would have to monitor all of space and all of time simultaneously to show that there wasn't a god out there. Being able to monitor all space and time is commonly known as omnipresence and eternality - both properties of God. Atheism is unprovable because you have to be a god to try to prove it.
As far as other religions, you have to decide what constitutes proof. Do you want a mathematical formula? If so, you're out of luck. Or do you want legal proof - beyond reasonable doubt, convincing to a jury of your peers? I think a reasonable case for Christianity can be made according to that standard. Why can't you prove it with a formula? Because it's a religion of faith. If you can prove it on paper, nobody has to believe.
Since I mentioned proof, let me bring up evolution for a minute. There's a reason it's a scientific theory and not a fact. It can't be proven scientifically. Scientific facts are verifiable by other experimenters. When was the last time you verified evolution in the lab? (Please don't give me crap about microevolution within the same species. You have to demonstrate macroevolution for the theory of evolution to work.)
So, several lines of thought have been suggested as reasonable proof for religion in general and Christianity in particular. JFeTT, you dismissed the argument from agreement rather quickly. This argument properly states that all peoples have a god or gods, and that they must have gotten this idea from somewhere (like passed down from Adam maybe).
Some others are: argument from cause (see Prester_John's discussion above), argument from design, argument from being, argument from fulfilled prophecies in the Bible.
As for forcing religion on others - I understand that some (ok, maybe all) of you atheists don't like Christians telling you about Jesus. First, if someone tells you that they are aware of a way by which you can end up in heaven instead of hell, aren't you even the slightest bit interested in hearing it once? And what kind of Christian would know this way and not tell you? Second, I realize you think you've heard the Gospel more than once. What's makes you think that the 1 billion plus Christians in the world (the majority of whom now live in Africa and Asia, BTW) get together and say, "Spine and Phoenix and the rest of those guys have already heard the Gospel and weren't interested" ??? I mean, when you stop and think about it, you really wouldn't want us to be keeping some sort of central file just to avoid offending you, would you? No Christian knows if you've heard or not or heard a hundred times and are sick of it. So give us a break, ok? Which is not to say that some of us couldn't use a little tact now and then. :-) | | #157 Zumbooruk[57480] | | IPNAK1-C6.xtra.co.nz | Ok, peace KetchupFactory. I suppose, if we were to continue arguing, we could debate atheism vs. agnosticism. Do you want to?
Rafe_Cardones: "I'm glad you all established that atheism is a religion. An inherently unprovable one, at that."
OF COURSE IT'S UNPROVABLE. You can't prove anything. This is established over and over again, and doesn't need to be. Once you've got "I think therefore I am", all that follows is conjecture. It is not an illogical leap of faith to believe that the universe exists, however. Similarly, it is not an illogical leap of faith to atheism, just like it's not an illogical leap of faith to disbelieve werewolves, or alien abductions.
What I'm saying is: to say something is unprovable is meaningless. It's not an argument.
The difference is that atheism can be disproved, and religion can't. If something can be disproved, and the immense power that is human resourcefulness has tried for millenia to disprove it and failed, then that's about good enough for me. | | #158 JFeTT[57482] | | ro04-204-210-189-182.ce.mediaone.net | Everyone has a divine idea of what atheism is, but there's a more simple answer to what 'it' is. A person simply does not believe in god. Everyone has their own reason. Sometimes you have to look further to find the right answers. We could all be wrong on the matter of no god, or one god. How do we know the supposed 'god' we have is not a exile of some sorts, It has to have it's own origin, Maybe there's a ton of other gods and ours was thrown out for some reason, maybe because he interfered with the beings of a planet. Tha'd make a nice story wouldn't it?
Maybe there is no omnipotent being, just prophets who believed what they told. I'm just saying don't go with what you see, try to think for yourself on the subject. If it's a far out story, who knows you could be right? There's just no way to prove anything right now. You stick with beliefs and I'll stick with mine. | | #159 Phoenix-S-[57500] | | lrar5pp36.alltel.net | The way I see it, what christianity states, if correct, would mean that almost all modern scientific theories are wrong, however, if those theories are correct, then the religion would be wrong. I see a HELL OF A LOT more evidence (real evidence, not the mental evidence caused by overactive imaginations) supporting the theories than I do religion.
And to explain where the ideas about gods came from... Anceint people used myths to explain things they could not understand (such as changing seasons, the tides, day/night, etc...). They could not understand how they came to be so they created a myth to explain it. | | #160 JFeTT[57501] | | ro04-204-210-189-182.ce.mediaone.net | | True phoenix-s, but the main idea of religion is to create good morals and give hope to people of lesser spirits. If the existance of god is in debate then never forget that although god may not exist, Religion has a primary goal to set good morals. | | #161 [57511] | | as530019.infocom.com | Please JFett,
That's what religion says. But I've been involved with these organized religion all my life and I've had a lot of opportunity to study religous history.
The main goal of organized religion is to control large groups of people. Its always been that way since B.C.
During the middle ages in Europe, governments were weak and anarchy threatened to rule all. What kept people in line? The church. Fear of burning forever in hell was a much better deterrent than fear of retribution from the government.
Even today you see constant examples of church leaders who control large congregations trying to use the sway they have over their constituents to further their political agendas.
Organized religion is bunk. I don't deny the existence of a supreme being. But I sure as hell am not going to let organized religion tell me what I have to do in order to get into that supreme being's "good graces".
Cheers,
Dref | | #162 JFeTT[57525] | | ro04-204-210-189-182.ce.mediaone.net | | Oi, Your right. I've never replied so much...Well anyways, I hope you continue to be the spark of intelligent debate Drefsab. You prove yet again your knack for good writing. Must be all that wisdom from old age... | | #163 ~13~ShAdOwDrAc[57539] | | spider-tl082.proxy.aol.com | Well, since everyone else is talking about religion, here is my shot.
I am somewhere between Wiccan and Athiest, maybe closer to Agnostic.
My belief is that one of two possibilities exist:
1. Man created God. This is, for the most part, true. Humans begat Christians and such which begat religion which begat God.
2. God created Man. This I personally do not believe, but I would accept it if given true PROOF. Some higher power creates humanity, watches it trash itself, trashes it again, lets them rebuild, and watches it trash itself again.
I do not personally have anything against Christianity or whatnot. If someone wants to believe in something I don't, tough crap, doesn't bother me any. It is when they do the "I'm better than you and I'll pray for you to believe the way I do so you can go to Heaven when you die" Crap that makes me naucious(SP?). A lot of people think Wicca is Satanic. It is not. The Christian belief of Satanism is the worship of a "Evil being that doesn't like Christianity." If Satan or whatever was created by God, it makes it God's fault for everything bad that Satan causes or whatever, right?
The bible of Satanism or whatever, by the LaVey guy or whatever, says that Satan DOES NOT exist, but it focuses on worship of self, and not a higher power, as far as I know.
Religion is truly the crutch of humanity, and the sword. So many deaths have been caused because one human thought differently from another. King Richard's Crusade, and such, of so many dead for not believing the same views. I think that MAYBE 10% of all the people who say they are Christian really are. The rest say it to avoid getting flamed or whatever. I don't really give a damn what happens.
If God does exist, and when I die and answer for what I've done, I'll flip God the bird and say, so long bitch. Then I'll burn in Hell for all eternity, but hey, everyone needs a good tan, right?
Also, having an eternity of pleasure or suffering seems a bit much for such a relatively short lifetime. The average American lives around 70 years nowadays, I think, not counting crack-heads(Such as Dref, but we still love ya) and alchies(Again, such as Dref) but compare that only to the 2 million or so years Humans have been thought to exist. Thats a whole crapload of torture.
If I ever got jumped(not literally, but like in the story) by bible-thumpers, I would go into the bathroom and with a black marker write "Fuck You" on my pearly white ass-cheeks and moon them and while jiggling my cheeks around. Or maybe write "You have been Penised" around my rod and give them a show. Thats if I was feeling remotely nice that day.
As for the stuff about life on other planets. I sure as hell believe it. Such a big damn universe to waste on ONE single planet. Another thing, I bet there are little people on Mars, right behind the little lander-thingies, fingers in their ears, tongues sticking out, doing the "Neener Neener" dance at em. It'd be funny as hell.
Okay, enough commenting for now, SOMEONE MAKE A COMMENT ABOUT THIS!
~13~ShAdOwDrAc | | #164 Napoleic[57558] | | 24.66.179.206.bc.wave.home.com | Hmm, seems that in all the time I wasn't checking this forum I got flamed. For one it is Napoleic, as in Napolean, modified to be similar to my name, Nic. Not Napolonic, as in pertaining to Napoleic.
Now allow myself to defend my cause. The person who flamed me, was, I believe, Zumbooruk. He disagreed with my assertion that the web and religion do not mix. I hold this heated debate as proof of my point. However, I do love a good debate, so I will enter it quite willingly.
As I said, I am a fervent Atheist. As such I believe in the laws of Physics, Biology, and Chemistry. I feel that Atheism, as I believe in it, is in fact eminently provable. I hold my proof as any thing which can be repeateded accurately and at will. Newtons three law's are proved as LAWS because anyone can accurately demonstrate them with billiard balls and whatnot. I do not believe that the existance of God can be disproved, but I don't feel it's necessary. Rememeber that Atheism is a belief. I believe there is no god, no supreme being, and most of all, no event which has ever happened that cannot nor ever will be explained by a provable law of science.
Jumbooruk has tossed around the term Arrogant rather freely thus far, I will put it into it's proper context. It's incredibly Arrogant to assume that just because there are some things that cannot today be proved, they will never be proved. For ages man has grappled topics that could not be proved. The existance of Atlantis. The shape of the planet. The nature of the solar system. The existance of the "Ether". All of those things, where once were mysterious, now are proved. It is in this belief that I find comfort in my atheism.
Moving on to another point of contention of mine... Someone up there stated that Atheism is as simple a way out as Religion, and moreover have asserted that the Agnostic has the hardest time of it. This is a natural conclusion when you assume that the aim of the Atheist is merely to deny God, and that the goal of the Agnostic is to search for the truth(I'm not going to defend religion). I laugh out loud at the notion. You have, in one sentence, denied all the progress humanity has made when the existance of a creator is ruled out. Do you think Einstien simply looked at the world, said this is how god made it, and forgot about it? Do you think Galileo accepted the church's word that the earth was the center of the universe? Perhaps if we sat about thinking about whether or not god exists we could make some real progress here.
No a lot of people seem to misunderstand the goal of atheists. The thing with us is that we could care less about god because we don't believe in it. As a result we search for the answer to the world's mysteries ourselves, rather than taking anything on faith. Faith is for the weak and lazy, it is a prop and an excuse. Atheists have faith in nothing but humanity, and human reason and logic. We demand proof because we despise faith. We don't take it on faith that god does not exist, and we don't just sit around claiming it is so. We activly advance knowledge and learning, and the very action of doing so is precisely what disproves religion, because it is the opposite of religion. While the preacher tells us how we should act, the atheist asks why. When the preacher told us the earth was flat, the atheist made sure, and discovered the contrary. While the preacher tells us god made everything, Atheists are out there trying to find out what really DID make everything.
That is why I'm atheist and proud of it, and what I stand for is the advancement of provable knowledge, for the good of all mankind.
Now that I have bestowed mad props to all the atheists I will begin my attack on religion. First off, I'd like to disinclude those who do not actively practice religion in its moderm (or not so modern as the case may be) form. Religion, as Dref has asserted, is used to control the masses. As Karl Marx said, it is the Opiate of the masses. It is that which gives the hopeless hope and the causeless cause. Unfortunately, as I have said, this mostly means that it provides a convenient excuse for doing little to advance learning. There are those who will disagree with me, but in my opinion if religion had it's way, we'd still be in the dark ages. If you look at the period from the fall of the Western Roman Empire, to the Renaissance, there was no significant scientific advancement. It was not until people began to question the accepted norm that progress was made. It began with the astronomers, who, as they moved away from being christian puppets, began to disprove christian facts.
After that the geyser erupted and we had great advances in Biology, and the discovery that rather than the Devil or witches, it was bacteria and viruses that caused illness. As a result, sanitation was drastically improved upon. What centuries of witch burning, exorcims, and inquisitions could not solve, science did. Then we had the marvelous advances of Chemistry. Gunpowder, gasoline, all sorts of things led to the creation of moderm machines. Labour saving devices were created and a field that once barely provided for a village can now be tilled with such efficiency that it feeds thousands. Praying to God for good crops never showed such benefits.
Physics too has come a long way. Will going to church land men on the moon? Power cars? Give us the ability to circle the globe in less than a day?
You see where I'm going with this by now. It's atheists you have to thank, or at least the practice of Atheism that got us where we are today. And it's the same practice that will get us even further tomorrow. Who needs a supposed heaven when we can create our own on earth? Give us a couple hundred more years and imagine the wonders that will be possible, thanks in no part to any praying or worshipping.
Of course I haven't touched yet on the Strong point of Religion. It's teaching of morals. The problem with morals is their fickleness. We praise the church for teaching people not to steal or kill. Government can handle that. But where was the church during slavery? It was moral then. What outcry did the Pope raise about Hitler's wanton massacres? None. Is that moral? What about burning to death millions of innocents or torturing to death thousands more? Nobody raised a fuss about the church then. You see at all times in the existance of the church, it has been praised for it's morals. Then later on we realise how wrong the church really was. Mark my words, give us 50 years and we'll realise how long the church is to oppress and discriminate against Homosexuality. Or it's refusal to allow Women to be preists. Or a whole schlock of things we don't even now comprehend.
The only morals the Church upholds are the morals of the day. It changes it's beliefs with the times. In reality it has to to maintain credibility. Any church would. Otherwise we'd still be burning witches and throwing troops at the Arabs.
Those are my reasons for despising the church.
***Disclaimer*** Many christians do not fall into any of my complaints. They don't attempt to push their beliefs on me, nor are they against scientific progress. These christians I have no problem whatsoever with. I find that as individuals christians are mostly standup guys. The problem comes when you look at them as a whole, put them in large groups. History has shown christianity, as a whole, to be a corrupt, ineffiecient, and backwards instituition. However history has shown many individual christians to be great people. This is why my attacks are on Religion, not the religious. (Excepting when they attack me first...)
Heh I just know Dref will discout this whole essay with about 4 lines =( | | #165 [57564] | | proxy.tirol.chello.at | | omg ppl u all suck have less life and make longer comments about dumber topics that less ppl will ever read plz thx gw | | #166 [57568] | | 208.196.35.239 | Well Nap, I'm sitting here at 7:30 in the morning with a large cup of cappacino after getting about 4 hours of sleep last night so don't expect anything to poignant... ;-)
I agree with a lot of what you said in there. There's just one small point that I would like you to clarify.
In your post, you make no distinction between "atheists" and "scientists". I don't necessarily believe that every scientist is/was an atheist. Nor do I believe that every inventor of every modern machine discounts the possibility of a supreme being.
However, your point about the abrupt end to scientific innovation during the middle ages is well made. Keep in mind though that during that time, there was a lot of scientific progress going on in East Asia and Central America. Both of these peoples were devout Polytheistic cultures.
Christianity, primarily Catholocism did not allow scientific innovation because they attempted to explain everything without any basis for their assertions. When people started questioning those assertions, the church tried to use its power to intimidate people who would prove them wrong. It was pride really in my opinion.
Anyway, I really need to get back to work. I might post more on this topic later today... :-)
Cheers,
Dref
| | #167 Napoleic[57571] | | 24.66.179.206.bc.wave.home.com | hehe I never expected a response so soon ;)
Actually you accurately pointed out the flaws in my post. Luckily I realised this and have prepared some excuses :)
Unfortunately I will be beginning first year hisory in a few months so the only education I can speak from is european based. I have a very vague notion of the chinese and american advancements, but I do know that the Chinese are most notable in their inventions (gunpowder, the earthquake detecter et al) whereas the americans were notable for their mathematical and astronomical knowledge.
The church is of course at least partly responsible for the destruction of american knowledge and civilisation, thats undeniable. As for the Chinese advancements, well I don't know much about the prevailing religion at the time, but it wasnt until the renaissance times that their secrets were spread to europe anyhow so its a moot point in that respect.
I would be interested to learn the connection between their religion and their scientific progress though, so I'll probly be doing some research on that in the near future. Using the greeks and their science and philosophy in the face of religion, I think that mostly the Polytheistic religions tend to involve themselves less in day to day to life. Whereas the Christian God directs everything that ever happened, in multiple god religions they're mostly content to stick to natural disasters. As a result the feeling of independance is a little more nurtured.
Now to address your other point, Scientists as Atheists. I agree with you that there are always acceptions to the rule, but I believe that on the whole, while plenty of scientists are christians, I think it's the spirit of Atheism that inspires them. Either that or it's backwards and Atheism is inspired by the spirit of human innovation. I don't think it matters. The real point is the spirit, in my opinion. Religion asks us to leave it in god's hands whereas scientists/atheists discover the true laws at work.
The only thing which concerns me is the afterlife. The most logical explanation is simple nothingness, blackness, a forever ending. I like to think that another explanation is that right on the verge of death, your brain works into overtime, and you basically, seemingly dream till the end of time. You can never be aware of the end, so consciousness must be everlasting. I've devoted a long hours thinking on the subject but thats the best I can come up with...
| | #168 probe[57588] | | 242820hfc23.tampabay.rr.com | | <font size=20>GO THE FUCK OUTSIDE YOU GODDAMN NERD! | | #169 probe[57589] | | 242820hfc23.tampabay.rr.com | | <font size=20>GO THE FUCK OUTSIDE YOU GODDAMN NERD! | | #170 probe[57590] | | 242820hfc23.tampabay.rr.com | | <font size=20>GO THE FUCK OUTSIDE YOU GODDAMN NERD! | | #171 Phoenix-S-[57622] | | r-174.8.alltel.net | | Nerds > You | | #172 The..Scarab[57662] | | ACA92842.ipt.aol.com | | I know it was about 100 comments ago...but im not an idiot, im just aeithiest. or wutever you spell it | | #173 ~LifeIsPeachy~[57674] | | cache-2.sbo.ma.webcache.rcn.net | | Yeah probe! Help Dref hit 200 comments! | | #174 ~LifeIsPeachy~[57676] | | cache-2.sbo.ma.webcache.rcn.net | Yeah, ok maybe I'm just wasting posts. But no matter, however long pointless this discussion is it will never compare to the debate sparked after FLS's Terran FFA.
BGH > Religeon, take that you guys! | | #175 The..Scarab[57682] | | ACA92842.ipt.aol.com | ill say this.
I have NEVER seen an argument about religion and aeithiestism..(that a word?) come to an agreement at all. Not to say all those long posts were wastes...But I honestly don't think we are convincing each other. So I would love to not be a part of this, however im posting...alright whaetever. | | #176 The..Scarab[57684] | | ACA92842.ipt.aol.com | | and hot damn, those were some long posts. See how people defend there religion so much? I dont think were changing anyones minds, especially over the net. | | #177 [57689] | | as530080.infocom.com | Scarab,
I've seen a lot of these discussions, and I think these forums are great places to bounce ideas off other people. You may not be convincing each other of anything, but putting your beliefs down in writing can only help to strengthen you in your convictions.
Not to mention the fact that its safer to have all these discussions on the Net since there are data lines between the "believers" and the "non-believers". Otherwise there might be a few hands wrapped around a few throats... ;-)
Cheers,
Dref | | #178 Napoleic[57691] | | 24.66.179.206.bc.wave.home.com | The point of a debate of this nature was never to sway each other. Points are made on the assumption that you are right, and admitting defeat and changing one's whole belief system is unthinkable.
The point of these debates is to sway a neutral audience. Someone without strong belief's either way may have seen some points brought up he hadn't previously considered, which causes him to sway in one direction or the other. Other than that, debating is fun =)
I personally enjoy the challenge of matching wits with some other obviously intelligent people. It's clear that Drefsab, KF, Prestor_John, JFeTT, and all the others have given some significant thought to the subject, as have I, and getting into an intelligent debate rather than a flame-war is a very refreshing experience. The thing with a debate like this is that morons are very disinclined to comment, other than to accuse us all of being geeks and so forth. I thought that insult was out of date by now... oh well. | | #179 Napoleic[57692] | | 24.66.179.206.bc.wave.home.com | | Haha just beat me Dref ;) | | #180 JFeTT[57696] | | ro04-204-210-189-182.ce.mediaone.net | The thing with a debate like this is that morons are very disinclined to comment, other than to accuse us all of being geeks and so forth.
- Napoleic
Heh now that's a quote! | | #181 [57704] | | as530080.infocom.com | Don't forget my favorite exchange of the debate.
<b>KetchupFactory: </b><i>Im horribly Agnostic, and likely know more about Aethism, Christianity, and Agnostism then you ever will (go ahead, try me :)</i>
<b>Zumbooruk: </b><i>I accept your challenge. My first question is: how do you spell atheism?</i>
Hehehe, I posted that on the bulletin board at work... :-)
Cheers,
Dref
| | #182 ~13~ShAdOwDrAc[57718] | | spider-tf072.proxy.aol.com | Yo, LifeisPeachy, on 181, I agree with you. Even pieces of crap like BGH are better than Religion, for the most part. Religion and debates over such are long, mostly pointless, and can get very annoying. But then again they can be extreme fun :). Hey, Religious Debates > BGH! BGH is no fun, but RDs are!
~13~ShAdOwDrAc | | #183 Rafe_Cardones[57721] | | PPPa17-ResaleSilverSpring6-1R7122.saturn.bbn.com | Napoleic,
With all due respect, your argument that atheists are responsible for scientific progress is garbage. First of all, there wasn't a whole lot of science happening in Western Europe during the Dark Ages because people were busy trying to stay alive. Waves of barbarian tribes were arriving from the east, and the Roman Empire was no longer around to fend them off.
And the Church didn't clamp down on Galileo because of anything in the Bible. It clamped down on Galileo because his science was questioning Aristotle. See, the Church had made the mistake of pegging its science to Aristotle rather than to Scripture.
I'd really like to see a list of atheist scientists. I don't think they're as numerous as you imply.
Where was the Church during slavery? Split, but part of it was in the forefront of the abolition movement. William Wilberforce, who lead the fight to outlaw the slave trade in Britian, was a Christian. So was Granville Sharp, who worked behind the scenes in legal cases to free specific slaves. Set up Sierra Leone in Africa during his spare time.
What was the Pope doing during the Holocaust? Sitting in Rome surrounded by German and Italian divisions. Should he have spoken out anyway instead of "only" quieting helping Jews escape? Tough call when you're not in his shoes.
After all these statements about how the purpose of religion is to control the masses, I have to ask you all: What is the central point of Christianity?
| | #184 Napoleic[57766] | | 24.66.179.206.bc.wave.home.com | I said it once and I'll say it again. Plenty of scientist may believe in God, but they have no reliance on him. Its the spirit of Atheism that drives them.
Aristotle was actually one of the first people to theorise that the earth was in fact Round. His mathematical calculations of the placement of the sun while in Athens as opposed to a few hundred miles south in Alexandria was the basis of Columbus's contention that he could get to China. I hardly think the Church based what they knew on him....
Besides it's the point of the matter. Rather than accept they were wrong in the face of proof, they excommunicated and tried to execute Galileo. I notice you didn't even waste your time commenting on the witchhunt.
There was recently an attempt to saint the pope during the WW2 fiasco. The very notion was laughed down by even high ranking christians. Though he should have, and was encouraged to, he never spoke out loud. Furthermore there is no evidence that he even encouraged helping jews in secret. Many christians, and non christians did help the Jews, but it wasn't because the Pope told them to. In addition there is one notable incident in which over 1000 jews were kept in a warehouse just 100 metres from the Vatican. They were kept there for 3 days, then sent to aushwitz. This was in 1943 when allied troops were within days of Capturing Rome and the Italian army was in disarray. Did the Pope lift a finger? No. He had the resources to know the fate of the Jews, and it would have been eminently easy to incite the local citizenry to free the Jews, even take Rome, much the same way a partisan Revolt took Paris a week before Allied troops arrived. No, the Pope looked the other way. The reason? The Nazis had confiscated many important Catholic artifacts. The Pope did not want the artifacts damaged or mistreated, so he agreed to cooperate with the Nazis. He traded in the lives of the Jews for the well being of his trinkets. Thats the bottom line there.
As for the Church coming to the rescue of the slaves, thats a crock of shit and we all know it. A few christian radicals may have been involved fighting for the rights of the blacks in England and in other places, but in reality the church was not split, or even if it was, it tended towards the side of inaction. You see it's impossible for the church to have done much of anything because they signed an agreement with England not to interfere with the government when England supported the Protestant takeover and the abolishment of the Catholics on the island. This was before America was independant, and the treaty remains in effect with both America and Canada to this day. The church stays out of the Governments way and in return the Government doesnt tax the church. The church staying out of the Governments way meant they did nothing to help out the black slaves.
The fact is the church is an out of date instituition losing believers faster than it gains and it can't even figure out why. It's because people are tired of being force-fed their morals and belief structure. We're just too smart for the church these days. | | #185 Napoleic[57770] | | 24.66.179.206.bc.wave.home.com | I noticed I failed to rebut your first point. You basically said the reason there was no scientific progress made during the dark ages was the invading barbarions. Your contention is essentially that we require peace to make scientific discoveries. I'd like to draw your attention to the twentieth century. This century is unique for a variety of reasons.
1: It is by far the most war torn, with millions of deaths being caused, and the threat of worldwide devastation imminent for a good 30 years.
2: It is by far the least spiritual. Over half the population at atheist or agnostic. Most do not believe in ghosts or spirits, or anything of that nature. Even the old concept of Luck as something tangible has been for the most part discarded and accepted as random chance.
3: We have made by far the most scientific progress. The changes and advances in the this century are roughly equilvalent to the progress made from about 500 bc to 1899.
By looking at those indisputable facts, it is easy to see that you are completely wrong to excuse the Church the Dark Ages and throw the blame on the Barbarions.
| | #186 Juice[57800] | | IPNAK1-C6.xtra.co.nz | nearly 200 ....
nearly 200.....
keep it going
| | #187 KetchupFactory[57807] | | webcache.hat.netdoor.com | At the risk of getting involved in a longer (deeper) discussion then I should at 3am, here goes.
Over 90% of the world believes in a super natrual higher being with godlike powers. This means of course, that despite the prevelance of "natrualist" religions such as Tao and atheism, most people believe in some form of "God".
Despite the mass of destruction wrought in this century (ironically due to improved technology) it is also been the most PROSPEROUS century. People have more freetime and money then ever before.
The fact is, scientific discovery relies on a prosperous and leisurly time. In the "Dark" or Middle ages, there wasnt much, due to the fact that most people were substance farmers who gave all their surplus (sometimes even more) to their liegelord. The only ones WITH leisure time, Knights and Liegelords, generally were busy doing non-academic things. However, by 1400, the italian city states consist of many merchants and wealthy families. These families take it upon themselves to "sponser" academics. Now, faced with all the time in the world, we see a boom in scientific discovery.
The beauty of technology is it increase exponetially. As technology improves, we are allowed more time to discover and learn, and have better methods and equipment to do so.
To say that Technology is a result of Atheist is purely silly. Your saying that the dead person caused the gun to shot. More like the gun shooting caused the person to die :)
Atheism is on the rise because it celebrates science, and science is increasing. Most academics are atheist, not most atheist are academics.
Also remember, all of history is one horried cycle. We have seen the rise and fall of atheism before. It happened in the Reinessance (please tell me you know history and I dont have to explain this) which was followed by the rise of Protestanism and reformation in the Catholic church. We saw the 1700s bring philosophers who didnt believe in good, but the tide turned again. Now, once more, great scientific discovery is happening once more, and the atheist of the world stand tall. And yet, we see also the beginnings of another reaction against them.
<Please understand these are NOT opinions of mine, but simply stated facts>
| | #188 Napoleic[57815] | | 24.66.179.206.bc.wave.home.com | As if it were weren't obvious, yes I have an excellant knowledge of european history. Excellant enough to know there was no cycle. Many philosophers arose who did not believe in god, Locke and Hobbes to give examples. Since their time there has been a decline in religion. There was no rebirth. There was a reformation, but that took place before their time in the 1500's, beginning with Luther's 90-something theses. Ever since that time, in fact there has been a decline in Religion. The church became a mockery as it struggled with itself. The Jesuits revived the inquisition in Spain to disastrous response. There has no been rebirth in the church and no revival in faith. Perhaps the 50% number was an exagerration for atheists today, what I should say is that less than 50% of people are practicing christians. I'm not speaking for peoples beyond NA and Europe. I stand corrected, for that does not make them Agnostic or Atheist.
You make Valid points about the Nature of Scientific advancements and the conditions under which it thrives, but my underlying point still stands. Atheism is better than religion because the fruits of atheism are better than the fruits of religion. It was the people who questioned that got us where we are, not the sheep who praised the lord.
You say most academics are atheist, not most atheists are academic. Whats the difference in how you word it? Of course most atheists aren't Academics. Are most christian priests? The fact is Academia is rarely a high paying or popular endeavor, much like preacherhood. No, the fact that most academics are atheist is exactly the point and you admitted it yourself.
Am I wrong to blame the church for the oppression of technology during the dark ages? I will concede it is a very debatable point, but I have a few more points up my sleave.
First and foremost, the four Crusades. The fact is that these pointless endeavors bankrupted many nations for years. Germany, France, Britain, Spain, and of course Italy all heavily suffered as a result of the crusades. The taxes levied to pay for them was what drove 95% of the population to spend their lives drudging a living out of the earth. Were they the only cause? Of course not, but they sure didn't help.
Let's look at some other causes. There was the Plague of course. Since I don't believe in God I can hardly blame him for that, but still, you'd think if there was one, he'd have something to say about losing a third of the population of Europe and Asia for no logical reason.
There were the "Barbarians" causing trouble along the borders. That is true. The Huns remained a threat to the Teutons for another couple hundred years. The Saracens were hard pressed by their Arab counterparts. The Byzantines had to contend with the Turks until their final collapse in the 1400's. Of course you can't leave out the Vikings, who caused all sorts of trouble until France bribed them with Normandy. And finally the Moors. Now I can blame, not necessarily only the church, but religion in general, for all the trouble the Moors caused. They fought back and forth along Spain with the Francs for hundreds of years. The Family of Charlemagne has a long and storied history fighting with the Moors. The reason for this conflict? The Moors were Moslem of course. As a result Spain, as a nation, did not even form until the eventual victory of Europeans around the 1300's. That's gonna set you back a bit.
Then there were the major wars that formed Europe into what it is today. The Hundred years war had little to do with religion, no blame there. Neither did the minor conflicts throughout the Germanic and Prussian lands and the lowlands. However, the forming of France was quite religious. It was in the name, and for, the Holy Roman Empire that Charlemagne fought. He eventually conquered bits of Italy, fought back and forth with the Moors for peices of Spain, and, of course, modern day France. This series of Wars was endorsed by the Pope, and Charlemagne had the added bonus of becoming the Holy Roman Emperor when he conquered enough lands for the peace loving and noble catholics.
Now the balance of Power of the Catholic church was split. The Holy Roman Emperor resided in France, while the Pope was in Italy. The resulting conflicts resulting in a myriad of wars over the chuch's tithe. While the French thought they should get the lions share, being that they were the head of the Holy Roman Empire, the Italians laid claim to the treasure, being that they were the head of the Catholic Church. The famous corruption of the Cardinal's was very real. The Cardinal was created to offset the Pope. He was supposedly only one down from the Pope, and the french used this to strengthen their claim to the loot.
The games went on...
Meanwhile we have the Reformation and the great English divide. It was a while before the Protestants were able to oust their Catholic rivals, and their still trying to this day to do it on Ireland.
I think it's safe to say that about half the wars fought in Europe were due to Religion. Hows a peasant supposed to sit down and think, have free time, in short satisfy the conditions of scientific progress, when he's trying to raise the taxes to support his King's wars, which were fought, for a large part, over religion?
I don't think its hard to contend that the Church held scientific advancement back. I think it's only once people got smart enough to stop fighting Religious wars that technology was able to advance. In short, we evolved to Atheism, because Religion, as an evolutionary strategy, failed. Now we just have to convert the stubborn people. When it comes to something like Religion, something that has no solid and definative proof, it's very difficult to do, but we're working in the right direction. We'll get there someday, and then imagine the wonders humankind will create and behold. | | #189 Napoleic[57823] | | 24.66.179.206.bc.wave.home.com | I went a read the whole entire br comment section of the williamwc3 thing with Zumbooruk posted. It took me 5 hours and I wound up skimming over some of the bible stuff but I got the general ideas. Zumbooruk this post is addressed to you.
Let me fisrt commend you on your efforts. Paradigm was a worthy foe and you did a good job of facing off with him. However I think that his cagey experience got you into trouble. I may be wrong, but I think it was a mistake to get into the intracacies of the bible. Even if you know it inside and out, as you do, the Bible is the Christians stronghold and he cunningly kept you stuck on it. As I said, you still argued very well against him, but he had a fundamental advantage.
Let me next say that you have a staunch ally in me. I stand for the cause of Atheism under the basis that Religion is no longer good for man. It doesn't help us to have it around so we ought to move on from it. This argument makes the bible irrelevant, I think, which is my goal because I know very little about the bible. As I said my strength is in History and History shows Religion to be a mistake, on the whole.
Finally, take no offense at whatever I have said so far, as we seem to have inadvertantly clashed heads. I am on your side ;) I was enlightened by your arguments and I commend you for them. In that arena you fought better than I ever could have. My implication that it was a mistake to fight him on that ground is no knock on you. I commend you for the brave choice. Sort of like robo tech pvz on temple ;) Its a brave choice, not foolish. I think that over different issues you could have easily beaten him, which is what I am hoping to accomplish.
Please respond to this post and answer me this, is that other debate still alive? I would love to join the fight against Paradigm at your side if it's possible. Thanks for your time. | | #190 Prester John[57832] | | 137.187.50.72 | Napoleic:
Sheesh... Where to begin?
For starters, you should probably not begin a post claiming to have "an excellent knowledge of European history," and then make such gross historical errors in the text of the same post. Hobbes and Locke didn't believe in God? Look again. They were both theists. In fact, they thought that the existence of God was logically necessary. If you're so careless about enlisting great men for the atheist cause, I begin to understand why you think all progress derives from "the spirit of atheism." Oh, and you also said that the French were in charge of the Holy Roman Empire. Wow. Just don't say that to any Germans, okay? You're liable to be whopped with a bratwurst. The Holy Roman Empire was _Germany_, and France never conquered it.
And while I'm criticizing your historical errors, let me also say that Rafe Cardones is quite correct in his assertion that the scientific position Galileo ran afoul of was Aristotle's. To be more precise, it was the system of the Alexandrian astronomer Ptolemy, who systematized Aristotle's astronomy and expanded on it. Aristotle and Ptolemy were both pagan intellectuals, but by Galileo's time, the Church had long accepted their system as ancient wisdom, and had gotten so used to harmonizing it with their biblical interpretation that an attack on Aristotle's cosmology seemed at first to be tantamount to an attack on Scripture. You say you "hardly think the church based what they knew on [Aristotle]," but your instincts are up against historical fact on this one. Did you know that Thomas Aquinas (13th century theologian/philosopher) quoted Aristotle in his _Summa Theologica_ more than he quoted ANY Christian source except the Bible?
Ketchup Factory was right on the money with his critique of your contention that religion caused science to stagnate. As he said, science comes from a culture of material wealth, and the Middle Ages were hard times from that perspective. Also as he said, the growth of technology is exponential. The reason that the 20th Century has produced such an amazing raft of science is that it had so much momentum to work with at the beginning. And to round out my thorough approval of K.F.'s critique, I also want to reiterate his contention that atheism comes from science, not science from atheism. Once man has achieved all the amazing things he has, he becomes more easily proud, and finds it much easier to think of himself as the pinnacle of Being, instead of God.
Philosophy traditionally recognizes several different types of causation: Formal (the principle that causes a thing to subsist as what it is, rather than something else), Final (the over-arching reason that everything happens, God), and Efficient (the physical and temporal mechanics of the change). Modern science has gotten amazingly good at figuring out the Efficient Causes of things, but is no good at all for discerning the Formal or Final Causes. So like any good _really successful_ intellectual movement, Science tends to assume that its area of inquiry (into Efficient Cause) is the only one that matters. Thus, we get people like you, Napoleic.
This tendency for successful movements to develop self-seving tunnel vision also helps to explain why modern science was so slow to develop in Western Europe. In addition to K.F.'s reasons, and others that could be offered, there was resistance to Science in the Church. Why? Well, the Church was very good at dealing with Final and Formal causes, and since these clearly matter more than Efficient Causes (since the Efficient Cause would not exist without the Final and Formal Causes), it was easy for many in the Church to ignore Science (called "Physics" at the time, and later, "Natural Philosophy," to give you a flavor of where Science came from in the first place). They were good at the other causes, and wholly invested in them, so they could look down on investigators of the Efficient Cause as lesser minds, and quite possibly impious ones too. By our day, the tables have turned. Efficient Cause has proven its immense usefulness. But now, its "clergy" are the ones who are guilty of ignoring what they haven't taken time to understand. Think about that before you level your next charge at the chosed-mindedness of the medieval Church.
You started out by claiming that great scientists such as Galileo and Newton followed atheism, stood against the Church, and paved the way to a bright new godless future for us all. When people protested and said there must have been Christian scientists (Galileo and Newton were both Christians, and Newton, the Father of Modern Physics, was an especially devout one), you clarified yourself and claimed instead that, whether they were Christians or not, they followed the "spirit of atheism." Well hey! What a great way to argue! Now if I feel the need to appeal to Sartre, Nietszche, or Hawking, and you point out to me the uncomfortable fact that all the above are/were atheists or agnostics, all I have to do is insist that they are following the "spirit of theism"! How simple can that be? Let me break your argument down so we can see how dishonest it it:
1. The spirit of atheism accounts for all progress.
2. Newton, Galileo, et al. made lots of progress.
3. Therefore, Newton, Galileo, et al. followed the spirit of atheism.
You see, you can't get to your conclusion (3) without first assuming (1). But blast it all, (1) is what we were arguing about in the first place! You can't just assume it! The fact is, scientists pursue science for their own personal reasons. An atheistic scientist might pursue it to prove to himself and others that human beings are self-sufficient and need no God. Newton pursued it out of a passion to understand the amazing design God had worked into His creation. Why did Newton expect to find order and consistency in the cosmos? Because he believed that it had all been created by an orderly and consistent God. And when he discovered the Laws of Gravitation, he found exactly what he had been expecting to find: a universal theory that explained the movement of apples AND stars, of _everything_ in the physical universe. To him, as to me, this was a testament to the power and nature of God, far from being a reason to think we can dispense with Him.
Your contention that religion causes wars is also nonsense in the light of history. Religion is never more than one of the factors that cause people to go to war, and there are countless examples of nations fighting when they had the same religion, or (as in the 20th century) when religion had ceased to matter at the level of national policymaking. I'll post a thorough critique of your arguments from history later, maybe. Right now, this post is quite freaking long enough as it stands. | | #191 Prester John[57833] | | 137.187.50.72 | | There was a fourth traditional philosophical Cause, too: the Material Cause (the stuff that the Formal cause formed into something). Wherever I speak of Efficient Cause in the above post, I mean Material Cause (or at least, the modern understanding of it) to be included as well. | | #192 ~Moronic_Storm~[57893] | | win-al-pm4-156.pepperlink.net | "Atheism is better than religion because the fruits of atheism are better than the fruits of religion."
Assuming there is a God (in the Christian context), the fruits of religion are far better than the fruits of atheism. =]
Whenever I make an argument, I'm doing so with the assumption that the Bible is true. Similarly, an atheist's arguments would revolve around the belief that various scientific theories are true. The problem lies in the fact that (obviously) neither side gives a crap about their opponent's source of information.
Things like the Crusades and the inquisition came from organized religion, not God. The problem with organized religion is that men who are more interested in furthering their own political agenda (among other things) than being spiritual leaders become powerful figures in the church. If I'm not mistaken (and don't flame me if I am =]), church "leaders" went around in the middle ages claiming they could sell people salvation. "Pay me xxx amount of money and you'll go to heaven." That's a practice definitely thought of by men, not God. Drefsab said it best: "Organized religon is simply a political tool used to control large groups of people."
I think it's pretty cool that we can have an intelligent discussion rather than a flame war. I've seen some points that I've never considered before. I can almost agree with the other side...but not quite. =]
~Moronic_Storm~ | | #193 ~Moronic_Storm~[57894] | | win-al-pm4-156.pepperlink.net | <h1>#200!!!</h1>
yeehaw. | | #194 JFeTT[57915] | | ro04-204-210-189-182.ce.mediaone.net | | This stuff is just getting to long now.. | | #195 Napoleic[57954] | | 24.66.179.206.bc.wave.home.com | In the interest of keeping this from rivaling the 8800 word posts of the last debate, I will attempt to rebut in the fewest possible words.
Prestor_John: You are one clever bastard :) Way to attempt to steer the debate into another meaningless schlock of drivel by throwing that cause stuff. The problem with causes is that only the material one matters because it is the only provable one. Final cause is the invention of the church to justify their existance. Unfortunately I don't think we could ever come to an understanding over that because the only thing to say is Im right and your wrong.
by the way, I said, in regards to Galileo:
Besides it's the point of the matter. Rather than accept they were wrong in the face of proof, they excommunicated and tried to execute Galileo
That has nothing to do with what the Church thought of Aristotle.
Now Im quite certain about one thing. The Holy Roman Empire eventually became parts of Germany, but it was definately Charlemagne who was proclaimed the first Holy Roman Emperor since Roman times. Germanny was in no shape to be an empire because it wsa broken up into so many small powers. The area as a whole was known as the Germanic states. However I do believe that Rome got tired with fighting with France over its tithe and moved the whole schlock up to Germany before Martin Luther got sick of the whole fiasco and posted his theses.
Props for pointing out my historical inaccuracies, I tend to bend it a little in a debate ;)
Though your right when you say there are other causes to wars, I still contend that religion was a major one. It manages to keep several regions in conflict even today. Look at India/Afghanistan, Israel/Arab nations, Northern Ireland. Religion still causes far more harm than good. Though of course Moronic Storm is right when he says, what if there is a god and a heaven? Well let me the first to say that when I see it with my own eyes I'll believe it and attempt to repent and so forth, though I'm not sure what the process is on that...
Moronic Storm also brought up my next point. All religion starts up great. Christ probly had nothing but good intentions. But honestly it's far too corruptable. Mark my words, there will never be any wars on the basis of Agnosticism or Atheism.
You as much as admitted that all our modern day technology and things we enjoy come out of the search for material cause, which was basically scoffed by the church. This yet another example of a mistake made by the church. They keep changing their tune to change with the times. Now they're saying the Church and Science can coexist. If the church remained the body it was set up as a few hundred years after Christ and was still perfect I would not be so skeptical, but the fact is it's not perfect or any such thing. This begs the question: Why not? It's set up, theoretically at least, to praise a perfect being. Some sects even claim to be set up by the perfect being.
You may call me arrogant for thinking Man is the most superiour being around. I call you foolish for devoting your life to something you have never seen or heard nor ever will (IMO of course) I believe there is a being better than us when he comes forward and proves it. In the meantime I (as in the context of atheists) will trying to cure cancer or aids, or invent a better backscratcher. Or anything. | | #196 Prester John[58193] | | 137.187.50.72 | Well, at least I'm a _clever_ bastard.
I like the way you dismiss millennia of philosophy with the flip phrase "meaningless schlock of drivel." It's a good illustration of the point I was making that the modern intellectual establishment is every bit as overconfident and unwilling to hear dissenting views in good faith as was the medieval ecclesiarchy that it so loves to criticize.
You really don't understand what you are saying when you say that Material Cause is the only one that matters. Science concerns itself even more with Efficient Causes. And it also constantly concerns itself with Formal Causes, even if it doesn't like to think in such terms. When a microbiologist works to map the human genome, Material Cause is involved because DNA is physical stuff. Efficient Cause is what the scientist is dealing with when he links a particular alignment of chromosomes (cause) to a particular trait in the person who has that DNA (effect). Formal Cause is the _meaning_ in the DNA, the principle that makes an amino acid lysine instead of tryptophan, or trytophan instead of lysine, and allows them to affect life the way they do. The Final Cause the first cause, the necessary One that lies behind all the other causes, and makes them what they are. And Final Cause is not "the invention of the Church," as you casually assume. It's a concept inherent to logical thought, and historically speaking, is older than Christianity. In fact, this enumeration of 4 causes is first set up this way in the writings of (guess who?) Aristotle.
In regards to Galileo, yeah, of course the Church hierarchy was wrong about that. The modern Catholic Church has, in fact, explicitly admitted this. But what are you proving by bringing that up? No one but a fool would assert that Christians have always done everything right. There are two sides to the Church: it is composed of human beings who are being transformed into the image of Christ. Therefore there is a divine side to the Church, and this is what gives it its authority and spiritual power, but there is also a very human side to it, because after all, it's made of humans, and each one has his own personal, cultural, and historical limitations. You shouldn't be surprised to find an institution resisting change, digging its heels into the understandings of its surrounding culture and anathematizing those who point to the future. All big institutions do this, and the modern intellectual establishment that you extol, as I have been at pains to point out, offers a prime example of exactly this same behavior. What Rafe Cardones was doing by bringing up the Church's reliance on Aristotle, was showing you that it was the Church, as a human-divine hybrid, that was erring in the case of Galileo--not the Christian revelation on which the Church rests. The Bible doesn't condemn Galileo.
(The preceding paragraph is also my answer to your complaints that the Church hasn't been perfect. Look, if it was perfect, it wouldn't be able to accept and help messed up folks such as you, me, and everyone else, because we would screw its perfection up immediately. Then what good would it be?)
As for the Holy Roman Empire rabbit trail, yes, Charlemagne was considered to have been the first, and he _was_ the first to bear that title. However, there's a big historical gap between Charlemagne (c. 800) and the real establishment of the Holy Roman Empire (10th century). When Charlemagne's son Louis (the Pious) died, he split his empire among his sons. It was the eastern part (and pieces of the central part), i.e. the German part, that later availed itself of Charlemagne's title and styled itself the "Holy Roman Empire," despite the fact that it controlled less than half the territory that had comprised Charlemagne's empire. The western parts went on to become the kingdom of France. "Charlemagne," incidentally, is just the French name for the emperor Carolus Magnus (Charles the Great). He is also a national hero to the Germans, and they call him Karl der Grosse. The French and Germans, especially in the late 19th and early 20th centuries, have spent a lot of time fighting over the legacy of Charles. Most of the Holy Roman Empire, though, became modern Germany (parts became modern Italy), and the stand-off you were talking about was between the popes and the kings of France in the 14th century.
Sure, religion is a factor in some wars. But what does that prove, except that religion is valuable to people, that they care deeply about it? Love of country, love of family, love of democracy, belief in some other cause--all these things motivate people to fight, too. All you prove by mentioning this is that religion is a powerful force. Maybe atheism per se has never been a motivating factor in a war effort, but then neither has theism, per se, either. There have _definitely_ been atheistic belief systems that have motivated people to war, though, just as there have been theistic ones that have done this. Nazism was based on the best racial "science" of its day. In _Mein Kampf_, Hitler set his struggle up in evolutionary terms, as the historical conflict between the Jew and the Aryan. Russian Communism was militantly atheistic, and I do mean _militant._ The war in Afghanistan was as much a struggle between atheism and Islam as it was a struggle between two political entities. And Stalin, when he killed some 20 million (_conservative_ estimate) of his own people, was motivated by the need to create a perfect human society by coaxing along the laws of history and social science, with no reference whatsoever to a God he didn't believe in.
What's more, you've already said yourself that the Thirty Years War in the early 17th century had little to do with religion. That surprised me, because on the surface, it's a _very_ religious war, Catholics vs. Protestants. It just so happens that you've learned enough about this particular war, apparently, to realize how many other factors were involved, and how little religion actually influenced some of the key events (such as Catholic France coming in on the Protestant side to avoid being the meat in a Hapsburg sandwich). If you were to learn more about the other wars you've mentioned, even the Arab-Israeli conflict, even India/Pakistan (I think you meant Pakistan, not Afghanistan?) and even (believe it or not) the Crusades, you would discover that religion was less of a motive force than you first thought.
And as for you last comment about curing cancer instead of living a Christian life, that's a false dichotomy. Did Isaac Newton have to choose between founding Modern Physics and living a Christian life? If you get into science, it will be because you belong to an age that is excited about the possibilities of science--the same reason a 20th century Christian would get into science. Your atheism doesn't have anything to do with it.
| | #197 Napoleic[58292] | | 24.66.179.206.bc.wave.home.com | Well I can find a few errors in your above statements, such as the thirty years war took place earlier that the 1600's, but that may have been a typo on your part. Yes I did mean India/Pakistan, and I think that that is a great example of religious conflict. It's Hinduism vs Muslim.
In a addition, it's a well documented fact that Stalin did not kill the 20 mil + people because he did not believe in god, unless you consider everything that is not theist, atheist. He was also not motivated by anything so benevolent as creating a superiour society. If you mean the forced collective farming, well, that was just because he wanted to have stricter control over the peasant farmers by forcing them to work for the government. If you mean the purges, well, they were simply motivated by paranoia.
Even though these don't have anything to do with religion, I don't think it's fair to just lump them under atheism.
I think we can agree that religion is only one of many causes of wars, yes? Hell, it probably isn't even much of a cause at all. However, the bible, and the church, can be easily manipulated by men in power. Yes, your right that all it proves is that people care about it, but I think that's a problem. Charismatic figures have, and always will able to manipulate this caring to their own ends. I think that that is as much a problem as nations stockpiling enough nuclear firepower to annihilate the earth. Your right that the crusades were a political conflict over probable threat, without much at all to do with religion in the first place. However, what's more inspiring? The birthplace of christ is being defiled by sub-human pagans... or, The Arabs are getting a little too powerful for our liking, so go kill a bunch of them. I ask you this: Would so many lives have been lost without religion to motivate them?
Here's some more food for thought. To an atheist, it really makes no difference who invents a new religion. I think it's safe to call nazism a religion of sorts, even though it doesn't involve any gods. But basically it's a system of beliefs designed to dictate how a person should live and what actions they should and should not take, above and beyond the laws of the land. This may be stretching it but bear with me. Technically that would put Christ on the same level as Hitler. No, Christ did not try to exterminate anyone, or commit genocide, but comparing them on a base level, they're very similar. Just 2 charismatic people trying to influence the thoughts and beliefs of everyone around them. Christ, obviously, succeeded, but what if Hitler had? We'd all be wearing swastica's and ziek hailing right now, thats what, and nary a thought towards Jesus. You see what I'm getting at? There would be no god if Hitler won. This is the kind of cynical attitude I have as an atheist.
You shrug off all the transgressions of the church, saying, they're human, it happens. It happens with any major instituition. If I may ask, what other major instituition are you referring to? Other religions? Well big deal, Im not prejudiced against christians, I don't beleive in any other religion either. I find myself wondering what other major instituition has been around for 2000 years and gotten away with all the errors that the church has? It's quite unprecedented, but because people are willing to have faith, it continues. People always tell me the church will change, but they have been saying that for 1500 years...
I have tried to convince you that the world would have been better off without the church, for the most part, but you will not agree. Now try to convince me it has in fact had a positive influence on history, above and beyond it's negative one.
I have not mentioned the causes. Frankly I'm not qualified to debate with you on that. I have no background at all in philosophy. If Jumbooruk is still here, I'm hoping he can rebut that, because I am still a month away from beginning my philosophy education at SFU. If we're still flogging this horse then, I'll be able to argue from a more equal footing.
By the way Prestor_John, I have had this debate with a couple of christian friends of mine countless times. I must commend you for bringing up far better points than they. They always have to resort to: you have to have faith or your not gonna make it to heaven. I have never been in a debate with such a worthy opponent. I find the challenge highly refreshing, thank you for that. But I'm still right =) | | #198 ~LifeIsPeachy~[58298] | | cache-2.sbo.ma.webcache.rcn.net |
Quote by Napoleic:
"You say most academics are atheist, not most atheists are academic. Whats the difference in how you word it?"
My #181 post was more of a joke, and I find this discussion pretty interesting overall. But this quote by you was so obviously said after no thought on the matter that it makes me doubt some of your other points.
Consider these:
"Most academics are atheist, but most atheists are not academic."
"All squares are rectangles, but all rectangles are not squares."
I'm sure you see what I mean after looking at it again, but just for the hell of it (and for anyone else who doesn't get it) I'll give an expample.
Lets say there are 1000 academic people. 800 of them are atheist. Therefore the statement "Most academic people are atheist" is true. On the other hand, there are 2000 atheists who are not academic. So now the statement "Most atheists are not academic people" is true.
Woohoo, I contributed something relavent. Or at least as relavent as anything else here. I am agnostic, leaning toward atheism, but the truth is except for when I am reading things like this I don't really think about it. I don't deny any god, I don't worship one. To be honest, in my normal life I just don't care. Some of you can't seem to relate to this way of thinking, many consider it the "easy way out," but I see nothing wrong with it. I never say down for hours on end, looking over history books and scripture trying to decide what beliefs are best, I just never really concerned myself with them.
I carry no predudice against what people believe, only their actions. Accept that people like me exist. And if you're going to argue intelligently about this sort of thing, then think about what you say to critizize. It can backfire, and frankly make you look like a pretty big ass in retrospect. | | #199 Zumbooruk[58301] | | 202-27-181-98.dialup.xtra.co.nz | Heya Napoleonic. Thanks! Terrific to have someone read over the debate; I spent a lot of time on it. In retrospect, I agree it was probably a mistake to be caught up in the Bible, though understand that I knew I had no hope of convincing Paradigm to abandon his faith. He's intelligent, but staunchly Christian. With that in mind, I let the debate go wherever was most fun to argue (for that was my motivation). I am no great philosopher, though, just some sixteen year old guy from New Zealand, so I'm out of my depth in this debate. I know little of philosophy or European history, but I will be back later tonight to post some actual argument.
The most recent post at 2460 (Wallabystein's, not WC3's br) was about three weeks ago, and it appears that Paradigm has abandoned the debate without warning. That is odd, and I didn't think he was the kind to do that. He may be offended that I called his God petty and accused him of justifying rape (he did!). He's always replied within three days before.
Thanks again
Zumbooruk (with a Z)
| | #200 Napoleic[58305] | | 24.66.179.206.bc.wave.home.com | Life Is Peachy:
Yes I see what your saying, and I did then. I almost made an ass of myself, but I caught myself in time. Look at my next line:
Of course most atheists aren't Academics. Are most christian priests? The fact is Academia is rarely a high paying or popular endeavor, much like preacherhood. No, the fact that most academics are atheist is exactly the point and you admitted it yourself.
I think you can see from that that I gleaned your meaning before posting.
Zumbooruk: Ironically I am a mere 17, starting University in a month. Glad to see your still with me :) BTW When I found out Zephyr was Zumbooruk, I was surprised but delighted :) Although I prefer the name Zephyr :)
It seems the Christians shut me down when I tried to diss the church, but I would like to see them attempt to justify existance with any point other than faith. I think they'll find its much easier to defend rather than attack.
All the best,
Napoleic
| | #201 ~13~ShAdOwDrAc[58317] | | spider-we024.proxy.aol.com | Napoliec- On the post about Christ and Hitler, how you said that Christ never tried to commit genocide, what about the Noah's Ark part? I don't believe in it, but Christ DID commit genocide if it is true, so thats all I gotta say for now.
Peace
~13~ShAdOwDrAc | | #202 Napoleic[58370] | | pntn02m04-7.bctel.ca | | Umm, Thanx for the support I guess, but Noah's ark had more to do with Noah than Christ... | | #203 [58417] | | rliv236.infocom.com | Wow, some great stuff since I last visited.
Some excellent points by both Napoleic and Prester.
Prester, you are working very hard to prove that the church was not the main cause for all the turmoil in Europe between the time of the Roman Empire and the late 1700's. However, I submit to you that during this time period, the "church" was in power. They called all the shots.
Who gets blamed when things go wrong? The person/people in charge.
Anyway, I too am curious as Napoleic is how the church helped to improve the human condition during that time instead of helping to degrade it... :-)
Cheers,
Dref | | #204 Zumbooruk[58471] | | IPNAK1-C6.xtra.co.nz | I have little to say, but I notice many are talking of religion as a powerful force to explain its evil - that it's simply because people care about it that they would kill and die for it. One Christian compared it to love of family, love of country and love of democracy. Instinct, patriotism and idealism - those examples are all seemingly virtuous, based on faith, that many would kill and die for. I argue that faith - for any reason - is very dangerous, and worthless. Believe that your family is better than another and you get the Capulets and Montagues. Believe that your country is better than another and you get war, or at best, racism. (Before someone suggests it - to clarify: I advocate democracy, but I don't advocate love of democracy)
Faith is wrong. Keep an open mind. | | #205 Zumbooruk[58478] | | IPNAK1-C6.xtra.co.nz | Those who say that people killed and died for Christianity because they cared about it are correct, but one should also note that they were doing it because they obeyed the Bible - as all good Christians should.
Exodus 22:20: He that sacrificeth unto any god, save unto the Lord only, he shall be utterly destroyed.
Deuteronomy: 13:6-10: If thy brother, the son of thy mother, or thy son, or thy daughter, or the wife of thy bosom, or thy friend, which is as thine own soul, entice thee secretly, saying, Let us go and serve other gods, which thou hast not known...Thou shalt not consent unto him, nor hearken unto him; neither shall thine eye pity him, neither shalt thou spare, neither shalt thou conceal him: But thou shalt surely kill him...And thou shalt stone him with stones, that he die.
| | #206 Rafe_Cardones[58503] | | PPPa33-ResaleSilverSpring4-3R7138.saturn.bbn.com | Napoleic,
Please check your facts before you spout off.
Reformation & rebirth in the Church:
First, the Inquisition predates the Reformation.
As far as renewal in the Church, you have the Reformation, the Counter-Reformation within the Catholic Church, the First Great Awakening at the beginning of the 1700s, the Second Great Awakening at the beginning of the 1800s, the Laymen's Prayer Revival in the 1850s and 1860s, and the Pentecostal movement starting in 1906. It seems to me that there certainly has been a lot of renewal.
As for the abolition of slavery, the abolition movement in England was led by the Clapham Sect. As I've stated, William Wilburforce and Granville Sharp were the leaders. There was also a heavy religious presence in the abolition movement in the US. If you still don't believe me that the abolition movement was religiously based, take a look at "The Battle Hymn of the Republic" sometime, all five verses.
BTW, there are a lot of cardinals in the Roman Catholic Church, not just one.
No wars caused by atheism? Come on, what about the Korean War? Offensive action initiated by a state that proclaimed itself to be atheist. Toss Vietnam in there, too. And Hitler (a materialist, yes?) and Stalin (atheist) deserve a whole lot of responsibility for WWII.
As far as religion as a major cause of war - sure is, but often it's more of an excuse. As Prester_John posted, take France in the Thirty Years War. France - a Catholic country with Cardinal Richelieu calling the shots - jumped in on the _Protestant_ side because Richelieu was more concerned with the secular power of France than he was with religion.
I have no idea what you're talking about with respect to the separation of church & state in the US being based on anything England did. Separation of church & state in the US is based _entirely_ on the First Amendment. By contrast, England has a state church - the Anglican (what we call Episcopal here in the US). By law, the Queen must by Anglican. That's not separation of church & state.
"If the church remained the body it was set up as a few hundred years after Christ" - The Church was set up in AD 33, fifty days after the Resurrection on the day of Pentecost. The Church spread throughout the Roman Empire and the Ancient Near East rapidly as many pilgrims who were in Jerusalem for Pentecost were converted. The earliest secular reference I can think of the Roman historian Tacitus who refers to Christians being in Rome in AD 49. Pliny the Younger refers to Christians in Asia Minor during his governorship around AD 110.
Prester_John's date for the Thirty Years War is correct. It began with the Defenestation of Prague in 1618. (That's Latin for "out the window," which is what the Bohemians did to the Emperor's representatives. Fortunately, there was a manure pile below.) The Thirty Years War ended with the Peace of Westphalia in 1648. Major battles included White Mountain (1620), Breitenfeld (1631), Lutzen (1632), and Rocroi (1643?).
Stalin's desire to create the perfect society here on Earth stems directly from him not believing that there would be one in heaven. Plus, with eternal value on the life of the individual, but the state continuing on, the state became more important than the individual. Ergo, 20 million dead civilians in peacetime.
Quick examples of how the Church has benefited society, religous concerns aside: 1) Improved the literacy rate. It is a historical fact that the highest literacy rates in the 1600s and 1700s were in those countries where people were encouraged to read the Bible themselves. BTW, that includes New England, and the rest of the US adopted the New England model of universal education. 2) Improved the status of women. Really! Luther and Calvin stressed the importance of the family, holding that raising a family was as least as important, if not more so, than being a monk or a nun. Raising a family came to be seen as doing the Lord's work. 3) The majority of hospitals were founded by Christians. Take a look at some the names. 4) English child labor laws were introduced in Parliament by Christians. 5) A good deal of technical education in the Third World, from computers to irrigation, comes from Christians. Many of the relief agencies there are Christian-based as well.
From the Roman Empire through the 1700s, _sometimes_ the Church was in power. That is, some of the time, the reigning monarchs supported the Pope. Innocent III, for example, could make and break kings. But a century later, the pope was completely disregarded by the kings. During the Protestant Reformation, some monarchs such as the Elector of Saxony were assisting the Protestants. The Church followed a delicate balancing act, and was by no means in complete control.
| | #207 Rafe_Cardones[58506] | | PPPa3-ResaleSilverSpring2-2R7158.saturn.bbn.com | Zumbooruk:
Good work finding those verses. However, the key in Bible interpretation is context. After all, you don't want to just a verse to live out and realize afterwards that it was preceded by a nasty little "and Satan said:"
These two verses are a little trickier than that, however. Do notice that they're from Exodus and Deuteronomy, part of the Law (Genesis through Deuteronomy). As such, they are addressed to the Jews. At that time, Israel was an independent nation. It was also a theocracy - religious and civil law were one and the same.
But consider Galatians 3:23-25: "Before this faith came, we were held prisoners by the law, locked up until faith should be revealed. So the law was put in charge to lead us to Christ that we might be justified by faith. Now that faith has come, we are no longer under the supervision of the law." In other words, Genesis through Deuteronomy are not standing orders for Christians. They are inspired history, and they do accurately list God's standing orders to His people in other time periods. Many of the specific instructions found in the Law are repeated and addressed to Christians in the New Testament. The instructions to wipe out unbelievers are not. | | #208 [58572] | | rliv236.infocom.com | Why do I chastise organized religion? They can't make up their minds on what's right and wrong. Every branch of Christianity has a different interpretation of the Bible.
<ul>
<li>Baptists believe that once you're saved, you can never lose your salvation no matter what you do.
<li>Pentecostals don't believe in the trinity and think that women should wear long skirts and never cut their hair
<li>Adventists go to church on Saturday instead of Sunday
The list goes on. Mormons, Jehovah's Witnesses, Methodists, and countless others all have different interpretations of the EXACT SAME BOOK. And what's worse is they all think THEY and ONLY THEY are the ones with the truth.
I was watching South Park tonight (a politically incorrect american cartoon) and a bunch of people were standing in Hell preparing for orientation.
One person in the crowd says, "Wait, I shouldn't be here, I was a good Protestant all my life."
Another person says, "Yeah, I was a practicing Jehovah's Witness."
Hell's public relations director, "You weren't in the right religion."
A third person says, "What was the correct religion? I was baptist."
In his best Alex Trebek voice, Hell's public relations director replies, "I'm sorry, the correct answer was Mormon, mormon."
Everyone in the crowd goes, "Awwwwwww."
A silly illustration, but it just shows how ridiculous and disorganized religion is today. In fact, I submit that the term organized religion is a comical oxymoron.
I don't deny the existence of God. What I do deny is the right of any religion who has "the truth" to dictate to me how I should live my life... :-)
Cheers,
Dref | | #209 Napoleic[58722] | | 24.66.179.206.bc.wave.home.com | Blast it I had a big long rebuttal all made and there was a power outage :( Now I'm not in the mood to, but I'll try.
The Korean War can only be called an atheist war if you say that any war not involving religion must be caused by atheism. If you think the korean war is more caused by atheism than the crusades are caused by religion you need to reevaluate the effect your faith has had on your logic.
I said the Church as it was set up a few hundred years after christ because that was when it became accepted. With Constantine, around 346 ad I think.
Stalin hardly desired to create a perfect society and I doubt he gave a rats ass about the afterlife.
"In addition, it's a well documented fact that Stalin did not kill the 20 mil + people because he did not believe in god, unless you consider everything that is not theist, atheist. He was also not motivated by anything so benevolent as creating a superiour society. If you mean the forced collective farming, well, that was just because he wanted to have stricter control over the peasant farmers by forcing them to work for the government. If you mean the purges, well, they were simply motivated by paranoia.
Even though these don't have anything to do with religion, I don't think it's fair to just lump them under atheism."
-Napoleic
Most of your quick examples of the church benefitting people are examples of the church strengthening itself. Aside from the Hospitals and Child rights (though I find it ironic that you bring that up given the many cases in which children were sexually molested by priests) they only did those things to gain more believers.
Of course they encouraged people to read the bible, I'd be more inclined to believe they cared about literacy if they also encouraged people to read shakespeare or the paper. The literacy was nothing but a useful side effect.
They help the third world only because that is an easy source of new believers.
Well maybe that's a little cynical and unfair, but it isnt like they sacrifice anything. I'd like to see you prove they help for the sake of helping.
| | #210 Prester John[58799] | | 137.187.50.72 | Napoleic:
That's more than just "a little cynical and unfair." It's incredibly so. When you challenge us to produce examples of Christianity having a good effect on the world, and we do, you can't just fall back on your prejudices and assume that these good things were done selfishly. How would you know? Are you going to claim that Mother Theresa didn't sacrifice anything by being a nun and working with the lepers of Calcutta her whole life long? Are you going to tell us that missionaries don't sacrifice anything when they give up the conveniences of 20th century European or American life, to live with and help people in Third World countries? They obviously do. It's also a really bad argument to accuse the Church of selfishness when it seeks converts. The Church tries to make people Christians for _their_ benefit. When I advocate Christianity to someone, I'm not trying to build a power bloc; I want that person to know the wonderful truth that can set him free, both in this life and the next. You might as well accuse a hospital of treating patients out of a selfish desire to increase peoples' faith in modern science. And a third observation: even if you persist in your too-sweeping cynicism, we've still made our point. You just wanted examples of how Christianity had made the world a better place. Motivation doesn't matter to that question. Whether a mission hospital is founded for pure or base motives, it _does_ make the world a better place.
I stick by my previous comments about the influence of atheism on Stalin and Hitler. Nazism followed the Nietzschean idea that the superior man has the right to do as he wills, brooking no interference from the inferior man. It then defined the Aryan race as the superior man and the Jew as the inferior, making use of evolutionary theory. Nietzche had criticized Christianity harshly for teaching that the strong needed to protect (rather than exploit) the weak, and that all men were of equal worth in the sight of God. He thought these beliefs were a spineless capitulation to the unworthy masses--something that would hold back the progress of history. The Nazis agreed, and determined that they would be the _Ubermenschen_, the super-men who would be strong enough to do what had to be done for the sake of the progress of the "superior" race, no matter how badly they had to screw "lesser" races in the process. Nazism as an ideology would not have been possible without atheism. People who believe that the greatest good is God do not draw up genocidal plans to exterminate people made in His image. In order to do that, you need to believe that the greatest good is material, is human--in this case, is a particular race of humanity.
Stalin's murder of 20-60 million of his own people also stemmed from an atheistic worldview. Yeah, the purges were a result of his own paranoia, I agree, but the vast bulk of his victims didn't die in purges, but in the forced collectivization of Russian farms. Many millions starved because Stalin was bent on breaking the old capitalist system in which the farmer owned his produce and could dispose of it as he wished (i.e. eat some, sell the rest), and replacing it with a system in which the nation collectively would own everything they produced, and the government would apportion it fairly to everyone. On the basis of this tenet of Communism, Stalin separated the farmer from his crops, and then he sold these crops to the West for industrial machinery in order to make Russian strong enough to resist capitalist nations and become a worldwide proponent of Communism. The areas where starvation was the worst were those in which the farmers had given him the most resistance, because as long as there wasn't going to be enough food for everyone, Stalin figured it might as well be those who were standing in the way of the brave new world who starved. Without a belief in a God who would hold him responsible for these countless murders, or a heaven for the poor of the earth to inherit, the early leaders of Russian Communism (Lenin was similarly ruthless, though not paranoid to boot) thought any action justified as long as it would contribute to the eventual realization of a classless, beatific socialist heaven-on-earth.
Notice, I haven't said that bare atheism drove Hitler and Stalin, but atheism was in both cases a necessary foundation for the ideologies that did drive them, just as theism is a necessary foundation for a holy war. The worst excesses of 20th century brutality have been, in essence, atheistic jihads.
So you see, it doesn't have to be a theistic religion, in order to inspire people to rally to a war effort. Appealing to Aryan superiority, urging one's comrades to strive for the Workers' Paradise, or convincing the Crusader of the infidel's wickedness--it's all the same thing. Religious beliefs are among the most foundational of beliefs, so idealists, intellectuals, and those susceptible to their rhetoric will always be strongly motivated by them. Sure, I'll grant that religion is often a major cause of war, and _always_ part of the propaganda used to mobilize the populace. But you need to grant 1) that this is equally true of atheistic and theistic religions and 2) that the only reason religion works so well as a handle to motivate the populace is that it's one of the most significant things in the world--one of the things that make life worth living at the most basic level.
| | #211 Prester John[58804] | | 137.187.50.72 | Napoleic:
Thanks, by the way, for complimenting my arguments. Even if you aren't ready to be convinced by them (yet, at least; I can pray), I'm glad you can recognize their strength. The main thing I hope to do in such a discussion (because I don't really expect online discussions by themselves to convince people to rearrange their lives) is demonstrate to the intelligent and/or intellectually curious that Christianity is able to deal with its detractors, and that it is a faith with a rich intellectual tradition that must be taken seriously, not just a religion for the uneducated, or unthinking. You mustn't think that the intellectual force of Christianity is limited to the ability of your Christian friends to propound it (or even my ability to do so). We're talking about something that has absorbed the attention and gained the allegiance of thousands of great minds. Hopefully your Christian friends have already convinced you, or are convincing you, that Christianity is existentially worthwhile--a way of life based on love and humility, and productive of joy. I hope that through conversations such as this one, you might realize that it is also intellectually worthwhile, even if it's beyond the ability of the Christians you have so far met to demonstrate this. You may find this composite picture of Christianity much more attractive than you thought possible. | | #212 Prester John[58812] | | 137.187.50.72 | Drefsab:
I've been meaning for a little while now to post a defense of organized religion, since you've knocked it a few times in this thread, and so have some people who are for the most part sympathetic to Christianity, but insist on it being a private pursuit rather than a corporate one. I've divided this defense into three parts, to handle three different objections.
1. "The main goal of organized religion is to control large groups of people. Its always been that way since B.C."
This was your original statement on the subject, a bunch of posts back. It's very reductionistic. Who controls people just to control them? Even governments, whose whole reason for existing is to direct masses of people, have goals beyond the acquisition and maintenance of power. Every organization that tries to lead people has a reason for leading them, and a place to which they are leading them. Individual politicians might get involved out of purely mercenary motives, but the system itself exists for larger reasons, and plays a role bigger than the sum of its parts.
This is even more true of the Church than of the State, because the State was already in place when the Church came around, and already controlling people. It was all that the ancient Greeks and Romans felt they needed. Even their religion was carried out by the State--a very secular, nationalistic religion, subservient to the governors. There was no "control void" demanding the Church's existence. It started for very specific, meaningful reasons, not as a redundant method of controlling the populace. And even in the Middle Ages, after the fall of the Western Roman Empire made the Roman Catholic Church the most significant unifying factor in Western Europe, it never replaced the government. Its concerns continued to be different.
Of course, all along it did seek to exercise a strong influence over people in its own realm, that of religion. But why? For their spiritual good. The power was not an end in itself for the Church at large, although there were undoubtedly some individual clerics for whom it was. When a bishop commanded a renegade priest to stop teaching some heretical doctrine (a clear manifestation of highly organized religion), he wasn't just throwing his power around; he was concerned for the truth. And even if he _was_ throwing his power around, he probably still cared deeply about the theology at stake. He found himself in a position of spiritual leadership, one in which he was responsible for promoting the salvation of thousands of souls. When he exercised his authority to protect his flock from heresy, he was acting for their benefit, impelled by a sense of his responsibility before God.
Of course, organizing religion, like organizing anything, introduces politics into the equation, and politics always threatens to become more important than the original purpose. In any authority structure there is the danger of abuse of power. But that doesn't mean the authority structure exists to abuse its power. There's a legitimate reason for it being there in the first place. Advocating religion without organization is the equivalent of advocating anarchy in the political realm. Governments, though they go sour sometimes, are preferable to lawlessness, and Church structures, though they can go bad too, are preferable to doctrinal and disciplinary chaos.
2. "Every branch of Christianity has a different interpretation of the Bible."
It's funny you complain about this, after having blasted the idea of organized religion, because the only way to make sure that all Christians believed exactly the same thing would be to have a very highly organized Church with no patience for dissenting views, and a State establishment that would back it up with governmental force. The only reason there are so many different groups of Christians today is that the Roman Catholic Church lost its monolithic governmental support in the Reformation, which in turn led to the end of a "One Church only" ecclesiology, resulting in a Christianity that is _less_ organized than before. Which do you want? More unity or less organization? They don't go together.
3. Some one, or some few other people (not you, Drefsab, as far as I can remember) said that Christianity at its roots wasn't supposed to be organized, but just a personal thing. This isn't so. Jesus taught with authority, and so did His apostles after His death. In reading the New Testament, you can't escape the realization that the writers expected people to believe and obey what they said. Yes, a commitment to Christianity happens at the personal level, but the doctrine you are committing to is non-negotiable. Right from the start, the Church had authority figures--the Apostles and their associates, and the first Church council held to determine points of doctrine and practice occurs in the Book of Acts, chapter 15, not in post-biblical history. The degree of organization, and the forms it has taken, have changed throughout history, but Christianity has always been an organized religion.
| | #213 [58833] | | as530014.infocom.com | Prester,
You have tried to force me into a "Catch-22", but I will not concede either point.
The reason that I brought up the inconsistency in biblical interpretation was to show how unclear the Bible really is. When there was one church (Roman Catholic) interpreting the Bible, this problem was not apparent. However, when the Reformation started, other people (beside the clergy) started reading it and coming up with new and different interpretations. Can you honestly tell me that this fact alone is not disquieting? The fact that the bible is so confusing that when the common man got their hands on it, they interpretted it in countless different ways coming up with countless new forms of Christianity.
This inconsistency does not make me say, "I wish the church was more organized again so that there is once again only one interpretation of the bible." That would be a ridiculous sentiment because who is to say that this particular interpretation that has been chosen is the correct one?
No. Instead this inconsistency problem causes me to question the validity of Christianity itself since its foundation is based almost entirely upon a book where no one can agree upon its interpretation.
Now, you seem to be of the opinion that the church during the middle ages cared for nothing more than the spiritual good of its constituents. In your words, "<i>... it did seek to exercise a strong influence over people in its own realm, that of religion. But why? For their spiritual good.</i>"
Don't you think that this opinion of the Roman Catholic church during the middle ages is a bit simplistic and naieve? The church was completely immersed in the politics of the countries of its time. You say the motive was for the spiritual good of "their people". I say, they were using the control that they had over the majority of the people in a leader's realm for political power and materiel gain.
In fact, the church had become so corrupt by the time of the reformation it was telling people that if they "sinned" they could buy forgiveness for that sin in the form of an indulgence. In fact, if they wanted to go steal a pig from their neighbor's farm, they could buy one of these indulgences in advance if they happened to be in town at the time. For convienience sake of course.
I don't think its unrealistic to assume that the church would have no motives for controlling large groups of people beyond the fact that they "cared for their spirtual well-being".
And of course, even though religion is not as organized as it used to be, you still see religious leaders using their control over large groups of constituents for things like materiel gain and political power.
So from my point of view, I <i>can</i> complain about the inconsistency of the Bible <b>and</b> about how the church uses its control over large groups of people. I have a valid reason for making both points and I don't believe they contradict each other... :-)
Cheers,
Dref | | #214 Zumbooruk[58894] | | 202-27-181-105.dialup.xtra.co.nz | "The Nazis agreed, and determined that they would be...super-men who would be strong enough to do what had to be done for the sake of the progress of the "superior" race, no matter how badly they had to screw "lesser" races in the process. Nazism as an ideology would not have been possible without atheism. People who believe that the greatest good is God do not draw up genocidal plans to exterminate people made in His image."
It <i>is</i> Christian to distinguish between races of people. The Jews believed themselves to be God's chosen people, and similarly that other races - some in particular - were lesser races. Most people know of the Samaritan story, where Jesus emphasized that even the lowly Samaritans - most loathed and ostracized by the Jews - were eligible for heaven. Jesus' teachings were revolutionary, of course (I call it contradictory), and there are commandments (even in the New Testament) not to preach to certain hated peoples, thus condemning them to hell - the Gentiles and the Samaritans:
Mt.10:5-6 "These twelve Jesus sent forth, and commanded them, saying, Go not into the way of the Gentiles, and into any city of the Samaritans enter ye not: But go rather to the lost sheep of the house of Israel."
Acts 16:6 "Now when they had gone throughout Phrygia and the region of Galatia, and were forbidden of the Holy Ghost to preach the word in Asia."
Do you still support those missionaries who sacrifice the conveniences of 20th century European or American life, to live with and help people in Third World countries? Third World countries...like large sections of Asia?
"It was all that the ancient Greeks and Romans felt they needed. Even their religion was carried out by the State--a very secular, nationalistic religion, subservient to the governors. There was no "control void" demanding the Church's existence. It started for very specific, meaningful reasons, not as a redundant method of controlling the populace."
A secular religion?
<strong>secular</strong> <i>adj.</i> worldly, as opposed to sacred; not connected with religion or the church.
But the main thrust of my argument here is not that you don't know what you're talking about, but that the ancient Roman and Greek religions pacified and controlled people in a very similar way as did (and to a certain extent, does) Christianity. To illustrate:
"Religion is regarded by the common people as true, by the wise as false, and by rulers as useful." - Seneca the Younger (4? B.C. - 65 A.D.)
It was a common theme. Lucretius (98?-55? BCE) was a Roman poet who, like Epicurus the more famous Greek philosopher, insisted that the soul is not a distinct, immaterial entity but instead just a chance combination of atoms that does not survive the body. He also postulated purely natural causes for earthly phenomena in order to prove that the world is not directed by divine agency and that fear of the supernatural is consequently without reasonable foundation. Lucretius did not deny the existence of gods, but like Epicurus he conceived of them as having no concern with the affairs or destiny of mortals (like Drefsab, I think).
"All religions are equally sublime to the ignorant, useful to the politician, and ridiculous to the philosopher."
And many more:
"It is expedient that gods should exist; since it is expedient, let us believe that they do." - Ovid
"From the moment of death onward, the body and soul feel as little as they did before birth." - Pliny the Elder
"The superstitious man wishes he did not believe in gods, as the atheist does not, but fears to disbelieve in them." - Plutarch
Drefsab, it's Zumbooruk with a u, as in:
<strong>Zumbooruk</strong> <i>n.</i> A small cannon supported by a swiveled rest on the back of a camel, whence it is fired. | | #215 Prester John[58969] | | 137.187.50.72 | Drefsab:
Sure, those criticisms don't necessarily conflict. However, you introduced your complaint about multiple interpretations by saying it was a problem with _organized_ religion, so my remarks were appropriate. The way you have stated it now, this is a problem you have with religion in general, not something that stems from its organization.
I'm not happy that there are so many varying interpretations of the Bible, and I'm especially displeased with some of them. Multiple interpretations are inevitable, though--of everything, not just of the Bible. It's not surprising in the least, and does nothing to undercut the Bible's authority. There have been varying interpretations of every book that people have ever cared enough to comment on. Communists quarrel over the interpretation of Marx, philosophers over the interpretation of Plato, and literary critics over the interpretation of Hemingway. It is an unavoidable aspect of language that different people will hear the same words differently. People approach the same text from many different angles, with different beliefs already in place. What they do with the text has a lot to do with how it filters through this pre-existing matrix. It's not the writers' fault. It can't be helped.
And a few texts, the Bible being one of them, will run into this problem more than others, for several reasons: 1) It was compiled over a period of c. 1500 years, by numerous authors. This introduces complexities that don't affect the interpretation of most books. 2) Millions of people have interpreted it, and continue to. It's not just a handful of academics arguing over interpretation, but entire _cultures_. 3) People care deeply what the Bible says, because they believe that it speaks with the authority of God Himself. This means they are less likely to ignore small disagreements, and that they will pursue the larger ones with great vigor. It also means that many people will interpret the Bible dishonestly (being dishonest with themselves), because they don't want to believe what it actually says. 4) Since the Protestant Reformation, legions of poorly educated and/or third-rate minds have applied themselves to biblical study. In this way, heaps of really bad interpretations have been added to the more defensible ones. Think how such fervent popular interest would complicate the interpretation of _any_ text! 5) Some interpreters (for example, the Mormons in your South Park reference) don't limit themselves to the Bible, but have adopted other books (_The Book of Mormon_ for one) as scripture too. Of course their interpretations will be different now, since they are interpreting a different canon altogether.
But when you come down to the fundamentals of Christianity, there is a surprising amount of agreement within this interpretive swarm. Almost everyone who calls himself a Christian (I except certain modern varieties that like to use the name "Christian," but don't actually believe the Bible, and also people who use the term but have no idea what it means) will agree with the following statement: God created the universe, and the human race with it. He wanted fellowship with men and women, but they rebelled against him and went their own way. He taught them laws, but most of them continued in rebellion, and even the ones who tried to be holy found themselves unequal to the task. The entire human race had put itself in a state of sin, and was therefore liable to punishment by the divine Justice. So God the Son became a man, taught men how they should live, and then died the death that they (not He) deserved, taking their punishment upon Himself instead. To this day, those who trust in Christ for salvation, becoming followers of Him, receive forgiveness for their sins and are promised reward after death, rather than the punishment they deserve for their own sins. This is something I can affirm along with thousands of people that I disagree with on various theological issues, and even some that I would call heretics. And it's the most important part of Christianity. I expect that when I die, I'll find myself in Heaven with a lot of Christians who believed things I disagreed with. Contrary to the wisdom of _South Park_, it's not going to be one denomination that is saved, but rather all those who have claimed Christ's sacrifice for their own.
There's no reason to disbelieve Christianity just because there are many disagreements about the interpretation of its Holy Book. Instead, you can study the disputes and come to your own conclusions within the debate, just like you do with everything else. Refusing to become involved in Christianity just because various sects disagree on the interpretation of the Bible is like avoiding Constitutional Law because the judges on the Supreme Court can't agree on the interpretation of the U.S. Constitution.
And no, there was nothing "simplistic and naive" about my portrayal of the medieval Church. I said many times in my post that there were people who took advantage of their authority, and that organization brings the dangers of politics to the Church. At times, especially during the Italian Renaissance, the Church establishment was quite corrupt at its higher levels. But it was a _big_ church, and there were many levels to it besides the higher ones. Even during its times of greatest corruption, it would be ludicrous to think that the whole establishment was bad. What I was doing with my post was explaining the legitimate need for spiritual authority, and the way it might be exercised by a good and responsible cleric. In so doing, I counter your assertion that ecclesiastical authority is all about selfishly controlling people. That's just a perversion of such authority. | | #216 Prester John[58982] | | 137.187.50.72 | Zumbooruk:
You need to be more responsible with your biblical quotations. You can make a text say anything if you cite it in such an atomized way, without consideration for the context of the snippets you quote. In Matthew 10, as you say, Jesus sends His disciples to preach to Jews only. But that was a special assignment of limited duration. After the resurrection, the last command Jesus left His disciples with was, "Go therefore and make disciples of all nations." That's later in the book of Matthew, 28:19. You need to tell the whole story. And your complaint about Acts 16:6 betrays the fact that you don't know much about Roman geography. "Asia" was Asia Minor, the peninsula that is the country of Turkey today. The Romans never called India or China "Asia." What's more, it's clear in the story of Acts that this was just a special directive given to Paul. If you keep reading, you find that God had arranged things for Paul to cross over into Macedonia and Greece, and plant churches there. There's not a single good reason to think that all Christians are prohibited from evangelism in Asia Minor, just because Paul was told to hold his tongue on this particular occasion.
You're guilty of more obfuscation, too: "It is Christian to distinguish between races of people. The Jews believed themselves to be God's chosen people, and similarly that other races - some in particular - were lesser races." 1) You can't call Jewish prejudices "Christian." Christians are not the same thing as Jews. 2) The Bible makes it clear that the Jews were not superior to the other nations. God's grace to them had nothing to do with their intrinsic goodness, and they repeatedly behaved in such a way as to prove this. 3) The New Testament explicitly teaches that the Church is an equal community, in which racial differences don't matter: "There is neither Jew nor Greek, slave nor free, male nor female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus," (Gal. 3:28).
Yes, a secular religion. Read up on Greece and Rome, don't just quote Webster's. The Greeks and Romans didn't have a separate class of priests in their traditional religions. Public officials performed religious ceremonies, and these ceremonies were supposed to glorify and benefit the state. The Romans even offered sacrifice to the Emperor, and when Christians refused to sacrifice to Caesar, this was viewed as treason. Doesn't that sound like a secular religion to you? And your quotations only emphasize my point. If a religion is valued by the elite solely for the way it instills patriotism in the masses, you probably have a secular religion on your hands.
Of course any religion, secular or not, can be abused by unscrupulous rulers. Napoleon Bonaparte (who once said, "Men who do not believe in God, one does not govern them, one shoots them) instituted a patriotic "catechism" for French schoolchildren, using the form and vocabulary of traditional Christian instruction to indoctrinate them with nationalism and reverence for the Emperor (himself).
For a philosopher such as Lucretius (who was an Epicurean, and therefore believed in gods, but not in divine intervention), this would indeed be the only use for religion. Seneca (who was a Stoic, so believed in God and in constant divine involvement with the cosmos) agreed for a different reason. He thought religious truth was properly apprehended through philosophy only (much like Voltaire and the other leaders of the French Enlightenment in the 17th-18th centuries). So when he said that "religion" was not really true, but useful to rulers, he was talking about the traditional religion of Rome, which was nonsensical to him but at least had the ability to teach some truth to ignorant rabble that wouldn't be able to understand it any other way. In our terms, Seneca was still quite religious.
On another note entirely, thanks for explaining your name. Now that I know what it means, that's a cool word. I would love to see a camel-mounted field piece.
| | #217 Rafe_Cardones[59013] | | PPPa67-ResaleSilverSpring4-3R7138.saturn.bbn.com | Drefsab,
You commented:
"Baptists believe that once you're saved, you can never lose your salvation no matter what you do.
Pentecostals don't believe in the trinity and think that women should wear long skirts and never cut their hair
Adventists go to church on Saturday instead of Sunday"
Not entirely correct. All Christian denominations have sub-groups. There are over 100 different Baptist groups alone. Most Baptists (but not all) can be characterized by "once saved, always saved" but they will also say that simply stating the right words and not living by them doesn't save. Two-thirds of Pentecostals (especially the Assemblies of God) do believe in the Trinity. Long skirts and long hair is one of those things that shows up in a wide cross-section of denominations. For most groups, it's not a hard-core belief.
All Christian groups hold to a central group of beliefs. On secondary and tertiary matters they may differ a great deal. Episcopalians, Lutherans, Presbyterians, Methodists, Baptists, etc. all acknowledge the others to be Christian. | | #218 Zumbooruk[59086] | | IPNAK1-C7.xtra.co.nz | Prester: I'll concede the whole first part. Sorry about missing context in the Biblical quotations; my source (skepticsannotatedbible.com) is not very responsible in that respect, but very thorough.
As regards secular religion, I can only conclude that your understanding of the meaning of secular differs from mine. Mine is the dictionary definition that I quoted, which requires no connection to religion or the church; clearly, the term 'secular religion' is an oxymoron. This, though, is not an important point on the way to concluding whether God exists, so I won't pursue it except to say that I'm a fourth year Latin student accelerated to fifth year Latin, and a second year Classics student, also accelerated. I do know what I'm talking about as regards the Roman and Greek religions. | | #219 Napoleic[59095] | | 24.66.179.206.bc.wave.home.com | | Rebuttal forthecoming... now I must go ref. | | #220 Prester John[59167] | | 137.187.50.72 | Zumbooruk:
I appreciate your willingness to look at the context of those passages. Unfortunately, very thorough sources can sometimes be the most misleading, because they're so concerned with amassing tons of evidence that they don't test the individual pieces very well, to see if they really qualify as evidence in the first place. I see the same thing in a lot of Christian writings, actually: a parenthesis with 10 references in it, all of which supposedly support the point being made, but none of which really do it very well if you have the patience to look them all up and think about them.
Re: secular religion, here's something to think about. With your classical background, you should be able to follow this easily. "Secular" comes from the Latin _saecularis_, an adjective derived from _saeculum_, which means "age," or "generation." So etymologically, _saecularis_ means "pertaining to this age," not "the opposite of sacred." Why has it come to have this second meaning? Because for the last 1600 years, the dominant religion in the Latin/Romance speaking world has been Christianity, which is a distinctly otherworldly religion, one that emphasizes God, the soul, Heaven, and eternity above Man, the body, Earth, and time. And this de-emphasis of the present world was considerably greater in medieval Christianity than it is today, so things that were "secular" (i.e. of time, of this world) came to be opposed to things that were "sacred" (i.e. of eternity, pertaining to God and Heaven).
Since you've studied Latin, this point is actually easier to make to you than to most people. Think about a few Latin words: _virtus_ and _pietas_. They give us our the words, virtue and piety. In English, "virtue" usually means strength of character, morality, goodness; and "piety" always refers to religious devotion. In Latin, though, _virtus_ meant "manliness, valor, strength," and _pietas_ meant simply "right devotion." Usually these words were used to describe a man's proper duty and relation to the State, and his family. It was only as the dominant religion of the Latin-speaking world became more otherworldly that words such as these, with their connotations of religious rightness, moved away from application to the public sphere and became more and more non-"secular" in their meanings.
Also, when I say that Greco-Roman religion was secular, I'm talking about the traditional polytheism, not Late Antique Middle-and-Neo-Platonic polytheism. Plotinus and Porphyry, for instance, although they believed in the traditional gods and in the propriety of the traditional _cultus_, and were enemies of Christianity, practiced a version of Greco-Roman paganism that was very otherworldly, and much more easily described by the sacred-secular dichotomy, the way you have defined it. | | #221 Napoleic[59245] | | 24.66.179.206.bc.wave.home.com | Prester John:
"Refusing to become involved in Christianity just because various sects disagree on the interpretation of the Bible is like avoiding Constitutional Law because the judges on the Supreme Court can't agree on the interpretation of the U.S. Constitution."
Except that the constituitional law was written up by government officials rather than religious people. The constituition has the power of the government behind it, while christianity relies on vague threats based on faith for punishment. Furthermore a final ruling is always made by the supreme court. Though they occasionally disagree, they always end up a unified front with a unified interpretation. It's been hundreds of years and the protestants are still at it.
Your example of Mother Theresa was well said and no one can deny her goodness, but do you think it will overshadow all the misdeeds of christian missionaries? Perhaps in these days of great public scrutiny missionaries work for the greater good, but in the past it has not been so. Missionaries to every major continent abused the native peoples there. The forced boarding schools native americans were forced to attend, the genocide of the south american civilisations, the economic imprisonment of asia, these things were influenced, caused, and/or made possible by Christian missionaries forcing their faith on the heathens of the world. And what about the Africans? They still suffer today from the colonial 1800s. Much of the colonies were funded by the church in order to force their beliefs and culture on a people unready or willing to accept them. Mother Theresa spent her life trying to pick up the pieces from the disasters the church caused before her life, but it'll take a lot more than one women to set all things right once again.
Though you have managed to draw a connection between atheism and nazism and stalinism, it's still a much bigger stretch than the connection between the arab wars, the crusades, the Ireland conflicts, and so forth. Hitler never used the word Atheism in his speeches and Stalin has an even looser connection to atheism. It's true that atheism is one of the tenets of communism but you can hardly call the goverment that Stalin led communist. Most historians refer to his government as Stalinist. There's not much wrong with Communism in it's original form, other than the problems of implementation. In true communism it's very unlikely that so many people would have starved and been sent to the gulags. The deaths were far more a factor of a) Stalin's ruthless and cold personality, and b) his unrivaled dictatorial power.
Both of those things would be absent from either the proletariat government of communism or the educated panel of leninism. Therefore I think that atheism really didn't have much of anything to with the russian tradegy, even though it is a big part of communism.
| | #222 Prester John[59459] | | 137.187.50.72 | Napoleic:
I think you completely missed my point about the interpretation of the U.S. Constitution. The Supreme Court disagrees more than just occasionally, and they _don't_ always end up with a unified interpretation. They end up with one that becomes binding through the support of the majority, but you should read some of the dissenting opinions in hotly contested (especially 5-4) decisions. Sometimes, even the majority is split across 2 or 3 different opinions, coming to the same conclusion for different reasons. The difference, as you actually mentioned yourself, is that government involves itself in the interpretation of the Constitution, and not in the interpretation of the Bible. Since _some_ decision has to be followed, the dissenting voices are ignored (except by Constitutional Law scholars and sometimes later justices), and the majority listened to. But the dissent is still there, and that was my point. Before the last few centuries (and sometimes during them), governments would take similar action to support one theology over another. They don't do that anymore, and I think we can both agree that this is a good thing. Because they don't, the dissenters can have churches of their own; therefore, the inevitable divergence of interpretive opinion results in the existence of multiple churches. You haven't touched the point I was making.
You really need to stop interpreting all of history with the assumption that everything bad that happened must have been caused by the Church. Are you seriously blaming Christianity for European imperialism? That's just amazing. Look, European nations exploited American, African and Asian ones for one reason: to get rich and powerful. Never, at least in modern times, has there been a national government that would send fleets and armies abroad and occupy and control foreign nations on multiple continents, in order to _evangelize_ them. But as long as there was a European presence in these nations--trade enclaves, military bases, etc.--missionaries had a much better opportunity than before to spread the Gospel in those lands. Colonialism paved the way for European missions work, not vice-versa. It wasn't hordes of missionary monks that smashed the Aztecs and Incas; it was armies of mercenary conquistadores commanded by the greedy and unprincipled likes of Cortez and Pizarro. You might want to look up a guy named Bartolomo de las Casas, in fact, because he was a Spanish monk, a missionary, who worked for the rights of the Indians, and tried to protect them from the brutal Spanish governors. Also, watch the movie _The Mission_ (Robert DeNiro, Jeremy Irons). It tells the story of Jesuit missionaries in the 18th century, fighting to protect South American Indians from slave traders.
You say that many "of the colonies were funded by the Church." I challenge you to produce a single piece of evidence to support that contention. It's just ridiculous. Colonization was a competition that European governments were having with each other, for power and wealth. They didn't need money from the Church. They wouldn't have been doing it in the first place if it hadn't been profitable. Also, as much as you and I (and the late 20th century in general) dislikes colonialism, it's indisputable that some good things have come of it, along with the bad. I'm sure a lot of the missionaries mirrored the superior, unloving attitudes of their own colonizing cultures, and preached _at_ the foreigners, rather than _to_ them. This has to do with the fact that missionaries, like every other human being, come from a specific geographical and temporal place, and inevitably share much of the same mental furniture with the other people who come from there. But ask an African Christian today if he's happy that the missionaries came along with the colonizers, and he'll say yes. Good things can happen as side-effects of unjustified actions.
Your distinction between theoretical and practical Communism just doesn't matter to my argument. It would matter, maybe, if I were blaming Marx for Stalin's murders, but I wasn't doing any such thing. What I said was that the basic religious/philosophical orientation of all the early Russian Communists was an atheistic one that thought the most important thing in the world was social evolution to a point of classless harmony. It was entirely acceptable and necessary to step on lots of individuals along the way, for the theoretical greater good of humankind, and no Christian morality was going to hold them back, because they all thought that Christianity was nothing more than superstition mobilized by the capitalists to keep the proletariat down. Obviously, not all atheists/humanists would do what the Bolsheviks did, but that doesn't change the fact that the Bolsheviks were fighting an atheistic/humanistic jihad.
| | #223 Prester John[59465] | | 137.187.50.72 | I see. No, I wouldn't try very hard to defend the traditional Roman religion from Drefsab's accusations. It very much _was_ a structure meant to control the people. In fact, the whole reason I brought it up in the first place was to show that there was no power vacuum in the 1st century, demanding the creation of a religion to control the masses. Christianity did _not_ originate for this purpose. The traditional Roman _cultus_ was intensely secular, and already quite focused on directing the loyalties of the people to the Roman State. In fact, the main reason that Christians faced such fierce persecution in the first few centuries A.D. was that Christianity, with its otherworldly focus and its refusal to sacrifice to the Emperor, represented such a challenge to the State religion.
Why would God create in us a tendency to invent religions? He hasn't. There is no natural human tendency to create religion. The invention of false religions stems from two other human traits which are basic to our psyche: the desire to understand the workings of things, and the desire to dedicate themselves to something bigger than Self. These are both good tendencies, and entirely fitting things for God to include in His finest physical creations. Properly directed, the desire to understand the workings of things will lead men to study philosophy, theology, and science, gaining through this multi-pronged program a much better understanding of the cosmos than can be gained through any one course alone. And properly directed, the desire to commit oneself to something bigger than oneself becomes a commitment to the Creator to Whom we owe all things.
But the human race has rebelled against the Creator, and so it channels these good desires in bad directions. Instead of committing to the Creator, people commit to things far less worthy of their dedication: natural forces, mythical heroes, kings, nations, races, or humanity in general. And when they go to seek the causes of things, either they invent as causes gods and spirits other than the Creator, or they discover the Efficient Cause--the scientific mechanism--and assume that's all there is to know. The one reaction gives birth to paganism, the other to atheism.
Then, even when people have arrived at monotheistic conclusions, there are plenty of opportunities for divergence. In the 7th century, Muhammad started with the existing monotheisms of Judaism and Christianity, claimed inerrancy for his misinterpretations, and added his own "revelations" on top of that. In the 19th century, Joseph Smith did the same sort of thing and came up with Mormonism. And so on... Examples could easily be multiplied.
Some people choose Christianity from a non-religious background, convinced by reason that it is the true faith. A philosophy professor of mine was once an atheist, and came to Christianity through the study of Platonic philosophy. The noted 20th century Christian author C.S. Lewis was once an atheist too, and became a Christian in much the same way. I was born into a Christian family, so my route to the faith was much easier than the route these two had to take. But having come into my own as a thinking being, looked around and thought about things, I truly think Christianity makes the most sense (and is the most convincing in other, more personal ways too).
As for Hitler's theological language, think about this for a moment: Christianity was his cutural background, and it was also the background of almost every non-Jewish person in Germany. In other words, almost everyone Hitler was trying to influence would respond much better to Nazism in a pseudo-Christian garb than they would to Nazism expressed atheistically. This kind of language also allowed Hitler to plug into the traditional Christian mistrust of Jews (Jews had been the only theological outsiders in a closed Christian community for over a thousand years!), and mobilize that for his cause, even though Nazi anti-Semitism was of a very different sort.
The fact is, the most important thing in Hitler's system--the value that trumped all others--was Race. It replaced God as his most basic motivation. In Hitler's cosmology, whether or not he also believed in God in his own theoretical sense, the Aryan race stood in for God, and the Jewish race for the Devil. Sure, Nazism was a mishmash of old and new ideas and language. It wasn't nearly as ideologically revolutionary as Communism. So there were Nazis who followed Hitler's dogmas out of twisted Christian opinions, and others who were attracted more to the Darwinian and Nietzschean aspects of it. You're right that Russian Communism is a much stronger example for me to be using. I think it's worth noting, though, that in all the preceding 1600 years in which Christians 1) generally disliked Jews and 2) had the governmental power to do something about it, there was never any persecution of Jews that remotely compares to the Holocaust. Christian dislike of Jews was theological; they still believed that Jews were made in God's image, and that if they were to change their beliefs, there would be no problem with them. Nazi anti-Semitism was racial, was pseudo-scientific in the best late 19th, early 20th-century sense. Jews were an evil subhuman race, and what they believed made no difference at all. Hitler thought of them as _genetic_ evil. That's why they all had to die. | | #224 [59489] | | as530061.infocom.com | Prester,
My reason for bringing up the corruption of the catholic church during the Middle Ages was to try and show you that there <b>is</b> motivation for using religion to control people.
The fact is, religion unifies people to one way of thinking. It gives people something in common. Because religion extends beyond the borders of coutries, the leader(s) over this group of people has tremendous power. People will obey this leader because their eternal soul is at stake.
Of course, if we're following true biblical principle, Jesus is the true shepherd and the lambs (i.e. the masses) should follow after him. However, let's be realistic here. Most religous people look to their leaders for guidance. They can't see or hear God so they obey their pastor, their minister, or their pope.
Obviously, this is a general outlook and not every religous person is this way, but in general, this is the case and this is why religion can be used to "<i>control large groups of people</i>".
You've already tried to show me that the church has no motive to use this control except "<i>For their (</i>the people's<i>) spiritual good.</i>" But I, in turn, showed that there are other possible ways to use this "religous control" citing the corruption of the catholic church as an example.
Let me make this clear however so that we don't argue about points that we agree on. I don't discount the existence of a superior being. What I do discount is the fact that he works inside the strict boundaries of the church.
You say that there would be "religous anarchy" without organized religion. I say people would be better off if they didn't waste 4-5 hours out of every week going through whatever ritual that is required of them to "worship" their God.
If people were truly in tune with the God that you speak of, then they would be communing with him daily on a personal level and they would not need the weekly reaffirmation of their church leaders to whom they give so much of their earthly wealth to support.
The whole system is dysfunctional and once again, is a tool that is used by its leaders to gain political power and materiel gain. The people that are "true believers" in their particular form of christianity (and remember, there's hundreds of them) are nothing more than pawns in a complex game of chess. | | #225 Snork~Dimmy[59490] | | async160-per2-isp-1.nas.one.net.au | who would have thought a simple bit of Fan-Fic could spark such a big debate...
bye,
Snork~Dimmy | #226  [59491] | | fcs01asm.asm.bellsouth.net | as much as id like to get into this conversation i won't
i remember too clearly what happened last time
Sorry,
Bane | | #227 Drunken Cell[59497] | | ppp119.c5300-1.day-oh.siscom.net | *hic*
| | #228 Crusador[59499] | | ip94.memphis14.tn.pub-ip.psi.net | | OMG i cant read this. This has comments the size of the Sears Tower in here too long!!!! way to long!!!!! just look at the poor little thin scroll on the right so thin and tiny another clue to how long these "Lectures" are!!! and 236 isnt that a record????? | | #229 Crusador[59500] | | ip94.memphis14.tn.pub-ip.psi.net | and btw how do you ppl find time to write and read these "Lectures"????? do you just sit in front of the comp all day long????? oh and 237 :P
| | #230 Dr.Zchivago[59502] | | proxy1-external.bremtn1.wa.home.com |
<i><u>Stranger in a Strange Land</u></i>, Robert Heinlein.
That's all I have to say on the subject of religion.
If you don't know it, go read it.
-Dr.Z | | #231 Krebs[59504] | | spider-te031.proxy.aol.com | ill flip a coin if head im right and you all worship satan(i dont worship satan btw)
tails continue your rants
tails, rant on | | #232 Napoleic[59505] | | 24.66.179.206.bc.wave.home.com | Stranger in a strange land... Great book, I back the Doc up on that one. Good call man :)
Though at the time I was reading it I was still an agnostic... hmm I bet rereading it would be a worthwhile experience.
BTW Great Points Dref. I'm glad I'm not against you, though I have a feeling that if we start to take control you'll have all kinds of points to prove god exists :( | | #233 Oddity[59506] | | px1he.ss.wave.shaw.ca | Dr.Z
I LOVE THAT BOOK! :)
I'd like to comment on the above debate but I'm afraid that(being only 17) I do not have any of the education or reasearch done to offer anything but my opinion.
Here goes:
Personlly I think church is waste of time.
I believe in God and i follow the teachings of the christian bible(what i know of it, basically the 10 commandments + gospels) but i don't appreciate at all the way the catholic church runs things. Any organization that takes 2000 years before it admits it made any mistakes is a little slow for me. My thoughts of church are more along the lines of: "if we can do it, God must be allowing it" He is all powerful after all. True he gave us free choice, but if we did anything REALLY wrong He would do something about it.
Back to my thoughts on the church: they contradict themselves :( "Thou shalt not kill" then they go start a bunch of holy wars killing millions. "Love thy neighbor", holy wars(same thing).
Last thing: I really suck at explaining things, please forgive my lack of real paragraphs and improper use of punctuation, capitalization etc.
Oddity | | #234 Napoleic[59510] | | 24.66.179.206.bc.wave.home.com | Prestor_John
"You say that many "of the colonies were funded by the Church." I challenge you to produce a single piece of evidence to support that contention"
I accept your challenge. The very first North American Colony was, I believe, founded by puritans escaping religious prosecution in England.
You say I need to stop interpreting history as if it was the church's fault. I say you need to see history for what it really is, rather than what your faith has blinded your eyes to. For most of my life I was a firm Agnostic. I was taken to sunday school and church for 3 years until my parents decided that if I was to keep going it would be my own choice. I chose not to. I used to pray to god to give me a sign he existed, but there was nothing. I wouldn't say my life is tragic. I am quite wealthy comparatively speaking, I have lived in a stable family, gotten good grades throughout my school life, been accepted to a well respected university, and yet I still see no god. The basis of my disbelief is the events of history. Only christians could see it in the sugar coated light you do. As my education revealed more and more of the atrocities of the church I became convinced of it's corruption and moreover impossibility as a holy body. It wasn't until I was 14 that I really decided there was no god. In light of thousands of years of human suffering, caused sometimes by religion, I fail to see how a god could exist.
My opinion of what happened to christ is that he was a megalomaniac with loads of charisma. When the Romans finally caught him, I bet they dragged him kicking and screaming to that cross. After he was gone his most devoted sheep made up the martyr bit in desperation. The only real historical evidence of Christ is given in the bible, which I wouldn't consider very neutral or unbiased on that subject. Rumors of his miracles are most likely very exagerated.
And what about the Christians that predicted the end of the world. We're all still here. I saw one kid's life ruined by that. He stopped going to school and quit his job and basically devoted his life to going door to door telling people to repent before 2000 or they would rot in hell for eternity. Now he's in big trouble.
You sidestepped my point with Communism and Nazism. Tell me, if you can, that Communism and Nazism have as much to do with atheism as the Crusades, Ireland, and the Arab Wars have to do with Religion. The point is that though a disbelief in god is somewhat necessary for their ideology, it is hardly the central theme, or really any part of it at all.
Good job on digging up that quote Zumbooruk. It's just another example of how christianity can be twisted so easily by powerful men.
Drefsab/Oddity:
You seem to have a very similar idea of things, though Drefsab is a little more anti-religious. After some thought I decided I could accept the thought of a higher being existing, though not in a way that has been previously described in a religious way. I suppose there is some merit in the supposition that SOMETHING created the universe. There are of course several arguments and counter arguments to be made here, but I think that the idea a greater being created the universe is valid enough to be considered. I also believe there could possibly be a greater being or beings looking down at the earth, perhaps toying with evolution, or other things, much the same way as the Xel Naga do. Do I think there's an afterlife, a hell or heaven? No chance. And I find the very idea of Christ preposterous. Why should God need to sacrifice himself or his son, depending who you ask, to save us? Why should he care about sins? Why is there this specific set of rules and morals set up? The idea that a greater being, something powerful enough to create the universe, and the earth, and man, and all the other alien speices and planets out there, would be so concerned that we all acknowledge a man that died to save our souls is extremely far fetched to me. I believe Zumbooruk brought that up in the other debate and I thought it a good enough point to bring up here. Frankly, the ultimate paradox of religion:
Man cannot possibly fathom the greatness and nature of the supreme being, yet Christianity has a set of rules and morals purportedly straight from something they could not possibly fathom. | | #235 Krebster[59710] | | spider-wl024.proxy.aol.com | | I fathomly fathom the utter fathomness. | | #236 [59749] | | 208.196.35.239 | Oddity,
You've made some good points, however, I can't let you get away with the contextual error you've made with your point on the bible contradicting itself. There are plenty of contradictions in the bible, however, this is not one of them.
Somehow, during all the translations that the Bible has gone through, the word kill ended up replacing murder. Murder is the correct translation of the original hebrew word used in the ten commandments (makes you wonder what else was lost in the multitude of translations). Therefore, "thou shalt not kill" does not contradict "love thy neighbor" because if you loved your neighbors, you would not be so bold as to murder them.
It is interesting to note however that the Lord of the old testament did condone, even demand the genocide of numerous Canaanite races. Apparently he was needing to clear a space for the 2 million Israelites that were emigrating from Egypt. Since Israel was a Theocracy and all of their laws were written by their god, it was not nessecarily murder since the killings were not "unlawful". However the whole thing still seems pretty fishy to me... ;-)
Good thing most Christian churches stick with the new testament eh?
Cheers,
Dref | | #237 [59750] | | 208.196.35.239 | Hmm, I may have mispoke there Oddity. I see now that you were making a point on the church contradicting the teachings of the bible. If that is the point you are trying to make, I won't argue with that.
Obviously if you look back through history, the church has always had the freedom to interpret the bible in whatever way suits them best. Its easy to do since so many biblical passages are so vague and so much symbolism is used. So basically, the church doesn't nessecarily "contradict" the teachings of the bible. Instead, they "interpret" the bible in a way that doesn't contradict their actions. And of course, the crusades are a perfect example of this... :-)
Anyway Oddity, my point is, good point... :-)
Cheers,
Dref | | #238 Prester John[60779] | | 137.187.50.72 | Drefsab:
Of course religion is a powerful way to control large groups of people. I'm not trying to dispute that. Here's what I objected to in your original pronouncement: you said that this was "the main goal of organized religion." I argued, in return, that the power an organized church must exercise over people is not the goal in itself, but a necessary means to a good spiritual end. I never said that this power had only good applications. In fact, I explicitly admitted that the Church, as a human as well as a divine institution, has proven itself susceptible to corruption at times.
The problem is, you see examples of the Church having abused its power, and say, "There, see? That means we shouldn't have any Church, but should all deal with God our own way, with no spiritual authorities." I wonder why you don't advocate anarchy in the political realm then, too? If you compare the Church's record to the State's record in Western History, the Church comes out looking like an angel. So why not abolish political organization, and have everyone deal with the social sphere in his own way, with no temporal authorities? If you don't advocate the latter, why do you advocate the former?
You also haven't recognized in any of your posts that when we talk about the "Church" having been corrupt at times during its history, we aren't talking about the whole organization. As I've said before, it's a BIG Church. Even at times when the Pope was a rascal and half the Cardinals were powerhungry, unspiritual bastards, and the Reformation and Counter/Reformation were yet to come, the Church kept on doing its work at the levels that mattered the most. There was wealth and political power at the top of the Church, and such things will attract the unscrupulous, but there were thousands of parish priests at the same time, going about their business without even the _possibility_ of wealth and power to tempt them. They were still devoted, still serving their flocks' spiritual well-being. They didn't know much of what was happening at the top, and if they had, they would have disapproved severely. (A trip to Rome, and the decadence he saw there at the heart of the Church's polity was one of the big influences on young Martin Luther). But for the most part, it didn't affect anything they did. And they wouldn't have been able to do all the good they did if the Church had just disbanded and given up all its organization just because the head was rotten. And the head didn't stay rotten either, did it? First the Reformation, then the Catholic in-house reformation (termed the Counter-Reformation, somewhat ironically) occurred, in which the healthy body of the Church freed itself from the corrupt head and cleansed itself from the bottom-up.
And a side-note in reference to something else you said: In my experience, it's precisely the people who are the most "in-tune" with God in their personal lives who are also the most eager to attend Church, and to support it with their earnings. | | #239 Prester John[60781] | | 137.187.50.72 | Napoleic:
You said "funded," not "founded." Also, you said it in the context of talking about 19th century African colonialism. If you want to change gears and talk about "founding" 17th century _American_ colonies, then we can do that. The first permanent English colony in North America was Jamestown, VA, and it was not founded by religious dissidents, but by the Virginia Company, a joint-stock business venture. In the years that followed, there were several colonies founded for the purpose of housing marginalized religious groups: Massachusetts, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, but religious groups didn't start the movement, nor did they account for many of the 13 colonies. In fact, the _English_ didn't even start the movement. England had to fight previous Dutch and French settlers (merchants and settlers with other secular motivations) for some of its North American holdings. What's more, all three above-mentioned colonies (the English colonies in general, actually) had peaceful and even friendly relationships with the American Indians.
Saying that I've been blinded by my faith is not a good argument. In fact, it's not really an argument at all, except in the _ad hominem_ sense. I could just say you're blinded by the fact that you're ticked at God for not showing Himself to you, and for allowing the human race to reap some of the condign fruits of its own sin. I could say, in short, that you're blinded by sin. But that wouldn't get us anywhere, would it? So let's just stick to our original discussion on historical interpretation, okay?
Your story about the kid who dropped out of school, etc. because he expected the Second Coming of Christ in the next year, doesn't prove anything about Christianity except that it's open to people of all temperaments and intellectual levels. I could come up with similar stories about people from every sliver of the religious spectrum.
As for your challenge: "Tell me, if you can, that Communism and Nazism have as much to do with atheism as the Crusades, Ireland, and the Arab Wars have to do with Religion." Did Atheism play as great a part in Communism as did Christianity in the Crusades? Yes, it did. I'm not going to make this claim about Nazism, because that was a stranger mixture of things, as I've said above in more detail. But if you want to disbelieve Christianity because of the Crusades, you'll have to disbelieve atheism because of Leninism/Stalinism, if you want to be consistent. And if you still think that something like the Crusades can invalidate Christianity (it can't, though).
As for your comments to Oddity:
1. You _are_ willing to consider the existence of a Creator? Does this mean you're reverting from atheism to agnosticism? The "Xel'Naga" defense won't work, either, because _they_ must have come from somewhere too.
2. If the unfathomable Father of Being gave you revelations of the truth, in human language so you could understand them, would you accept them gratefully? Or would you protest, "No, You're unfathomable! I can't understand any of this!" | | #240 Zumbooruk[60981] | | IPNAK1-C6.xtra.co.nz | Allow me to butt in here and reply to your questions to Napoleonic. Bad form I know, but who's going to stop me?
1. Hey - I thought the Xel'Naga were gods? Depends on your definition I suppose, but they certainly created races, which is dictionary definition god-like. They weren't omnipotent, I think, but nor were the ancient Greek gods.
2. I hate it when Christians use this argument. It's like the "you're blinded by faith" thing. If a 50 foot bearded guy came to my doorstep surrounded by mist and expensive special effects and said:
"Ok, I'll try to explain this in a way your puny human brain can comprehend - I'm God, and I'm really sorry about the Old Testament, it seemed like such a good idea at the time but I was drunk and I barely remember a thing. Tell the others will you? Cheers. Toodle-oo. And amen and stuff. Yeah."
Yeah I'd believe it. Of course I would. Whatever else you may think of atheists, you must admit we're pretty rational, despite that the Bible says we're fools and utterly immoral (Psalms 14.1-3 and 53.1-3) and there's no other reasonable explanation for that situation. | | #241 Prester John[61001] | | 137.187.50.72 | Zumbooruk:
1. You can call the Xel'Naga "gods" if you like, but the Bible and the argument from First Cause would both demand a source beyond gods or Arthur C. Clarke-ish aliens, even if these superbeings existed. The Xel'Naga are just a more advanced race that decided to shepherd the evolution of lesser races. They weren't immortal, eternal, or self-caused. Something must have caused them to come into existence, too--a God behind the gods.
2. If God were to reveal himself to you in direct sensory form, of course He wouldn't say any of the things you've imagined. But that's a side point. You say you would be convinced. Well, maybe you would be, or maybe you would wrestle with doubt for a while and eventually conclude that you'd made it all up, had a brief schizophrenic episode, or a particularly vivid dream. People are amazingly good at explaining away things they don't want to deal with. Often the explanations are flimsy, but they work if they aren't pressured too much. For thousands of years, people just assumed that God was a necessary being. The great skeptic Voltaire, no friend of Christianity, still said, "If God did not exist, we would be forced to invent Him to explain the Universe." But in the last 150 years, people have finally come up with a way to explain away even this fundamental revelation of God. Now you can walk about every day, surrounded by a Creation full of beauty and complexity, and never even think of the Creator, attributing it instead to the Laws of Nature (whatever sense it makes to call them "Laws" in the absence of a Legislator). So really, if God started doing house calls, I don't think that would solve things, or at least not for long. If you can explain the World without Him, you could probably explain His visit away, too.
Having said that, though, I still understand your impatience with the argument, "What if God appeared to you?" It boils down to simply, "Yeah, but what if I'm right?" and that's not much of an argument, I agree. I didn't mean that, though. I was responding to the following statement by Oddity: "Man cannot possibly fathom the greatness and nature of the supreme being, yet Christianity has a set of rules and morals purportedly straight from something they could not possibly fathom." I was trying to make the point that we Christians aren't trying to fathom God on our own, but rather are making use of the Bible--revelation from Him about Himself. Since we already have this revelation, we aren't too worried about the aspects of God we can't understand. We focus on the ones He's told us. If it's already come to us in words we can understand (as I believe it has), then it doesn't make any sense to say we can't possibly understand it. | | #242 Crusador[61010] | | ip45.memphis14.tn.pub-ip.psi.net | | Just let the subject rest, or atleast on this comment section. Do it on the forum or something pls..... its getting pretty old having to wait atleast 1 min to load this... (so I have a 56k modem sue me)like I said before just do it on the forum or something because this isnt what this site is created for, and its getting too much publicity so that it takes away at the battlereports.. (what this site is made for remember???)I've already vowed not to write long comments so i'm not going to blab on more. | | #243 [61051] | | as530070.infocom.com | Oops one more thing, You said, "<i>In my experience, it's precisely the people who are the most "in-tune" with God in their personal lives who are also the most eager to attend Church, and to support it with their earnings.</i>"
Obviously you have no facts to support this statement and this is completely speculatory. I, in turn, can say that in my experience, people that are the most "'in-tune' with God" worship him in nature instead of in church and are eager to support it by not polluting the land.
You see? It all depends on what your definition of "'in-tune' with God" is.
Cheers,
Dref | | #244 Zumbooruk[61098] | | IPNAK1-C6.xtra.co.nz | "and eventually conclude that you'd made it all up, had a brief schizophrenic episode, or a particularly vivid dream. People are amazingly good at explaining away things they don't want to deal with."
True, I was going to put in a disclaimer that I would, in fact, call it a hallucination of some kind, but I forgot. The counter-argument, though, to people explaining away weird stuff is that <i>people make stuff up</i>. Alien abductions, every religion, werewolves, vampires, and all the rest. How am I to distinguish a Revelation of the Truth from an alien abduction? Some people - Jesus, Moses, Joseph Smith - believe they've talked with God. Some people believe they've been abducted by aliens. How do you tell the difference? Christians tell me it 'feels right', but I argue that every religion 'feels right' to its devout followers, as do UFO sightings to conspiracy theorists. | | #245 Prester John[61113] | | 137.187.50.72 | Drefsab:
So, to boil it down, the reason you think we need the State but not the Church, is that the prospect of political anarchy disturbs you, but not the prospect of spiritual anarchy. I would guess that both of us fear political anarchy for many of the same reasons: _Mad Max_ is a fun movie, but I wouldn't want to live in it. We agree that, although governments sometimes "become destructive of the ends for which they were created" (Jefferson), overall the consequences of anarchy are bad enough that we are willing to have a government, taking the necessary risk that it might become tyrannical.
Where we disagree, then, is on the dangers of spiritual anarchy. Since you don't think God cares what people believe about Him, or how they live their lives (up to a point, at least; you probably think God disapproved of the Nazis), you don't see any dangers in the totally unstructured, "believe what you want to believe" approach to religion. This is our foundational source of disagreement: I believe that God expects right belief and righteous behavior from people, and will punish those who do not claim forgiveness through Christ. There's absolute truth at stake, and the eternal destinies of souls. If you believed that, you would be concerned to combat spiritual anarchy too.
You get a lot of mileage out of the purported "vagueness" of the Bible. I have two things to say to this: 1) The fact that the book is hard to interpret makes the existence of a theological wing, an organized teaching structure in the Church, even more necessary. 2) The more obscure doctrines of the Bible don't really enter into this discussion. Back in Reformation times, they did, because Protesants and Catholics were arguing complex matters of authority and biblical interpretation. Even today, if you were a Christian of another theological strip than me, we would probably be having a discussion about one or more of the vaguer doctrines in the Bible. But that would be an in-house thing. I would still consider you to be a fellow believer, and I would expect that upon arrival in Heaven, we would both find that we had misunderstood some things. Since you are arguing from outside of Christianity, though, the more difficult issues of biblical interpretation aren't relevant. The things that divide us doctrinally are the clearest, most basic teachings of Scripture: the Person and Law of God, the deity of Christ, salvation through Christ, etc. Whether I was Lutheran, Presbyterian, Baptist, Episcopal, Catholic, Coptic, or Eastern Orthodox, we would still have the same basic disagreements. You might be able to appeal to the difficulties of Scriptural interpretation to avoid taking a dogmatic stance on issues such as predestination, eschatology, or the sacraments; but you can't use it as a reason to stay out of Christianity altogether. The things that separate you from Christianity right now are not the dark and difficult issues of theology.
And on another subject, you shouldn't make blanket statements such as "religious leaders are corrupt," or "giving their financial support to a religious leader so he can buy a new cadillac every two years." These amount to accusations that all people who hold positions in organized religion are in it for selfish gain. You don't really believe that. And even if you do, please critique my above arguments to the contrary, rather than just assuming universal ecclesiastical corruption as a basis for your argument.
As for being "in-tune with God," you're right about this not being something we can prove to each other. Since we believe differently about God, of course we will also define being "in-tune with God" differently. But your argument was that people really "in-tune with God" wouldn't have to go to church. If you can't prove that the people you are thinking of are really "in tune," then your argument loses its force. I say that participating in the life of the Church is one of the ways people get into tune with God.
| | #246 Prester John[61116] | | 137.187.50.72 | | Yeah, people make stuff up all the time. Half the time, I think they've fooled themselves before they fool anyone else. But have you ever seen a logical argument for the necessary existence of space aliens, or vampires? We're talking about the existence of God here. His existence, and numerous things about His nature, can be deduced from the structures of the World He has created. Once you realize that there is a God, and that He has moral expectations of His creatures (things you can deduce logically, I think, and which every religion teaches--a significant fact), the only question becomes, "Which religion?" It's not sufficient at that point to say, "Well, there are too many. How can I choose? I guess I'll just be an atheist." | | #247 ~13~ShAdOwDrAc[61220] | | spider-tp082.proxy.aol.com | All o yaz-
Not that this has anything to do with the last 200 posts or so, but it has to do with American seperation of Church and State. That's a load of crap. Several reasons and evidence to support-
1. Almost all, if not all, of the money(Not sure, too much crap to read that crap anyway) in America says "In God We Trust" or something. Says nothing about Athiesm or however the hell its spelt. Considering it was Christians who "Founded" America(Translation-Stole the land from the natives. "Hey I have a bigger weapon of destruction than you, so I'm gonna kill you and take whats yours and hide behind my church to say its right")
2. In order to have any remote chance of becoming any kind of governmental big-shot, you must be a white, male and rich-ass CHRISTIAN. This directly or indirectly affects government to support Christianity.
3. Salam Witch Trials. Bad year for crops, oh hey lets blame Satan. These girls are all freaked out and say that someone put a curse on them. Name someone, BURN THE WITCH! No, it wasn't that one, it was that one. BURN THE WITCH! This was completely supported by the mayor of Salem, until of course the girls named the mayors WIFE, and then, Oh hey maybe they're wrong my wife isn't a witch so lets stop killing people. What did the US Government do about this. NOTHING, because they were all Christians of one form or another. Each and every time one of them was accused, they stood "Trial", which was a way to say "I know she's a witch she put a spell on my wife and now she has genital warts!"(Yeah not really but you get the idea) Then "The jury now finds the witch guilty, and sentenced to burning or drowning. If she survives, she is a witch and will have a stake driven through her heart. If not, then we did a reasonable thing in not taking any chances. Some 17-odd women were killed during this period alone and just in Salem, because of possible religious differences(Not exactly sure if they were christians or not, and I think it was 17, but not exactly sure.)
Seperation of Church and State? I think not.
~13~ShAdOwDrAc
Founder of the redundancy club of redundancy, bub. RCoRB
| | #248 ~13~ShAdOwDrAc[61221] | | spider-tp082.proxy.aol.com | And for my next comment, I will speak about the Xel'Naga tidbit. If you thought about it enough, it'd blow your mind. Xel'Naga created the Protoss and Zerg. What created Xel'Naga? What created the thing that created the Xel'naga?
What created the thing that created the thing that created the Xel'Naga? That goes on and on and on. But the simplest truth in the Xel'Naga bit is that Blizzard created Xel'Naga. What created Blizzard. Humans. What created humans? Some say God, some say evolution. I don't really care. Once something is proven just beyond "All you have to do is have Faith" And crap, I'll actually believe. | | #249 [61670] | | rliv235.infocom.com | Prester,
Okay, time for some more fun... you are a tough nut to crack (and I mean "nut" in the kindness sense of the word) but I'll keep trying... ;-)
First, to clarify, I can't say that <i>All</i> religous leaders are corrupt. What I can say is that there are plenty of examples out there of religous leaders using their positions to gain wealth and power. The fact that I believe organized religion is unnecessary makes me cynical to the fact that people are constantly emptying their wallets for these leaders.
Now I would like to go back to "<i>biblical vagueness</i>" You made two points about this. In your first point you said, "<i>The fact that the book is hard to interpret makes the existence of a theological wing, an organized teaching structure in the Church, even more necessary.</i>"
While this may seem to be a sound argument on your side of the coin, it horrifies me. First, you admit that "<i>the book is hard to interpret</i>". This in and of itself sets off sets off alarm bells in my head. But then you say, "<i>makes the existence of a theological wing, an organized teaching structure in the Church, even more necessary</i>." Wow<i>!</i> Think about that for a second. The bible is so vague that there needs to be a select group of people to interpret it for us? And these are the people that can't even agree on most of the doctrines in the book<i>!</i> Not to mention the fact that one person who is "divinely inspired" to interpret the bible for his flock has god like control over their actions. I don't know about you, but that pretty much gets to the core of my misgivings on organized religion and I didn't even have to say it that time... ;-)
In your second point, you said, "<i>if you were a Christian of another theological strip than me, we would probably be having a discussion about one or more of the vaguer doctrines in the Bible. But that would be an in-house thing. I would still consider you to be a fellow believer, and I would expect that upon arrival in Heaven, we would both find that we had misunderstood some things.</i>"
You may be more openminded than others, and I don't believe you've ever said what denomination you belong to so I'm not sure where you're coming from here, but I'm aware of quite a few large sects of Christianity who believe that it is not enough to be a Christian, you have to be <b>part of their particular denomination</b> in order to be saved.
Let me give you a couple of examples:
My parents are devout Seventh Day Adventist (2 million members). They had a friend who was a Lutheran. They used to have religous discussions and the friend would burst into tears begging my parents to convert because he couldn't bear to see them lost.
Speaking of Adventists, they interpret the "mark of the beast" in Revelation to be Sunday worship. They believe that at the end of time, only those people who worship on Saturday will be saved.
Of course, mormons believe that you must convert to their faith in order to reach heaven and don't forget about those clever Jehovah's Witnesses who are constantly at your door trying to bring you to their side.
So you can't dismiss my argument that the vagueness of the bible is solved by the fact that everyone is basically right and they'll all meet in heaven because a lot of religous denominations <i>just don't feel that way</i>.
You said, "<i>You might be able to appeal to the difficulties of Scriptural interpretation to avoid taking a dogmatic stance on issues... but you can't use it as a reason to stay out of Christianity altogether</i>."
Yes I can, here's why. You say, "the bible isn't clear, but no big deal, you've got plenty of people out there to interpret it for you, just pick the one that's most convincing and if you're wrong, no biggie, you'll end up in heaven anyway."
I say, the fact that the bible is vague and nobody agrees on its interpretation makes the whole christianity thing seem pretty suspiscious and people are better off finding God on their own terms without the help of organized religion... :-)
One more small point, and this is more of a question for you. You've made the point that all these minor doctrinal disagreements mean nothing and that everyone will meet in heaven anyway.
Do you feel that way about the millions of native americans, eastern religions, and muslims who lived during times when there was no global communication network. We're talking millions (possibly billions) of people who never heard of Christ and dying in the dark. Their beliefs were completely contrary to Christianity and yet they lived after Christ's sacrifice. What of them? Something to think about.
Cheers,
Dref | | #250 GameOverZ[61673] | | ppp235.c5300-2.day-oh.siscom.net | | <b>I will destroy this planet.</b> | | #251 :+:SlipKnoT:+:[61674] | | bc-kam-a53-01-79.look.ca | | hi | | #252 Scarab[61675] | | ACA75175.ipt.aol.com | Dan Dan kokomoshi dan riaberu
dan dan kokoro
datena diaaaaaaaaaami.....
arf arf | | #253 GameOverZ[61676] | | ppp235.c5300-2.day-oh.siscom.net | <b>Renzokou Lunar Shine Missile!!!</b>
*Fires a barrage of energy at Mars*
Something blowed up real good. | | #254 GameOverZ[61677] | | ppp235.c5300-2.day-oh.siscom.net | <b>Renzokou Lunar Shine Missile!!!</b>
*Fires a barrage of energy at Mars*
Something blowed up real good. | | #255 [61684] | | ifitl-61-191-26.atl.bellsouth.net | Dref,
The people that live in darkness of Christ and have never heard of him: I'm a little unclear about it because I'm no expert, but I've heard it says in the Bible "Anyone who hears and rejects my name will go to Hell" or something along those lines.
Just because many religious groups are corrupt (the original Roman Catholic church who would tell you "God will forgive you if you give the church 20 bucks") doesn't mean that there is no truth embedded under their human faults when the Bible was originally written. The Dead Sea Scrolls proved that our modern Bible is, in some cases, exactly word for word as it was when it was originally written.
Now, I'm <i>not</i> Catholic and I never will be (no offense to Catholics). Because... the Pope has to interpret the Bible for you which is total crap IMO. In my church, the Pastor preaches whatever he has to say and tells you where in the Bible he got it from. You can come to your own conclusions about it, that's just his opinion on what it means.
Good luck breaking the comment record Dref =]
Bane | | #256 ~13~ShAdOwDrAc[61699] | | spider-ti081.proxy.aol.com | Zumby(Too lazy to spell the whole damn thing out)-
Thanks for the support there, and Yay someone finally said something about what I said!
Couple things I gotta argue about in your support of me tho...
1. When I said 'Seperation of Church and State', that meant ANY Church, not just the Christian Church, but still, "In God We Trust" is pretty Churchy to me, but thats about it.
2. Just because people SAY they would vote for someone, doesn't mean they really would. Example that doesn't have anything exactly to do with it, but yeah-Line up 10 people who say they are Christian. Hand each of them a gun with a single bullet. Tell them to prove their belief they will go to Heaven by capping themselves. How many actually would? More than likely, Zero. The probable excuses would be either...
A. "I don't need to prove myself to you, because I know I will go to Heaven anyway."
B. "Suicide would keep me from going to Heaven, so I won't do it."
If any actually did do it, they'd probably make it to whatever Heaven they believe in, or whatever.
3. Thanks for clearing all that up on the numbers and all.
4. WTF? I didn't have a number 4 in my posty! :) Not an argument but hey.
And on the stuff I didn't talk about but you did-
Ya is right about the stuff about the Christian God hiding his existence. If he existed, why bother hiding it? Kinda messed up there.
~13~ShAdOwDrAc | | #257 BW-sux[61700] | | spider-te012.proxy.aol.com | ASDF, I'm Catholic, and I say believe what you want. Your beliefs are yours and mine are mine.
BW-sux | | #258 ~13~ShAdOwDrAc[61701] | | spider-ti081.proxy.aol.com | BTW, WTF is the current comment record anyway? Whatever it is, this religious debate will openeth a can of whoop-ass on it.
~13~ShAdOwDrAc | | #259 ~13~ShAdOwDrAc[61703] | | spider-ti081.proxy.aol.com | BW-Sux-
Congrats! Your one of the .01 % of all Christian-types to accept non-Christian religions! Good Job!
Thats another thing that pisses me off. Its people who act like their religion is the only way, and anything else is Pagan, and I just now realized the next thingie that I was gonna say in 266-
About the Christians killing 'Pagans'. So if a 'Pagan' tries to convert a Christian, burn the Pagan for being different, but its okay for a Christian to try to convert a Pagan? <Scratches his head> I don't follow this exactly. Isn't Christianity supposed to be accepting of all people, regardless of anything? One of those little hypocritical little thingies in the big book of what some crackheads wrote up while being high several times. Whats that thing called? Oh yeah, the bible.
P.S. I'm attacking the bible in that last little bit, not Christians. The rest of it I'm attacking Christians. :)
~13~ShAdOwDrAc | | #260 Vegita of Pooh[61705] | | host69-167.iwbc.net | I know what you mean, my best friend's X was a jahovis witness and boy was she f*cking annoying. She would just go on and on about her dumb religion and make it sound so good and she wouldn't shut up and that's half the reason my friend dumped her ^_^
As for my religion, well, I don't really care since I'm not religious in any way, I don't believe in anything other than reality and the only reason I came to this thread was to see how long it was, and wow, almost 300 posts, whew. Going for a record, eh? | | #261 DFA[61732] | | spider-to033.proxy.aol.com | Thanks for wasting about 45 mins of my life with that forum post Dref... ugh I read up to about 150, then it all got repetitive could add a few things to this, but really..It's a waste of time. SO what I will post has nothing to do with this.. but I thought it was funny as hell, since for the most part it's true.
<b>THE PLAN</b>
In the beginning was the plan.
And then came the assumptions.
And the assuptions were without form
And the plan was without substance.
And darkness was upon the face of the workers.
And they spoke among themselves, saying,
<i><u>"It is a crock of shit, and it stinketh." </i></u>
And the workers went onto their Supervisors and said,
<i><u>"It is a pail of dung, and none may abide the odor thereof"</i></u>
And the Supervisors went onto their Managers, saying,
<i><u>"It is a container of excrement, and it is very strong, such that none may abide by it"</i></u>
And the Managers went onto their Directors, saying,
<i><u>"It is a vessel of fertilizer, and none may abide its strength"</i></u>
And the Directors spoke among themselves, saying to one another,
<i><u>"It is that which aids plant growth, and is very strong."</i></u>
And the Directors went onto the Vice Presidents, saying unto them,
<i><u>"It promotes growth, and it is very powerful."</i></u>
And the Vice Presidents went onto the President saying,
<i><u>"This new plan will actively promote the growth and vigor of the company with powerful effects."</i></u>
And the president looked up the plan and that it was a good.
And the plan became policy
<b><i>THIS IS HOW SHIT HAPPENS</b></i>
heh.. I thought this was some good stuff =)
DFA
| | #262 Phoenix-S-[61736] | | 63.80.112.68 | Okay... Let me ask this...
If a "god" exists as is belived by Christains, then how do you explain the imperfections of humans, his greatest creation? An omnipotent god could have made us perfect, easily. Some may say Satan is to cause for the problems of the human race... Why did god allow Satan to exist? Why didnt he deystroy him? If anyone says god would not kill, well think about the supposed disasters he brought on us to punish us. He sure killed enough of us if you belive those... Also, it would seem to me that he was killing us because of HIS OWN MISTAKES... Doesnt really sound like such a powerful wise and omnipotent god to me. | | #263 DivvyO[61737] | | 162.119.232.100 | The world is filled with mistakes. Without these mistakes, there would be no challenge to life.
There is nothing more powerful than someone who knows they're right.
Anything in excess can never be good. | | #264 LFN[61741] | | tollfree252.actrix.co.nz | OMG
Hang on - Oh My God...shouldn't that be Oh My Lack of God...Oh My Atheism...
This could take some getting used to.
Does anyone play SC anymore? :) | | #265 Phoenix-S-[61747] | | 63.80.112.39 | LoL, like twice a month =/
UO>SC>Diablo 2!! | | #266 Snork~Dimmy[61753] | | async137-per2-isp-7.nas.one.net.au | Could be time the comments section for this report is broken, i haven't bothered to read too much past my last post bcz it's 12:07 at night and i've barely been able to keep my eyes open and on alert during an awesome game of micro warz!!
Time for sleep..... | | #267 talon[61760] | | cx110054-a.pwy1.sdca.home.com | | you guys are all fuckin botards, shuttup already | | #268 Vegita of Pooh[61775] | | host86-82.iwbc.net | Please, this is getting old, it doesn't matter if there really is a god or not. The people that believe in it have their reasons (although we may find their reasons weird) and the people that don't believe have their reasons.
I'm kinda of in between you see, I don't really care if people believe or not, I myself only believe a very little (only cause of my parents), but I don't go to church, never have in my life, I don't pray....... ever, and never will, because I find doing this stuff is a waste of time.
And in believing there is a god, you guys believe that god created EVERYTHING, right? Don't you think that is kinda like taking the easy way out? Think of it this way:
All the religous people in the beginning were weak minded lazy fools, who didn't want to have to actually reseach anything, so they just made up god and said that he created everything so they wouldn't have to do so much work.
COME ON, can't you guys please just think stuff out for a little bit? You guys think that god created the universe, then created the earth, then all the living things on the earth? What about all the other living things in the galaxy? Or all the other planets? You guys think that we are all alone in our own little solar system? And that it's the only solar system?
The universe is infinite, and there are an infinite number of different life forms in an infinite number of different solar systems, all compleatly different and not created by any "God". | | #269 Oddity[61789] | | px1he.ss.wave.shaw.ca | If God wants us to follow him so badly, why did He make the bible so hard to interpret?
Here's the way I see it, just be a nice person and in the end He will see that you get what you deserve. Don't waste your time trying to interpret all the mumbo-jumbo in the lesser-read portions of the bible(I am speaking of anything apart from the Pentatuque(french spelling, dunno english) and the gospels), I tried to read John's book of Revalation once, and it's so vague it can be interpreted to say anything you want it to say. I think the point to be taken here is, do whatever you want with life while following the laws(10 commandments) set down in what I believe to be THE ONLY CLEAR PART OF THE BIBLE. It's the only clear part because whoever wrote it(be He God or be he man pretending to write the words of God to get ppl to listen to him) was trying to emphasize it.
My religion: BE NICE
Oddity | | #270 [61805] | | rliv235.infocom.com | Oddity, LOL<i>!</i>
"<i>BE NICE</i>"
I like it... ;-)
Dref | | #271 Zumbooruk[61817] | | IPNAK1-C7.xtra.co.nz | The Ten Commandments aren't a particularly good guide by themselves; I recommend the Bill of Rights for that. Particularly the one about the Sabbath:
4. Remember the sabbath day, to keep it holy. Six days shalt thou labor, and do all thy work: But the seventh day is the sabbath of the Lord thy God: in it thou shalt not do any work, thou, nor thy son, nor thy daughter, thy manservant, nor thy maidservant, nor thy cattle, nor thy stranger that is within thy gates: For in six days the Lord made heaven and earth, the sea, and all that in them is, and rested the seventh day: wherefore the Lord blessed the sabbath day, and hallowed it.
a) Completely counterproductive
b) "nor thy stranger that is within thy gates" - religiously intolerant
| | #272 DivvyO[61826] | | 162.119.232.100 | | If you really want to know if God exists, kill yourself. Simple solution for those that REALLY want to know NOW. I can wait, personally. And Please forgive the philosophical mumbo jumbo in the previous post by me, it was 3 AM and I was running on empty. | | #273 ~13~ShAdOwDrAc[61840] | | spider-ti042.proxy.aol.com | DivvyO-
On 274, you said, "There is nothing for powerful than a person who knows they are right."(Not word for word, but ya know, I'm lazy). What you should have said is "There is nothing more powerful than a person who THINKS they are right. If everyone in the world KNOWS they are right, and everyone else is wrong, then who can be truly right?"
Another example of this(Having nothing to do with Religion), when I was in Journalism last year, a letter to the editor bashing a CD review on Metallica, the last sentence was "People shouldn't think to highly of their opinions, because their wrong and I'm right." And for the person to remain not ashamed of their thinking, they'll be nameless. Anyone wanna change the religious debate to a debate on people thinking that they themselves are right? Didn't think so.
DFA-
Exactly, that is how Shit happens.
VoP-
I agree, I don't really care whether lord high and mighty big-stinky-shits actually exists(Sorry Dref, you don't exist ;) )I'm here to argue for the pure and simple sake of arguing. It's funner than crap and we can totally wail on the 563 or whatever record, especially if everyone spams their next comment ten times :).
~13~ShAdOwDrAc | | #274 Pennywise!![61841] | | spider-tr084.proxy.aol.com |
"I think that if people would let go of their fear and worry about the unknown and what is strange to us, we would realize that most religions were created by ancient unevolved minds as a way to answer unknowable questions of why man exists, and to subjugate the masses through fear and guilt. Maybe then we could begin to accept each other as individuals; not Americans or Russians, or Catholics or Muslims or Mormons or Hindus or Buddhists or Jews or whatever. Maybe then we would lose some of the fear that we have of strangers that breeds hate.
Granted, religions help a lot of people feel more secure and safe in the world, but they also create dogmatism and fanaticism that in turn gives us abortion killers, bombings in Ireland that kill and dismember innocent women and children, terrorists killings everyday in the middle East. If this is God's will - God is one scary mother fucker. Each geographical area in the world has it's own culture, it's own Gods, it's own version of how they see the world, each of these by their nature have to be incompatible with their neighbors because they're so different.
Why do we have to create these separations? Imagine what could be accomplished with a united human race, one nation working for the common good. A global community. What if the Aliens ever do visit earth they will all be on the same team, they'll have the same shiny silver uniforms because they'll have put aside their separations and put all their knowledge and energy together to build a spaceship advanced enough to leave their galaxy and make it to ours. They won't have wasted their resources trying to blow each other up over petty differences over archaic writings.
The younger generation must disavow the divisions of religion and nationalism that have plagued our ancestors with war and ethnic violence. Only through peaceful cooperation of all people can every mouth be fed and the march toward Utopia be commenced. One People - True Democracy. It is not the attainment of perfection that is important - Just the pursuit of it. Either that or we could just sit back and let it all go to shit. It's up to you - me - us. Pretty deep shit, huh? You asked me what I thought. I may think something completely different tomorrow. I reserve the right to be a complete hypocrite. "A foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of little minds" - Ralph Waldo Emerson."
Jim, Vocals, Pennywise
| | #275 Oddity[62059] | | px1he.ss.wave.shaw.ca | Don't think anyone can top that post...
I honestly tried to find something in there to disagree with, but i think our argument is now ruined :(
Pennywise: Thx gw
Oddity
| | #276 Prester John[62104] | | 137.187.50.72 | Wow, there's been a lot posted here since I last visited. Looks like I have some work to do.
Zumbooruk:
Atheism fails to explain the world both metaphysically and morally.
Metaphysically: It _can't_ explain where everything came from. Without an immaterial Being to kick things off, atheists have to make one of two claims: 1) something came from nothing, or 2) there has always been _something_. I trust I don't need to spend any time arguing against the first option. The second seems to work upon cursory examination. After all, there has to be _some_ fundamental default state of Reality, and this state can't be total emptiness, because if it were, nothing would ever have come out of that emptiness. So either the fundamental Being is God, who then created all else, or the fundamental Being is matter/energy. I expect you would argue, "Why choose God, whom you've never seen, as fundamental Being, when you could choose matter/energy, which you see every day?" Here's why: matter/energy can't explain itself. Even that term "matter/energy" begins to undermine the atheist/materialist metaphysics. Modern physics has demonstrated that matter and energy are really the same "stuff," but in two different forms. Well, hold on, here. What is the principle that determines which form this "stuff" should be in, or lays the rules for how and when matter might turn into energy, and vice-versa? If this "stuff" can take two different forms, then it can't be the fundamental fact of the universe; the principle that differentiates between one form and the other must be more basic still. In fact, every time you invoke laws of science, whether they be laws of physics, chemistry, or biology, you are tacitly admitting that matter/energy can't be the fundamental Being. The laws govern them, and the laws do not come from them. So where do the laws come from? This is my neon sign, my big purple arrow, pointing me to the necessary Lawgiver, the Orderer, God. He is necessary, or the Universe cannot make any sense. And since the Universe does sense, and more and more sense as science gets better and better, we should be increasingly convinced of the necessity of God. It's a great feat to have discovered the scientific laws we have. Unfortunately, we tend to fall down at the very next step. Having brilliantly determined the mechanism, say, of matter-energy conversion, we say "What a marvelous, complex mechanism! Surely it explains the world. What a relief, we don't need God to explain things anymore." But how did that mechanism come to be so marvelous, so complex? We haven't even begun to disprove the existence of God; we've just pushed the problem back a step.
Morally: Let's start with something we both agree on. Hitler's "Final Solution" was evil. But what do we mean by evil? Where do we get our definitions? I mean that the "Final Solution" ran directly contrary to God's laws of right and wrong. But you don't believe in God. So how do you define evil? By what authority do you condemn Hitler? You can't appeal to morality as objective truth, as you can to science, because no moral standard meets scientific standards of proof. The best you can do is appeal to the opinion of the majority. You might be able to prove objectively that the Holocaust was _anti-social_, but you will never be able to prove that it was _evil_--not without appealing to God. What you have to do instead, is to renounce 'evil' as a concept. You just have to condemn Hitler as "anti-social," and "not someone I would have liked," and be content with that subjective denunciation, because you're never going to get ground for an objective one. And you might say that's good enough for you, but it belies the moral outrage you actually feel--outrage that makes no sense at all if there is not such a thing as objective good and evil.
As for your argument that if God did exist, He would simply have used His power to convince everyone of the fact: What are you saying? I say He's given you evidence aplenty. The only thing more He could do is force your eyes open and make you actually look at it. He's not "above" doing this, mind you, but this is an act of special grace. Fact is, we already have more than enough to go on, and someone who has his eyes screwed shut against the light doesn't have any room to complain about the darkness, even if there is someone who could pry his eyes open for him.
You said, "So far, I’m thinking that a God who wants to hide His existence is really weird and probably inaccurate, but I will delve deeper. I check God’s official word on the subject – atheists are fools (Psalms 14.1-3 and 53.1-3) and God’s existence is clearly to be seen (Romans 1:18-20). I disagree." Well, what does your disagreement prove? If you _were_ a fool, you wouldn't know the difference, would you? So how do you know you aren't? You agreed yourself that if you had a direct vision of God Himself, you would probably just write it off a a weird hallucination. Someone that poised to explain away divine revelation is in no position to complain that he doesn't have any divine revelation. What if you do, but you're just so used to explaining it away? That's what I see. | | #277 Prester John[62108] | | 137.187.50.72 | Drefsab:
About the Bible being hard to understand: What's the big deal? Almost anything that matters is going to be difficult to understand. That's no evidence that it doesn't matter! Modern physics is at least as hard to understand, eh? Does it somehow reflect badly on Stephen Hawkings, or modern physics as a whole, that 95% of the population won't understand his books? Is it somehow scandalous that we need specialists to explain physics to us? What if they abuse their interpretive power? And before you say they would never have a motive for doing so, think again. How many half-truths do schoolchildren get told, from all branches of science, about theories of evolution? How many uncomfortable facts are skirted? How many half-baked "proofs" delivered as if they once and for all prove everything? Every comprehensive explanation will be complicated, everything complicated will need a "priesthood," and every "priesthood" will be in a position to abuse its power. You aren't critiquing Christian theology; you're critiquing every difficult truth-system in the world.
I don't say that "everyone is basically right and they'll all meet in heaven." I'm not _that_ "open-minded." But I do think that the center of Christianity is the obedient acceptance of Christ's sacrifice on our behalf, of the blood that cleanses us from our sins. Most theological disputes happen on the periphery, beyond this core. I expect to be in Heaven with people who thought you had to worship on Saturday to be saved, people who thought you had to be Catholic to be saved, people who thought you couldn't be Catholic and be saved, people who thought you had to baptize your children, and people who thought it was wrong to do so. It doesn't matter to me that all these people are wrong on these points; these are precisely the kinds of things you can be wrong about and still be saved.
Saying people are better off trying to find God on their own, without organized religion, is like saying people are better off trying to figure out science from the ground up, with no reference to existing scientific knowledge--or that every generation should invent its own governmental forms with no reference to history.
To answer your question, no, I don't think that people from non-Christian religions are saved. There are Christians of great stature who have disagreed with me on this--C.S. Lewis, for one--and maybe it's one of those things I'm going to learn I was wrong about when I reach heaven (if so, I'll be ecstatic), but that's my understanding of the Bible. What I _am_ completely certain about is that no one will be saved except through the sacrifice of Christ.
And there's something I want to be crystal-clear about: No one goes to Hell as the punishment for not believing in Christ. People go to Hell because they are rebels and sinners. It's just that believing in Christ is the way that people gain forgiveness for all the crap they would otherwise be punished for. | | #278 Prester John[62110] | | 137.187.50.72 | Zumbooruk (part II):
Here's the key to harmonizing those passages about faith and works. Faith is what saves, because nobody's works are flawless (or even close, really), so everyone needs forgiveness, and forgiveness comes only through the sacrifice of Christ, which we partake of through faith. So nobody should put confidence in his works to save him, because anyone who thinks he is holy is just deceiving himself badly. But works _are_ important to help us differentiate between real faith and a fake faith that is nothing more than assenting to certain propositions with one part of your mind, while living however you feel like living. Real faith produces good works, so works end up being important after all--not instead of faith, but as proof (to ourselves as much as to others) that our faith is real. Also, when we do good through the power Christ gives us through faith, we _do_ get rewarded for it, even though we did it only in His strength. It's grace on top of grace. | | #279 Prester John[62118] | | 137.187.50.72 | Phoenix-s-:
God DID make us perfect. We're the ones who screwed it up, and continue to do so. And He _will_ destroy Satan. It's just that He's going to destroy all sinners at that time, not Satan only, so if I were you, I wouldn't be in such a hurry to get to the Judgment Day. And by the way, God _has_ made a way for us to be forgiven and regenerated, through the sacrifice of Christ. That's what Christianity is all about. If you caused the problem in the first place (and you did; we all did), _and_ you choose to mock the solution instead of embracing it, you don't have room to complain about the state things are in.
Oddity:
About the Bible being hard to interpret: Read my last few posts to Drefsab.
About your religion, "Be nice": It has a few problems. 1) It assumes that meanness is the only source of evil in the world (think about that a bit). 2) It doesn't tell you what recourse you have after you've violated the law, "Be nice." How do you get forgiveness? We've all screwed that one up. Christianity tells us how.
Pennywise:
You haven't read much of this discussion, have you? We've been over that weak "religion causes wars" argument already, and I've posted about it a number of times. See especially the last third or so of post #203.
| | #280 Rafe_Cardones[62131] | | PPPa22-ResaleSilverSpring4-3R7138.saturn.bbn.com | Wow, it continues. . .
A few minor technical points
Shadowdrac - the US government did absolutely nothing during the Salem Witch trials because the US governemnt _did not exist_. (The trials took place in 1692.)
Zumbooruk - The Roman government had few to no objections to Jesus Christ. There was fighting between the Romans and the Zealots (a Jewish faction, not the Protoss). Jesus, on the other hand, is preaching and healing, and _refuses_ to let his followers make him king. At this point, the Romans could really care less about him. Moreover, there aren't any Christians at this point - those who were following Christ were Jews. The Romans treated theological disagreements between Christian and Jews as internal Jewish matters until the 60s AD.
Zumbooruk, you stated that you would prefer judgment & eternal life to be based on morality rather than faith. Why? Where are you drawing the line for morality? I mean, you'd need some sort of scale. How do you decide if an action is bad enough to send someone to Hell? Don't intentions count for anything? And who decides what's right and wrong? Society? So then sleeping around would send ann 18th century person to Hell but not a 20th century person? That's not fair! If you're going to go by morality, you've really got only two options. The first is, everyone gets to go to heaven. Okay. I think you'd better posit a God to fix everyone, or else heaven is going to wind up just like earth. Oh, wait, now that we've introduced God, we should notice that He said things don't work this way. That leaves option two: any immorality keeps you out. "Therefore be perfect, just as your Father in heaven is perfect." (Matthew 5:48) Bummer, God picked this option.
Which brings up the whole point of Christianity: doing stuff to please God doesn't work. We're physically, mentally, and spiritually unable to do good all the time, not to mention just downright unwilling. Which is a problem, because "the wages of sin is death, but the gift of God is eternal life through Christ Jesus our Lord. (Romans 6:23)
God is not interested in overlooking sin. He is holy & does not want to be around evil. The wages of sin is death - the only way that God is going to deal with sin. But people dying for their sin don't pay it off - we're just getting what we have coming. If you die for your own sin, you have to stay dead or the whole thing's a farce. Which is why Jesus Christ came to earth. To die. He is perfect (being God the Son, the Second Person of the Trinity). Not having sin of his own, he didn't stay dead. But everyone's sin was paid for, providing that they let Christ pay for it. If you turn it down, then you're really out of options.
This is why Prester John can say that the doctrines disputes within Christianity aren't a big deal. They don't affect this central truth. However, when a group comes along and says "You have to do this to go to heaven," then that's NOT this central truth - it's the exact opposite, saying that you can satisfy God on your own.
So where do works come in? In response to faith. God laid down how things were supposed to be. They're not that way because people went and disobeyed God. And (surprise) we can't live like God wants us to without His help - because disobedience damaged us. So doing good comes after faith. That's why James says that faith without works is dead. If someone claims to trust in Christ but isn't interested in actually putting things into practice, then did the person actually trust Christ? Or does he just know, intellectually, that he can at some point? James's point is not to denigrate faith but to show that knowing you can have faith isn't the same as actually having it.
As for why God doesn't move right now to fix things....
Sure, He could. He has the power to do so. But I'm sure that people asked the same thing a hundred years ago. What if God had set things right then? Well, we wouldn't be here. I mean, we wouldn't be anywhere; we wouldn't ever have existed. Besides that, a lot of people have come to trust Jesus Christ over the last hundred years. We're not in such a good position to say when giving the world further time to think things over is no longer going to be productive. Plus, we're talking about God. Eternal and all. Outside of time. So we're complaining that Someone who doesn't even have to be in time isn't working according to our schedule.
So why doesn't God fix a few things now? (Pick something - war, poverty, hypocrisy, etc.) a) Because He's got the big picture. b) That needing to be perfect thing. So He steps in & fixes something. That pretty much results in the destruction of all the imperfect people involved. Probably better to give them more chances to believe first. c) There's just been non-stop whining about some of the previous times God _did_ step in & fix something. He determined Sodom & Gomorrah to be at the point of no return. And you guys complain that He's not just, because He destroyed those cities. Which part of "the wages of sin is death" does that not fall under? Same thing with Israel destroying the Canaanites. First, check out what the Canaanites were up to before you decide they were innocent victims. Second, it wasn't Israel's idea. Check out Numbers 13-14 - the Israelites, by and large, didn't even think they could win. Third, please spare me the crap about the victors writing history to make them look good. The Bible shows the Israelites to have vacillated between disobedience and cowardice at this point. Hardly history written by the victors. Try history written by those whom God had write. If you want evidence that the Bible was divinely inspired, read Isaiah 53 and Psalm 22. Sounds like the crucifixion of Christ, doesn't it? Isaiah 53 was written in the 600s BC, Psalm 22 long before that. As has been stated, the Dead Sea Scrolls show that the Bible hasn't changed over the years.
Rafe | | #281 [62132] | | as530053.infocom.com | Prester,
I've talked quite a bit already on different denominations and how they interpret the Bible differently. You keep saying that all the extra doctrines don't matter as long as everyone accepts Christ, but that is not the point I am trying to make. The inconsistency and vagueness of the Bible makes the book itself appear faulty. Because of this faultiness, once a lot of people got their hands on the book, Christianity fragmented into hundreds of pieces. Is it the people's fault that they have interpreted the book in so many different ways? No. It is fault of the book itself. That is the crux of the problem. If the Bible was perfectly clear, wouldn't it make sense that everyone would come up with the same interpretation? Let's go into a couple of the big biblical inconsistencies that cause division among Christian denominations:
A large majority of Christians believe that when a person dies, the soul leaves the body and goes to heaven or hell. This is obviously confirmed by the parable that Jesus told of "The Rich Man and Lazarus" Luke 16:19-31. But wait, there are some Christians who believe that the souls of people return to the ground with their bodies and do <b>not</b> go to heaven/hell at death. Could they have biblical basis for this belief? Let's see. In Ecclesiastes 9:5, Solomon says, "<i>For the living know that they shall die, but the dead know not anything, neither have they any reward, for the memory of them is forgotten</i>". This would seem to indicate that the soul dies at the time of death. Let's head over to the New Testament. We have I Thessolonians 4:16,17 where Paul tells the people of Thessolonica, "<i>For the Lord himself will come down from heaven, with a loud command... and the dead in Christ will rise first. After that, we who are still alive and are left will be caught up together with them in the clouds to meet the Lord in the air.</i>" Dead in Christ rising to meet the Lord? Doesn't sound like they've been in heaven does it?
So which denomination is right? It would seem that both have biblical basis for their doctrinal belief. You may say, "<i>it doesn't matter, both groups will end up in heaven as long as they accept Christ's sacrifice." I say, the Bible is vague on this point, yes, even unclear and inconsistent. Inconsistency like this should <b>not</b> be found in this book.
Are there more inconsistencies like this one? Yes<i>!</i>
We've talked a little bit about grace and works and being saved. This is another example where the Bible contradicts itself. In Mark 10, a rich young ruler comes to Jesus and asks him what he needs to do to be saved. Jesus replies, "<i>You know the commandments: 'Do not murder, do not commit adultery, do not steal, do not give false testimony, do not defraud, honor your father and mother'</i>" The ruler replies, "<i>Teacher, all these I have kept since I was a boy.</i>" Jesus answers, "<i>One thing you lack. Go sell everything you have and give to the poor and you will have treasure in heaven</i>"
An interesting exchange here. Sounds a bit unfair to me. I'm doing pretty well for myself. I don't feel like selling my earthly wealth and giving it to the poor. Let me go back to the Bible and see if there is an easier way for me to be saved. Ah, here we go, Acts 16. Paul and Silas were in Phillipi, and through unfortunate circumstances, they ended up in prison. The Lord rescued them by sending an earthquake that shook off their shackles and opened the prison door wide. The jailer was so awed by these circumstances that he cried out to Paul and Silas, "<i>Sirs, what must I do to be saved?</i>" They replied, "<i>Believe on the Lord Jesus and you will be saved--you and your household</i>" Hmm, that sounds like a much easier way to get myself saved, I think I'll have to go with option 2. More inconsistency.
Then we of course run into the problem of the mean God of the old testament who used the Israelites to commit genocide against entire nations of Canaanites who happened to be living in the land that God had promised to Abraham versus the nice God of the New Testament who says love your neighbors and do good to those who despise you.
There are many other problems with this so-called perfect book and when I say the bible is vague and causes multiple interpretations, this is what I'm referring to. This is why I have a problem with people basing their religions around the bible. Because it is old, vague, and easy to misinterpret.
You unfairly compare the study of the Bible to the study of Science. No fair<i>!</i> Science is allowed to be complex. Why? Because it <b>is</b> complex. The Bible is supposed to be God's clear word to us, his people. Yet it is so filled with vagueness and inconsistency, that when people have free reign to study it on their own, they come up with hundreds of different religions all based on the same book. Don't you think that if God was going to inspire men to write a spiritual book so that people could find their way to him, he would at least make it clear within that book on how we could be saved? I think that would be only fair.
So what do I think of the Bible? A good book in some respects. I've read it all the way through like I have many other books. In fact, I've studied it far more than any other book I've ever read. When you analyze this book closely, you can see it for what it is, a book written by men. It has its good points, it has its flaws. It is not something that should be used to base religion around.
I again assert my point that a person is much better off searching for and finding God on their own terms, without the influences of the Bible and organized religion. You make God out to be some great big complex thing, like science that people need to continue grappling with throughout history, writing books, passing down knowledge, etc. I don't think God needs to be so complex. Sure he's big and powerful. He has to be if he created us. But is it really so hard to understand what he wants for the beings he created? I think that He wants his creations to be happy. Yeah, I really think its that simple. If I think that way, then why do I need some complex religion with a complex book to tell me this simple fact?
Is there one definite way to achieve happiness? No, there are numerous ways. And I can guarantee you this, out of the millions of people that you think have been lost because they were never given the opportunity to accept Christ, at least one of those people found a way to be truly happy, without the help of organized religion <b>or</b> the bible.
Cheers,
Dref | | #282 [62133] | | as530053.infocom.com | | Hmm, I believe the correct tag is </i> | | #283 Zumbooruk[62155] | | AKCF2.xtra.co.nz | Prester: On the metaphysical aspect of the universe:
Creationists often ask where the universe came from – it looks like something came from nothing, which the first law of thermodynamics says is impossible.
Translated to a physics statement that is: "How could you get energy?" Physicist Victor Stenger says:
<i>The Universe contains energy and matter, and you have a law of physics called the Conservation of Energy (it's also called the First Law of Thermodynamics), and that appears to have been violated (or so these think it was violated) at the origin of the Universe.
Well, if you look and you ask yourself (from observations of the Universe), "What is the total energy of the Universe?" It turns out, that, as far as we can tell, it's zero.
Every measurement that we make indicates that the total energy of the Universe is balanced between the rest energy that's in the matter, the kinetic energy that's in the motion of objects, and then this is balanced by a negative potential energy of gravity. And the total energy is very close to zero. So, if the total energy is zero, and if you had zero energy to begin with, there was no violation of energy conservation. There was no miracle that created energy at the beginning of the Universe (other than, perhaps, a little quantum fluctuation that is, again, in agreement with existing knowledge, and so would not be a miracle).</i>
So, your 'fundamental default state of Reality' <i>is</i> total emptiness, plus laws of physics such as quantum fluctuation. You've already asked where the laws come from, and I answer that their spontaneous existence doesn't contradict anything, unlike the spontaneous existence of matter/energy. If you're unsatisfied with that, I ask: what is the difference between the spontaneous existence of immaterial physical laws and the spontaneous existence of immaterial God? (Except that we can show that the laws do exist.)
On morality: Atheism does not fail to explain morality. I contend that morality is a human construct, independent of laws of physics. In recognition of that, American law is passed by democracy, not by consultation with the Bible or any other religious text (though you may argue that American law has some resemblance to Christianity, it contradicts Christianity in some aspects; how do you explain the discrepancy of moral opinion?).
I argue that many people act morally because they are moral people. People that act morally because they desire entrance to heaven aren't moral; they're selfish. There's nothing wrong with that, but when I donate money to charity it's because I genuinely care about disabled people.
Where do I get my definition of morality? It's mine alone, and based on fundamental Deontological values, and built on the logical consequences of those values. Where's your definition from? A vague, difficult-to-understand book that is somewhat clear that 'good' people get rewarded in accordance with their goodness.
"[you must be] content with that subjective denunciation, because you're never going to get ground for an objective one. And you might say that's good enough for you, but it belies the moral outrage you actually feel--outrage that makes no sense at all if there is not such a thing as objective good and evil"
Of course I'm content with subjective denunciation. When I say Hitler was evil, I mean he was evil by my standards. Why can't I feel outraged at something that severely contradicts my own moral code?
"I say He's given you evidence aplenty [that God exists]"
Not at all. You can't give one piece of evidence that I can't explain (to my own satisfaction, of course). I even took on the universe.
"The only thing more He could do is force your eyes open and make you actually look at it."
Yep, I'll have one of those, thanks.
"If you _were_ a fool, you wouldn't know the difference, would you?"
Ooohh...sneaky. You're absolutely right, of course, but I could call you a fool and leave you with the same problem. However, we could look at your accusation:
Psalms: 14:1 <i>"The fool hath said in his heart, There is no God. They are corrupt, they have done abominable works, there is none that doeth good."</i>
Are you still going to stand by your accusation? You must say I'm corrupt, have done abominable works, and never done anything good. To me, the verse just looks like abuse with the intent to brow-beat the masses into submission.
"You agreed yourself that if you had a direct vision of God Himself, you would probably just write it off a a weird hallucination."
I think we should clear this up. I <i>know</i> weird hallucinations exist. I <i>know</i> I'm very stressed at the moment, and I <i>know</i> I've been thinking about God a huge amount recently. Yesterday I dreamt I was Aeneas from Virgil's Aeneid and believed it for about half a minute into being awake (very confusing) because I'm studying it in Latin and Classics. Yes, I can explain a divine revelation. And if God gave me a divine revelation, do you really think He would be so lame as to leave any doubt in my mind?
On your explanation of the works/grace contradiction: Don't skim-read the Bible. The following verse tells you that it is <i>only</i> by faith that you are saved, and specifically states <i>not</i> by works.
Eph.2:8-9 "For by grace are ye saved through faith; and that not of yourselves: it is the gift of God: not of works, lest any man should boast."
Where is faith's inherit merit? It doesn't actively help people, except: "Real faith produces good works", you say. Good works, however, can happen independent of faith though. The end, not the means, is the moral part. And why do zealots do good works? To get into heaven.
"so works end up being important after all--not instead of faith, but as proof (to ourselves as much as to others) that our faith is real."
One Christian I've met suggests that God looks into your soul at Judgment Day, and knows if you're good regardless of what you have done. Arguably, God should not need proof that you're a moral person. | | #284 Prester John[62176] | | 137.187.50.72 | Wow, some epic-length posts here. Glad to see you back, Rafe.
Drefsab:
What's unfair about the comparison I made? I didn't compare the Bible to Science; I compared the Bible to Science _books_, and _Theology_ to Science. So when you say, "Science is allowed to be complex. Why? Because it is complex," I say, yes, and so is Theology. It doesn't make any difference that you can't see _why_ it should be complex. You can't see why the natural world should be complex, either, but it is, and you've learned to live with the inarguable fact. Why don't you think God is complex? Why should the natural world be so complex, but the transcendant, enitrely-Other Being that created it all be simple and easily understandable? That doesn't make any sense at all. So when we get to the level of _books_, that's one reason why the Bible is complex. It has a complex subject, just as a science book does.
Back in post 222, I gave other reasons why the Bible is difficult to interpret sometimes, and rather than direct you back there, I'll bring it to you here again, through the wonders of cut-and-paste:
1) It was compiled over a period of c. 1500 years, by numerous authors. This introduces complexities that don't affect the interpretation of most books. 2) Millions of people have interpreted it, and continue to. It's not just a handful of academics arguing over interpretation, but entire cultures. 3) People care deeply what the Bible says, because they believe that it speaks with the authority of God Himself. This means they are less likely to ignore small disagreements, and that they will pursue the larger ones with great vigor. It also means that many people will interpret the Bible dishonestly (being dishonest with themselves), because they don't want to believe what it actually says. 4) Since the Protestant Reformation, legions of poorly educated and/or third-rate minds have applied themselves to biblical study. In this way, heaps of really bad interpretations have been added to the more defensible ones. Think how such fervent popular interest would complicate the interpretation of _any_ text! 5) Some interpreters don't limit themselves to the Bible, but have adopted other books as scripture too. Of course their interpretations will be different now, since they are interpreting a different canon altogether.
Do you think that God should have published a one-time opus of systematic theology, instead of revealing Himself gradually over time to different people groups with different modes of thought and literary expression, and varying levels of philosophical development? Well, should this work have been directed to the understanding of a Modern audience? A Post-Modern audience? That would have really sucked for the ancient Hebrews, eh? Or should God issue occasional updated editions, each crafted specifically for the people of that time, like encyclopedia companies do? Hey--if He had done that, you'd have gotten no complaints from me. A Holy Book written like systematic theology, for a 20th century audience? That would answer some questions, no doubt. But even that wouldn't fix everything. See points 3-5 in the above paragraph; ALL that stuff would still be relevant, even if God operated like the Brittanica company. The _Summa Theologica_ of Thomas Aquinas and the _Institutes_ of John Calvin are both systematic treatises, but that doesn't fix all interpretational issues within them. Modern interpreters still disagree about what Aquinas or Calvin thought on certain issues. And if you go back to ancient times, to a mindset much more akin to that of the cultures from which the Bible sprang, and try to interpret Plato, Aristotle, Plotinus, etc., you'll find a lot more in the way of interpretational difficulties, and opposing exegetical camps. Ambiguity is a side-effect of language, plain and simple. You can't get away from it. When you ask, "If the Bible was perfectly clear, wouldn't it make sense that everyone would come up with the same interpretation?" the answer to that question is a resounding "No."
Now for the allegations that you've made against specific biblical passages.
Concerning the Resurrection of the Dead: Your Adventist roots pointed you to this one, didn't they? I know this is one of their big complaints with standard orthodoxy. Well, when you quote Ecclesiastes alongside I Thessalonians, you are neglecting one of the most basic principles of biblical exegesis, one that relates to point 1, several paragraphs above. The Bible was written over a very long time period, and the New Testament gives us revelations that the Old Testament does not. For instance, there are Old Testament prophecies relating to Jesus, but He wasn't named there, and people had a hard time figuring out what they meant before Jesus actually came, giving them a concrete life to apply the prophecies to. Also, the Old Testament law code was superceded by the New Covenant made through the sacrifice of Christ, so the New Testament had to reveal new things on this subject, too. The doctrine of the resurrection of the dead is another of those teachings that God gave His people slowly, via progressive revelation. There are hints of it in the Old Testament (e.g. Psalm 23:6-"I shall dwell in the house of the Lord forever"), but few enough that the Jewish community was split on this subject when Christianity began. The Apostle Paul actually got himself out of a jam with the Sanhedrin (ruling religious council of Judaism) by bringing up the subject of the resurrection and letting the Pharisees (pro-resurrection) and the Sadducees (anti-resurrection) duke it out. The New Testament is quite explicit on the subject, though. It is one of the new things God made abundantly clear with the revelation of Christ. "The Preacher" in Ecclesiastes had not yet received such assurance. As for "The dead in Christ shall rise first," the usual understanding of this is that this speaks of the resurrection of the body, at which point soul and body are reunited into one person again. It certainly doesn't preclude the possibility that the soul spends the interim in the presence of God. After all, the same author who wrote I Thessalonians (Paul) also said he preferred "to be absent from the body and to at home with the Lord" (I Corinthians 5:8).
Concerning the rich young ruler: The directive, "Sell all you have and give to the poor" was not given generally, to everyone. "Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ," "Repent," etc. are directives given repeatedly in the Bible, to everyone. Mark 10 is telling the story of how Jesus dealt with one particular man. And when you see the man's reaction to what Jesus said, you get an idea of why it was that Jesus said it. DID the man take his advice? No, he "went away grieving, for he was one who owned much property." I think Jesus said this to him because He knew that the man's love of his material possessions compromised his desire for eternal life, and He was making this point, both to that man himself, and to the onlookers. In John 3, when Nicodemus (another rich and important man) asked Jesus about the gaining the Kingdom of God, Jesus didn't tell him to sell his possessions. Like any good teacher, when individuals came to Him for guidance, He gave them individual counsel.
Differences between Old Testament and New Testament are easy to understand when you get the point of the New Testament. It tells us how we have been forgiven, not deserving forgiveness, by God, on Christ's behalf. Therefore, it expects us to forgive in the same way, and not to "render evil for evil." Christ is God's great peace offering to the world, and since His death, we have been living in a time of God's mercy, in which He extends forgiveness patiently and prolongs history so that men might receive it. But even the New Testament says that judgment awaits the enemies of God in the future. God isn't carrying it out in time anymore, by having Israel wax evil nations, but judgment is coming all the same. Consider Revelation and other NT passages about future judgment before you paint a neat dichotomy between the stern OT God and the merciful NT God. Also consider: the basis of God's mercy is that Jesus innocently took our punishment for us. God isn't just forgiving sin; He had to punish Jesus to accomplish this forgiveness, to maintain justice. That's stern and merciful all at the same time.
Sure, God wants us to be happy. But He's the only one who really knows what happiness is, and the only way for us to be truly happy is to follow Him, to accept His forgiveness, to be united to Him, Source of all that is good (therefore Source of all happiness) for eternity. Any formula for happiness that falls short of this is just a shortsighted exercise in self-deception. | | #285 Prester John[62191] | | 137.187.50.72 | Zumbooruk:
I'm not talking about the Conservation of Matter/Energy. I know you expected me to, but I haven't done so. I was talking about the forms that are more basic than matter-energy. But I will critique your quotation, and your interpretation of it, for a moment. First, it is disingenuous to say that there is no energy in the cosmos, just because its "total energy" might equal out to zero. That's like putting two people in a room, one of whom has $1000, another of whom owes $1000, and saying that in that closed system, there is no money. Not true. There _is_ money, and its existence needs to be explained. Likewise, there is a debt (the "negative money"), and that needs to be explained too. Someone who says, "What money? I don't need to explain anything!" is being horribly sophistical. Second, that quotation didn't claim that there was no matter in the cosmos, just that there was no energy. There must be matter for there to be gravity, and for there to be "quantum fluctuation" (I mean, what is fluxing if there is no matter?) So the final contention must be that there was matter all along, and at least as much energy as there is now--not that the distinction really matters at the level I'm talking about, because I'm talking about the more-basic-still concept of matter/energy--the basic "stuff" that can manifest itself either way. If you're going to be a materialist, you'll need to say that this _is_ the basic fact of reality, and that natural "laws" are really just human abstractions based on observations about how this basic matter behaves.
But you haven't done this (maybe you foresaw that it wouldn't work). Rather, you've said that the basic fact is "total emptiness, plus laws of physics." Well, since emptiness is in fact nothing, we can cut it out. You think the basic default fact of the universe is the laws of physics. Be careful. You're on the "Forms" side of metaphysics now, not the "Matter" one, and atheism doesn't fare well here. Because physical laws without physical objects (or even with them, but without them the point is extra obvious) are not objects themselves; they are _ideas_. They aren't matter _or_ energy, but Intellect. Whose intellect? In whose Mind do the forms of physical law exist as ideas? And don't say in the mind of man, either, because you've already said that these laws existed a long time before men did.
I'll come at it from another angle: Physical Laws aren't very basic ideas at all. They are quite composite. Let's try one: the universal law of gravitation says that gravitational force equals the product of the masses of the two objects divided by the square of the distance between the centers of the two objects. In order for this physical law, this idea, to exist, there are many other ideas that need to be in place already: the concept of matter, a number of mathematical concepts, the concepts of distance and "center" (hence the concept of space), the concept of differentiation (one object is not another), and so on. All of these forms are more basic than the form of gravity, which in turn is basic to the functioning of the cosmos. The whole concept of Order, which we investigate through science and mathematics, is more foundational than anything you have suggested.
I don't know if you would want to do this, but you could at this point say to me, "Okay then; Order is the fundamental fact of the Universe. Why not this instead of God?" This would be a better argument than the one you've given already (why not "spontaneous existence of immaterial physical laws" instead of "spontaneous existence of immaterial God?"), because physical laws obviously aren't self-existent, but rather are composite. Well, you could say this, if you were willing to start your own bizarre sect of atheistic Idealists (I don't think they exist), but you would have to reconcile yourself to a few real problems in your effort to avoid God: 1) The fundamental reality of the universe is an idea...with no mind? 2) Every object and form in all the cosmos has a cause behind it, a place it comes from, except the idea of Order? Where does it come from? You could call it self-existent, but what is _that_? How can something exist uncaused? Doesn't that sound a little...religious? You might as well just confess that the Form of Order is your god.
Of course, even Order isn't the most basic form. The most basic is the Form of Oneness (what is Order but the arrangement of monads?) This is the principle that allows X to be X alone, instead of anything else. Nothing in the universe is more basic than that. So whatever defines Oneness must come from beyond the universe...must be God. It's either that, or you have to violate everything you know about reality--namely that everything is caused by something else.
As for morality: If you oppose the holocaust by virtue of nothing stronger than your own subjective morality, then you're no better off than someone whose own subjective morality makes him want to start another holocaust. Are you going to tell him he's wrong? He has just as much warrant to tell you that you're wrong. Are you going to appeal to the majority? Be careful...there might be an objective reason that you have the majority on your side on this one. But if you do appeal to the majority, and with their strength you make laws to stop this guy from killing Jews, what you have just done is no better or worse than what Hitler himself did. You've used force to deal with someone who was different from you. And you can justify yourself, sure, but if you're doing so only by your own terms, what difference is there between you and Hitler, who also justified himself on his own terms? You can gamely agree with everything I'm saying here. You have to, really, to maintain your atheism. But part of you knows it's all bunk. When you aren't thinking solely of the logical demands of maintaining your atheism, you know there's a right and a wrong, an objective moral imperative to stop the man who would start another holocaust. You feel it with a depth your waking mind can barely combat. All humanity loves justice, or at least a self-deceived, selfish version of justice. This is not coincidence. The same Creator made us all in His image. My definition of morality is not "from a vague, difficult-to-understand book." The Bible informs my morality, helping me to see the truth of right and wrong, but really, it's much bigger than that. We have a lot of the same ethical convictions, you and I, I'm sure of it. But because I believe in God, I know where they come from, can learn more about them from Scripture, and can dignify them with the true status of morality, rather than just personal preference.
About "The fool has said in his heart...": Sure you could turn my "fool" argument around on me, but that doesn't hurt me any. You were the one who was basing an argument on the assertion that you were not a fool. It was basic to this argument you were trying to make: 1. If there was a God and He cared about us, He would show Himself to us; 2. He hasn't shown Himself to us; 3. There is no God. You needed to undermine "The fool has said in his heart, 'There is no God'" in order to assert that you had not, in fact, missed some revelation God _had_ given. Since you may indeed be a fool in this sense, and just not know it, your attempt fails, and so does the argument you were attempting.
About Works and Faith: I'll agree not to skim read the Bible if you agree not to skim-read my posts. I said that you are saved by grace through faith, and that real faith will show itself in works. How does that contradict anything you just quoted? In Eph. 2:8-9, grace saves us, and comes to us as individuals by means of our faith. Nothing about this, though (even the faith) is our own. We owe our salvation entirely to grace, not to anything we've done to earn it. The good works are the next step, the way we live out our newfound salvation; read the next verse: "For we are His workmanship, created in Christ Jesus for good works, which God prepared beforehand, that we should walk in them."
Yes, good works can happen independently of faith--good in a sense--in the same sense as is used in Isaiah 64:6, "All our righteousnesses are as filthy rags." None of these is good enough to impress God. He views as truly good only those things done by those He has forgiven. And as for God knowing who is good and who isn't without needing works to show him, well sure He does. The proof is for _us_, because we don't know our own hearts like He knows them. But really, it's a pointless thing to discuss, this possibility of goodness without good fruit. The good do good. It's not an either-or thing.
Now, I rest my fingers...
| | #286 [62249] | | as530078.infocom.com | Wow, I just read through all this. Good stuff Prester.
One question you didn't answer though. Do you honestly believe that of all those people who are "lost" (Buddhists/Hindus in Asia and the peoples of Africa and North/South America before the Europeans) none were happy and/or good?
Much more later, gonna be out most of the night.
Cheers,
Dref
| | #287 [62287] | | as530078.infocom.com | Prester,
Its nice to see that you've got the resurrection issue all figured out... :-) But the point I was trying to make is that there's plenty of room there for misinterpretation. You said, "<i>The doctrine of the resurrection of the dead is another of those teachings that God gave His people slowly, via progressive revelation.</i>" Progressive revelation? That really doesn't sound very logical to me. But I bet this progressive thing has to do with all these different factions of Christianity eh? ;-)
And by they way, why would God allow people to err in the Old Testament and then allow that error to make it into his holy word? Even if it is "corrected" in the New Testament it still causes confusion.
You do however make a good point about the rich young ruler so I think its only fair to drop that one... :-)
Now let me give you a little bit of background as to where I'm coming from. You are right, I grew up as an Adventist and so that is where most of my knowledge of doctrine comes from. I'm not sure how familiar you are with the Adventist denomination but the whole thing seems like bunk to me.
They've got the whole "End of Time" thing mapped out. All the Revelation/Daniel prophecies are figured out. The Adventist church is the remnant because they worship on Saturday and at the end of time, all those who worship on Sunday will receive the mark of the beast. This makes Adventism pretty much exclusive. You can't opt out for another denomination because you'll have to worship on Sunday. From the very youngest age, you are taught that the Sunday worshippers will be lost at the end of time.
I went to an Adventist school all my life. All my friends were Adventists. When I finally graduated from high school in '97 and I started at a secular college, I started talking with some Baptists and Pentecostals and found that even though my religion was based on the Bible, so was theirs<i>!</i> This coupled with Adventist exlusiveness made me fed up with denominations in general.
I'm not sure what denomination you belong to or if you even belong to one. Yours sounds like its a lot more openminded with your "doctrine isn't important" attitude. But where I come from, the attitude was "our way or the highway (to hell)". I chose the highway.
I don't think God is as complicated as organized religion would have us believe. I don't think being happy is all that complicated either. I'm happy now, and as long as I'm happy, then I must be doing something right... :-)
Cheers,
Dref
| | #288 Zumbooruk[62311] | | AKCF2.xtra.co.nz | Rafe_Cardones: Your argument that it was the Jews against Christ, rather than the Romans if fair (though it was by Roman law that he was crucified), but my point (though it was more of an aside) still stands; Jesus just didn't want his followers to make a fuss in case someone was aggravated enough to kill him.
I would prefer eternal life (i.e. a reward) to be based on morality rather than faith because morality has value, but faith doesn't. You say I must draw a line beyond which a certain amount of immorality goes to hell, and the others to heaven, but I don't have to comply with these rigid solutions. My ideal scenario doesn't have a heaven and hell.
"So why doesn't God fix a few things now?"
a) "He has the big picture" = "I can't explain it, but God can"
b) "That needing to be perfect thing. So He steps in & fixes something. That pretty much results in the destruction of all the imperfect people involved."
He need not destroy people. To solve hunger he could spontaneously provide food. To solve war he could make every weapon about to be used to hurt someone disappear.
c) "There's just been non-stop whining about some of the previous times God _did_ step in & fix something. He determined Sodom & Gomorrah to be at the point of no return."
Why do the solutions have to be death and destruction? To solve Sodom and Gemorrah he could have sent his cowardly angels out Lot's house and had them tell the people to stop their evil homosexual ways and start acting like normal heterosexual adults or God would rain down death and destruction. Don't tell me the crowd would have raped them; God's omnipotent and could prevent that. Omnipotence = able to do <i>anything</i>, including non-violent solutions.
Prester (as regards Drefsab): I think Drefsab's point was that science is complex, but not <i>difficult to interpret</i>. The difference between faith vs works and the quadratic formula is that the formula can mean only one thing, though it may be challenging at first. Also, a systematically updated Bible would be fine. In fact, why did God stop? He seemed to be updating right through the Old Testament, then Jesus gets in the last word.
Prester (as regards me):
"I was talking about the forms that are more basic than matter-energy."
You can't show that the forms exist, unless you're talking about physical laws, and then you can't show that they disobey laws.
"That's like putting two people in a room, one of whom has $1000, another of whom owes $1000, and saying that in that closed system, there is no money. Not true."
It's a closed system, so they can only owe money to each other. I have to fix your scenario now, because now the one who owes must have the money, unless there was $2000 at the beginning. Now someone has $1000 and owes it to someone else in a closed system. No discrepancy.
"Second, that quotation didn't claim that there was no matter in the cosmos, just that there was no energy."
Matter=energy
"Because physical laws...are _ideas_. They aren't matter _or_ energy, but Intellect."
Here, I think, you're making an unsubstantiated assumption. Laws aren't ideas in any traditional sense of the word. And they aren't Intellect either. I don't think you can support that. Are you suggesting that when a snooker ball hits another God jumps in and figures out the correct trajectories, and lets fly?
"Okay then; Order is the fundamental fact of the Universe. Why not this instead of God?" This would be a better argument than the one you've given already (why not "spontaneous existence of immaterial physical laws" instead of "spontaneous existence of immaterial God?"), because physical laws obviously aren't self-existent, but rather are composite.
Surely your way is just a different way of stating my way? I don't see your problem with composite laws; surely God is 'composite', whatever that exactly means.
"few real problems in your effort to avoid God: 1) The fundamental reality of the universe is an idea...with no mind? 2) Every object and form in all the cosmos has a cause behind it, a place it comes from, except the idea of Order? Where does it come from? You could call it self-existent, but what is _that_? How can something exist uncaused? Doesn't that sound a little...religious? You might as well just confess that the Form of Order is your god.
1) It's not an idea.
2) I don't argue that everything has a cause; I argue that matter/energy can't be created nor destroyed.
"How can something exist uncaused?
I'm no authority on cause. To call laws some<i>thing</i> is misleading; it's not matter. I support the Laws of Thermodynamics, but I have no idea how the laws came to exist, but at least their existence doesn't contradict anything else I know (whereas Christianity has God spontaneously creating, or maybe teleporting, matter/energy). Some physicists, including Stephen Hawkings I think, have suggested that other universes have different laws, and that the Planck length (distance between atoms, I think) in this universe used to be smaller, for some reason, which indicates that the laws change over time.
"Doesn't that sound a little...religious?"
Religion requires faith. I don't have faith that the laws spontaneously existed. They may have always existed. They may have been created at the creation of this universe along with its dimensions, before which the time dimension didn't exist. Some other, higher, laws, may have dictated their existence. As an 'atheist' (basically I use the term for convenience), I not entirely strict that <i>no</i> 'gods' exist. I am sure the Christian one doesn't, but I don't rule out the possibility that an Intellect may have created the laws - <strong>but</strong> I say there is no reason to <i>assume</i> that. We can't possibly have the knowledge necessary to make that kind of assumption.
"You might as well just confess that the Form of Order is your god."
<strong>god,</strong> n. spirit or being worshipped as having supernatural power; object of worship, idol
If by Form of Order you mean laws of physics, then they are not spirits or beings, objects of worship, idols, and nor do they have supernatural power; they have natural power - that's the point.
"Of course, even Order isn't the most basic form. The most basic is the Form of Oneness (what is Order but the arrangement of monads?) This is the principle that allows X to be X alone, instead of anything else. Nothing in the universe is more basic than that. So whatever defines Oneness must come from beyond the universe...must be God. It's either that, or you have to violate everything you know about reality--namely that everything is caused by something else."
<strong><i>What???</i></strong> First you assume Order isn't the most basic form, and you <i>invent</i> this Form of Oneness, which can't be shown as far as I can tell, <strong>and</strong> my dictionary doesn't list monads, whatever they are, and nothing ever stops X being X, until it is affected by something, as explained by the laws of physics, and even if this half-assed principle did exist, why couldn't it exist within the universe? Also, you can show that matter/energy are affected by causes, but you can't show that laws are. You're comparing monads to gonads. I'm thinking this whole mess relates back to your idea of things being 'composite', and your assumption that they can't.
Well, its 11pm here in New Zealand, and I'm away to bed. | | #289 Zumbooruk[62312] | | AKCF2.xtra.co.nz | | (though I will critique the rest of your comment tomorrow.) | | #290 LFN[62316] | | 203-96-62-34-tollfree.actrix.co.nz | What kind of fool goes to bed at 11, man?!
Yes OK - a [very] sensible one (?)
Not God, not faith, not Creation..
So what DOES an Atheist believe in, exactly? Can it be explained without using a negative?
What kind of fool interrupts scholarly discourse?
A fool indeed. Pardon me :)
| | #291 Prester John[62324] | | 137.187.50.72 | Zumbooruk:
With the quadratic equation, you've chosen a very simple form of expression. It's a neat mathematical formula, and so sure, it's easy to handle. I think my explanation to you of faith and works might be analagous--a simple, essentialized presentation. The comparison only goes so far though, of course, because faith and works is a much bigger question, and there is much more to be said about it. If you want to make a fair contrast, you should probably look to some of the more theoretical, less cut-and-dried segments of modern science.
As for God stopping his "updating" of the Bible, the NT is much more than an "updating" of the Old. It has new content, also. It completes God's revelation to us. With this complete written revelation, with the Church (getting back to the importance of organized Religion here), and with the Holy Spirit to guide the Church, we have what we need. And notice, in what I wrote to Drefsab, I said that even later installments of revelation wouldn't fix all problems of interpretation, or make every church identical in all its beliefs.
Sure I can show that forms exist. We both agree that the physical universe is governed by Laws of Physics, right? Well, the Laws of Physics are forms. We both agree that every object in the world can be described in terms of shape, size, quantity, etc. Those are forms too. Every concept that makes sense of the physical world is a form.
The $1000 example is still on my side. I don't care whether A or B has the money, and the fact that the one owing the money would also be the one holding it makes no difference at all. The point is, there is still money there, in that closed system, and its presence needs to be explained.
If you think that bit you quoted from Victor Stenger meant to exclude matter as well as energy, you need to ask yourself what that "quantum fluctuation" was that he mentioned. You can't have flux unless you have something to flow, something that in this case must be matter. And your mention of the fact that matter and energy are two faces of the same coin only makes the whole Stenger quotation more inadequate, because this shows that it's only dealing with half of the problem in the first place.
What "unsubstantiated assumption" have I made? The laws of nature are ideas, are intellectual forms. That's not a leap. If you say they aren't matter or energy _or_ form, then what are they? Do you have a better idea? As for you snooker ball example, your language ("God jumps in" is the only thing making it seem ridiculous. How about I describe it in different terms? When one ball hits another, the physical reactions of both balls occur the way they do because of the way God defines the universe.
No, God isn't composite. He's super-unitary, beyond Oneness, defining it. All composites exist because of Him. He's beyond logic, and thus beyond human language. All it can do is point us to the fact that He does exist. But thankfully, that's all it has to do in this particular discussion.
You say you don't argue that everything has a cause, just that matter/energy can't be created or destroyed. Well, you don't have to argue that. Everyone knows that. The real question, the one that brings the question of cause firmly to the fore, is "What is the cause of matter/energy?" Not only, "Where did the stuff come from in the first place," but more compellingly, "What shapes and governs it, and where does _that_ come from?" As for God "spontaneously creating" matter/energy, that doesn't contradict thermodynamics in the least, because thermodynamics explains the world the way it is. We can't expect it to say anything about the "world" before it existed. Time itself is just a function of this world, in fact, so the phrase "before matter/energy existed" doesn't say anything temporal. The only thing that could possibly have "existed" "before" matter/energy/time is...eternity, is God. His creation of matter/energy/time was also the creation of the laws that govern them, and therefore cannot violate those laws.
"Religion requires faith. I don't have faith that the laws spontaneously existed." This dodge doesn't work. You are purporting to support atheism, that is, to set up a model of the world that explains everything without God. Now you are refusing to make a statement on the most basic phenomenon in creation: the origin of Form. You even allow that "an Intellect may have created the laws"? It's time to drop the atheist label then, and start calling yourself an agnostic. And when I say that these laws must reside in Intellect, I'm not making any assumptions. I'm following logical necessity.
I didn't invent Oneness. If anyone did, it was Plotinus. But even there, he hardly _invented_ it, except in the old etymological Latin sense of _discovering_ it (_invenio_). You can't have Order without monads (individuals, ones) to arrange, and you can't have monads (whether one man, one pear, or one form) without the principle of Oneness. That's why I said X can't be X without it, because X is only X by being one thing to itself, walled off from everything else that is. Here's more Latin etymology: the word "define" means to demarcate by means of a line (_fines_). When you define something, you "draw a line" around it that separates it from everything else it "could be," but isn't. That "line" makes the thing a unit, and it could not be a unit without Oneness.
This is powerful philosophy. It's what made Plato and Plotinus philosophical monotheists, despite the polytheism of their cultures and religious practices. You see, not even forms can exist without Oneness, so there must be a Form of Oneness too...but what defines the Form of Oneness? It can't define itself! "Something" Beyond must define it. And that Defining power, the foundation of the entire cosmos, is what all Monotheists mean by the word, "God." | | #292 Zumbooruk[63396] | | AKCF1.xtra.co.nz | | Grrr. I have become very busy, and have to bow out of this debate for at least a week or two. But I <i>will</i> be back, if it's still going. | | #293 Paradigm[63667] | | 1Cust188.tnt1.det3.da.uu.net | Zum: thanks for refering me here =). I had suspected that the thrill of debate is what was keeping you going =).
Prester John: I have truly enjoyed reading to what you've been saying. Perhaps we could converse sometime via email.
Napoleic: Where did you go? It would be nice sometime to talk to you as well; I think you had some words for me to debate =).
Dref: I have a word for why worshipping with others is essential, Biblically speaking; demoninations, I think, PJ has explained far better than I could.
"For where two or three come together in my name, there I am with them." Matthew 18:19
If that verse is taken as literally true, there is some difference between us being alone and coming to Him and when we come together and come before him together. There is other context that is important but I have not the time to pursue it right now.
Romans 12.
This is the tack-on (of sorts) to the culmination of the play-by-play of our position before God, the role of faith, and the eternal salvation that is our gift. He enters this passage with "therefore, I urge you, brothers, in view of God's mercy, to offer your bodies as living sacrifices..." What is the natural response to the recognition of God's love for myself and for each and every one of us? It is to give ourselves entirely to Him and to His will, and to recognize each other as completely loved by Him and to love one another as God loves each of us. I'll say more in another post if this is something you disagree with.
If this is true, then continue in Romans 12:5 - "so in Christ, we who are many form one body with many members, and each member belongs to all the others." This means that through the reconciliation that Christ made for each of us, we can also be reconciled to each other in a way that was not possible before, and in fact, we should and must *belong* to one another. That is a strong word and one that may not mean the same thing to you as it does me - but what it means to me is that there is something vitally essential, as a product and vital part of our faith, to interact with other people who believe unto Jesus. Not just the usual clique of people who believe in the same thing to get together, but a fundamental, essential part of our worship of God to come together in His name and to act that worship out in our daily lives.
The second commandment after loving God with all our hearts, souls and minds (actually Dt. 6:4 (5?)) is to love one another. And we are given the practical instructions of how to do so in Romans 12:9-21. And how can we weep with those who weep and rejoice with those who rejoice unless we know them and are invested in them, and have learned who they are and how to love them?
Perhaps that is slightly abstract. But I have seen it and I have lived in such a place for a couple of years, at Williams College, 97-98. I became Christian at that time, my junior year. I still remember it.
Please forgive the brevity of the message. I have to see patients tomorrow and it's getting late. And I didn't have time to look up the Greek in my concordance, which takes hours...so if there are ambiguous translations of things, I'll see to them when I can.
Paradigm
| | #294 Prester John[63695] | | 137.187.50.72 | Zumbooruk: I understand. That happens sometimes. Write when you can; I'm certainly not missing the pressure of writing daily posts.
Paradigm: Nice to see you here. I followed some of the last discussion you had with Zumbooruk, but it was over by the time I found it, so I had to sit on the sidelines until now. It's good to have another ally. | | #295 Zumbooruk[65813] | | l74-185.world-net.co.nz | | Well, I'm back. Is anyone still checking here? I'll check back in ten days. | | #296 Prester John[66167] | | 137.187.50.72 | | Heh. I'm still checking periodically. Looks like things are pretty quiet, though. | | #297 [66325] | | 208.196.35.239 | Since almost no one will likely check this section again except for Prester and Zummy, let me throw out a link for you guys. This forum should interest both of you and from our discussion, I think both of you could add something to the topics that get brought up there. Anyway, <a href="http://disc.server.com/Indices/49093.html">Click me</a> if you're interested and thanks for a good discussion... :)
Cheers,
Dref | | #298 Zumbooruk[66603] | | AKCF1.xtra.co.nz | | Right. See you there. | | #299 Kenny_Baldomer[73691] | | 80-ALIC-X9.libre.retevision.es | | Ummh?, T_T, this isn't that what i want, I NEED A PASSWORD FOR EVERQUEST, BUT THIS MAY BE FREE!!!! | | #300 Alexei Stukovs big gang of russian communist bo bos[80381] | | medi-tut-2.dial.bright.net | First of all if your an atheist you have a mentail problem. You see what makes a person do things? there has to be a perpose in order to live that is what keep humans in line they feel have a have a perpose. Or they live in fear of doing what wrong.But you saying humanity has no purpose? there is no god? that means theres no good or evil so. When people believe there have no reason to live or then they go nuts and do all kinds of thing for example look at american crime and things.What are you trying to do bring down all order all civilazation
By the way im a communist
| | #301 The Big communist Dictator in the Peoples republic of the Kel-Morain Combine[80382] | | medi-tut-2.dial.bright.net | | Expalin how a statue of mary apperaed in the sky near a mosque in saudi alrabia?? in 1996 | | #302 Union of the Auir Sosalist Republics[80383] | | medi-tut-2.dial.bright.net | | LONG LIVE PROTOSS COMMUNISM | | #303 Zumbooruk[81993] | | netcache2-acld.auckland.clix.net.nz | 312: What's your point? I'm talking about whether there's a God or not. The actual truth to answer the question has nothing to do with the benefit to humanity of religion (yes that's somewhat sarcastic, religion's input having been the cause of most wars, etc.).
You're right: there may not be an objective purpose to life. There may be no need to fear doing wrong. There may be no objective good or evil. This lack of objective morality may cause some people to do immoral things, but I wouldn't take America as your example, it being one of the most Christian nations in the world.
I'm looking, then, for the truth as to my question. I don't think it will bring down all civilization.
313: I can explain that: it didn't happen. Don't read the World News Weekly. | | #304 Loganic[94282] | | port35.cvx2-mal.ppp.netlink.se | Hello from another StarCraft fanatic!
In Starcraft Expansion, i stumbled into a bonus level while playing the Zerg. Well im just wondering if anyone know if there is more bonus levels and maybe could contact med and tell me how to get into them? Thanks!
ICQ: 2629174
E-Mail: logan@post.netlink.se
-Loganic. | | #305 StoneColdNewbie[102255] | | nic-245-c65-200.mn.mediaone.net | | what the fuck are you talking about? | | #306 rfgdsfgdggdg[108516] | | 216-210-225-209.atgi.net | | FUCK YOU THIS SUCKS | | #307 AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA[108517] | | 216-210-225-209.atgi.net | FUCK YOU ASS HOLES
| | #308 JFeTT[108700] | | 12-251-9-238.client.attbi.com | | Mmm..Great stuff, Could take you a whole day to read through all this. | | #309 AoH-KingSniper[137271] | | pm1-32.bolivar.wilkshire.net | | If you know any hacks for any games on Brood War's Battle.net contact me at once. Oh and one more thing, don,t forget to join clan AoH- at Channel clan AoH-. With a guarenteed recruitment and 35+ members, why not join? | | #310 Sarah Michelle Gellar[145182] | | webcache-22.swgfl.ifl.net | | Yeah......Do you believe in vampires. I do theres one in my bedroom called steve. He has a monkey called jeremy and likes to tap dance | | #311 shane[146615] | | sunax7-a151.dialup.optusnet.com.au | | if nobody else believed in god would you ? | | #312 ganeo[148423] | | cpe-69-75-47-239.hawaii.rr.com | lol
| | #313 dfbmgfgs[153710] | | 207.66.16.22 | | mnbdbfkdzfhkdfjglguterheriuhgdfbcvh, jgy | | #314 wakiki[153995] | | 199.248.178.72 | | Heh, cool / wierd. I liked that. | | #315 bored person[160617] | | S01060050bf91f8a8.cg.shawcable.net | | LAST |
Back to the Battle Report
|
|
Home
Forum
Starcraft Tournaments
