|
|
|
Slater
SFN Regular
USA
1668 Posts |
 Posted - 05/26/2001 : 00:50:18 [Permalink]
|
In fact I think it's great. You all are putting forth some very intelligent statements.
And may I say that I am enjoying it too. All too often things at this point are reduced to rants and even threats of damnation. It's good to have an intelligent conversation for a change.
The Bible doesn't, so far as I'm aware, come out and say precisely what is the fate of those who were never made aware of Jesus. It implies in both Romans and Revelations (possibly elseware) that they will be judged on their works and their knowledge.
It is a mistake to try to understand these finer points of Christianity by looking at them through the eyes of 21 century (CE) Protestantism. The answer is in fourth century ROMAN Catholicism. In the beginning Christianity was an arm of the Imperial Roman Government. It was a capital offense to be anything other than a Christian. (Almost twice as many Pagans were put to death in the Arenas of Rome by Christians than the other way around) One confessed all their sins not in their hearts but to a priest. A priest who was in the employ of the Empire.
Someone who was not a Christian was either breaking the law or not a Roman. In either case the pit of Hell was all they deserved, babies, saints or whatever.
You, however, are looking at a Christianity now that has been changed (evolved?) by having Humanism forced on it for nearly 250 years. You feel that all of mankind are brothers. This is not an original Christian concept, although parts of the bible have been reinterpreted to support it.
I have to admit though that it also implies that human nature being what it is, the odds of living your life in complete compliance with your conscience is unlikely.
One of the basic assumptions of Christianity is that all men are sinners. They are fallen. They should not follow their own judgement but rather follow that of Jesus. This misanthropy starts to make sense when you realize that as an arm of Imperial Rome this philosophy was used to control the populous.
But I also don't find it hard to believe that I don't see it in light of the BIG picture.
You are not meant to. All you have to do is follow orders.
If one species can understand things at a higher level than another, and then yet another species works at an even higher level than the first, and on and on, I don't find the possibility that another being may be on a higher level than we humans. Does than seem reasonable?
Not really. I could give you an argument about the very concept of "higher levels" but if we just go with that for the moment it still doesn't work.
All of these creatures on all of these levels have one thing in common. They are all corporeal entities. The one you are proposing is not. It can only be shown to exist as a fictional character in stories and not as a describable entity in the physical world. Even if it did, why should we obey (much less worship) it any more than a beetle obeys us?
Yes, I believe that the Bible pretty much makes it clear that if you repent, and accept Jesus as your saviour, then it doesn't matter what you've done. An early semi Humanistic concept introduced to Christianity less than 500 years ago and in total disagreement with its Roman origins.
There is also in Mark chapter 10, "Suffer the little children to come
unto me, and forbid them not: for of such is the kingdom of God. Verily I say unto you, whosoever shall not receive the kingdom of God as a little child, he shall not enter therein." To me that indicates that children are not accountable. To me that verse indicates that adults are not to question, but rather just accept everything they are told as a credulous child would.
The bible describes Hell, damnation, the second death, etc. in many different instances. Taken directly from Mirthraism with one notable change. According to Zoroaster a Hell that lasts for eternity would not give the sinner a chance to learn the error of his ways. A god of light (Azura Mazda) would not punish simply for the love of punishment.
I've also heard a variation on this theme, that states eternally cold and
isolated. I don't think that's biblical but I could be wrong.
You are not wrong. Hell is frozen. You see the place called Hell is not Jewish or even Mithrain. The name comes from Norse Pagan myth.
I have not personally found any method to help me determine which is the proper assessment.(of bible interpretation)
I have found using the same kind of logic that I use in dealing with every other matter in my life can be very illuminating when also used with religion.
Is being burned in an instance (using burned, again, in what I believe
to be a figuritive sense) and reduced to non-existence just? If you have rejected God, then maybe yes. You got what you asked for. This, of course, results in the out come that many of you are anticipating anyway. You just won't exist any longer. I don't mean to be harsh, by the way. (Just in case any of you took it that way ).
You aren't harsh at all. In fact of all the Christians who have predicted my ultimate fate you are by far the least harsh. Eternal life, particularly that which is described as the Christian heaven is an unappealing possibility. Mark Twain's Letters from the Earth is very funny and goes into this subject in great detail.
I didn't exist before I was born and that wasn't half- bad. If not existing after I die is anything like that was I'll be content (dry humor).
Case in point, this whole conversation. . . But if God created us with inquisitive minds, I can only assume he intended for us to use them.
Which of course is in direct contradiction of the bible. Good for you, stand on your own two feet and think for yourself.
The reason the bible doesn't want you to think for yourself is not because it is from god but because it is from the Imperial Roman government. The church was just an arm of that government.
When Rome fell the church survived. The first thing it did was set up an order with a few well-armed thugs keeping everyone in line through force, and them in charge of the thugs (the nobility) Everyone else in Europe became a serf. A serf is only a slightly tiny tweeny bit different than a slave.
Slaves, thugs and the church on top--for a thousand long dark years.
I would be proud to consider any of you my friends.
Wow, an actual gentleman. Didn't expect to meet one of those.
Oh, and by the way, I'm a "he". (In case it made a difference).
Your crack about "wet dreams" gave you away.
----------
When the dead talk -- they talk to him |
 |
|
|
Trish
SFN Addict
USA
2102 Posts |
Posted - 05/26/2001 : 03:04:47 [Permalink]
|
quote:
The fact that this principal was in use before it was actually spoken by Jesus is actually a tribute to the fact that humans do know the truth about God, regardless of wether we have been directly told or not. We know that it is wrong to screw one another over. Inherently we know it! Honestly, I would like to know how this self-sacrificial attitude (which I dare you deny that it is) fits with Darwin's idea of survival. I don't mean to say that I don't believe it's possible for darwinism (is that still a word?) and self-sacrifice to co-exist, I'm merely curious about the modern take on the situation.
broven, have you any children or spent any time with children around the age of two? The reason I ask this, you say that we know by our nature that it is wrong to screw each other. I think this is a case of nature v. nurture, with nurture taking the upper hand. Two year old children are selfish, keeping things for themselves and throwing terrible temper tantrums when they don't get their way(hence The TERRIBLE Twos). Parents intervene in their social interactions at that age and begin to teach them (based on their own knowledge) the difference between right and wrong. As they are indoctrinated to the concept of share and share alike they learn to judge their peers and adults based on what has been learned.
So when two children are playing at five, and one has two toys they are likely to share with the other, as they have been taught. You always hear about the spoiled rotten child, well they exist. Mommy and/or Daddy want the child to leave them alone or they can't deal with the child anymore (any similar situation) so they give in and the child gets what they want. They learn this too, if I scream really long and really loud I can get what I want. By the time they enter school they are nightmares, however, peer pressure and non acceptance by others creates a group dynamic where by the child learns the rules the parents should have taught in the first place. Unfortunately, many of the children will react in the old learned manner at home. Parents don't understand what's wrong with the child and said child winds up on some drug to calm them down, ie Ridlin.
This is not a natural response, but rather learned. And correcting parental mistakes can have long lasting effects on the child, re: Candace Newmaker. Though the parental unit at fault here was adoptive. However, in this instance there were several Drs who refused to do anything with Candace siting the mother as seeking vicarious attention, there's actually a name for this I just can't recall offhand. Her adoptive mother went to several psychologists until she found one to diagnose Candace the way she wanted. Sorry, this trial is happening right up the road and coverage is pretty constant, that's why I think this sticks in my mind.
Spinnin' my wheels and gettin' no where - fast |
|
|
|
Antie
Skeptic Friend
USA
101 Posts |
Posted - 05/26/2001 : 09:53:44 [Permalink]
|
A. There is no imperical evidence to support his existence.
Many of the arguments that support his existence beg the question. A perfect example is the Argument from Design.
B. There is evidence to support things such as "an old universe", evolution, etc.
It depends a lot on what you mean by ""an old universe," "evolution," etc. (I should point out that "evolution" isn't the same thing as "the origin of life.")
C. If you believe in God you're an idiot.
That's not really an argument. It's an assertion. And not all of us are saying such things.
1. Does lack of evidence disprove anything?
No, and the lack of evidence doesn't prove anything, either.
Another thought that has occurred to me occasionally: Before the Big Bang where did all this stuff come from.
At this point, because of what already know about how the universe works, this isn't even a valid question anymore. Victor J. Stenger said it best:
---
If we extrapolate the big bang back to the earliest definable time, the so-called Planck time (10-43 second), we find that universe started out in a condition of maximum entropy -- total chaos. The universe had no order at the earliest definable instant. If there was a creator, it had nothing to create.
Note also that one cannot ask, much less answer, "What happened before the big bang?" Since no time earlier than the Planck time can be logically defined, the whole notion of time before the big bang is meaningless.
---
But this, too, you take on faith.
What sort of faith?
Ian Andreas Miller. My site. |
|
|
|
sega
Skeptic Friend
USA
73 Posts |
Posted - 05/28/2001 : 15:00:01 [Permalink]
|
quote:
In the beginning Christianity was an arm of the Imperial Roman Government. It was a capital offense to be anything other than a Christian. (Almost twice as many Pagans were put to death in the Arenas of Rome by Christians than the other way around)
This seems a bit suspect to me. The Romans killed many more pagans and slaves throughout the history of the gladiatorial games than christians simply due to te fact that there weren't that many christians around at that time, and those that they put to death were often chosen solely because they were not Roman citizens.
Is it your assertion that the Romans were putting non christians to death in gladiatorial games, or were they executions of heretics? I mean if the Romans were making Christinsanity the state religion, and requiring all citizens to be Christian, then it is logical to beleive that the percentage of non christians killed would go up.
How many pagans were killed? How many christians, and can we ever Know that? Was there a questionnaire filled out before entering the "Arena"?
I'm calling you on this because the "more blood has been spilled in the name of religion" argument has been used so much it begins to smack of dogma. Sure, sure, the Crusades and the Inquisition, all of that happened, but please be sure and back up new stuff. I really find the flippant use of numbers and statistics irritating.
|
|
|
|
Lisa
SFN Regular
USA
1223 Posts |
|
|
Trish
SFN Addict
USA
2102 Posts |
Posted - 05/28/2001 : 21:41:22 [Permalink]
|
Well, the trial is over the death of Candace Newmaker. The fact that the adoptive mother went through several psychotherapists until she found one that agreed with her that Candace was out of control. One that one recommendation alone, she brought Candace to Evergreen, about an hour up the road from me. Have friends up there.
In September the two assistants are set for trial. One is an ex-con and then his wife.
The adoptive mother's trial is set sometime next year.
Golden, the Jefferson County seat is about half an hour from where I live.
Spinnin' my wheels and gettin' no where - fast |
|
|
|
Tiptup
Skeptic Friend
USA
86 Posts |
Posted - 05/29/2001 : 00:17:37 [Permalink]
|
[quote]Slater:
And may I say that I am enjoying it too. All too often things at this point are reduced to rants and even threats of damnation. It's good to have an intelligent conversation for a change.
Good change huh? I hope your not regarding me as the opposite. The only time I ever got close to ranting was when you got nasty and rude to me first. Also when did my statements reduce to threats of damnation?
(Woops, I'm getting angry...)
You're going to go to hell for this slander JohnPaul!! Prepare to meet damnation! AH HA HA HA HA!!
(Hmmm...)
Umm, unless of course you weren't referring to me. |
|
|
|
broven
New Member
USA
44 Posts |
Posted - 05/29/2001 : 10:31:59 [Permalink]
|
Hi, I hope everyone had a good holiday weekend. It rained everyday here, but we still managed to tie a couple on.
quote:
broven, have you any children or spent any time with children around the age of two? The reason I ask this, you say that we know by our nature that it is wrong to screw each other. I think this is a case of nature v. nurture, with nurture taking the upper hand. Two year old children are selfish, keeping things for themselves and throwing terrible temper tantrums when they don't get their way(hence The TERRIBLE Twos). Parents intervene in their social interactions at that age and begin to teach them (based on their own knowledge) the difference between right and wrong. As they are indoctrinated to the concept of share and share alike they learn to judge their peers and adults based on what has been learned.
I do actually have 2 boys (currently ages 6 and 9) and I do remember the "Terrible 2's". But, let me try out an alternate theory on you. If we go back to birth I think it's safe to say that while children are actually selfish, at first it is simply out of neccessity. They need food, diaper change, sleep, whatever. They aren't doing anything really wrong by throwing a fit at this point to get what they want or need. They simply lack any other mode of communication. So suppose that by the time they've reached the terrible two period, when their communication skills are beggining to develop, they have actually "learned" that throwing a fit pays off, and now they begin to apply this learned strategy to other things in their lives. The parent then steps in, and re-trains them in the proper (acceptabe) way of handling these situations. I will, grant that this may not neccesarrily be in compliance with the "True Nature" that I was talking about. Obviously adults are gonna put their own spin on things. I guess I was originally speaking in a more general sense to the comment that the idea of do-unto-others predates christianity.
Everybody's got something to hide except for me and my monkey. |
|
|
|
Slater
SFN Regular
USA
1668 Posts |
Posted - 05/29/2001 : 10:51:33 [Permalink]
|
quote:
The only time I ever got close to ranting was when you got nasty and rude to me first. Also when did my statements reduce to threats of damnation?
Tiptup, good to see you're back. Where have you been?
Threats of damnation, on this site, came from "He" on a regular basis. In the world of debating Christians off of this site they are standard issue. Got one over the weekend from some JW's who came to my front door to save me. One even took a few steps back in case I was struck by lightening while he was standing there.Nice people.
Looking back at the old files I'm missing where I would become nasty first and not as a response. They must have left that part out.
-----
When the dead talk -- they talk to him |
|
|
|
Tokyodreamer
SFN Regular
USA
1447 Posts |
Posted - 05/29/2001 : 11:54:39 [Permalink]
|
Welcome back, Tiptup! We were getting worried. 
------------
Gambatte kudasai! |
|
|
|
Slater
SFN Regular
USA
1668 Posts |
Posted - 05/29/2001 : 14:38:43 [Permalink]
|
broven-
folklore. I must admit that this is an entirely new argument to me. I'm not admitting you're correct but I'd really like to have some references. Is this stuff available online? I'm afraid I can't argue against what I am unfamaliar with. . .
As luck would have it the Did Jesus Exist conversation from the old SFN was put on line this weekend. Most things you would want to know can be found in it.
"Golden Rule". The fact that this principal was in use before it was
actually spoken by Jesus is actually a tribute to the fact that humans do know the truth about God, regardless of wether we have been directly told or not
Humans, apes, dogs, and any number of other creatures. How deep an insight can it be if poodles already live by it?
I really must say that in the modern age, survival of the fittest among Human's is entirely out the window. Frankly, some of the sorriest, sadest, most un-motivating people seem to be propogating like flies. Meanwhile, the truly gifted, can't seam to live long enough to have children. I know that this is an oversimplification, but does it not seem to be true? How does that fit into evolutionary principal?
Yes it does seem to be true. But what you consider to be "the fittest" and what nature does may not be the same thing. You cannot confuse evolution with progress. It is only change. There is no force behind it saying I'm going to make animals more and more advanced.
The reason that mankind is so assured that we are at the pinnacle of evolution is that we were the ones who set the standards. Turtles might have a completely different idea on who is most advanced and why.
AT LAST!!!! An easy one!!!! Whew. . .
Simple. . . and I have NO doubt that I have this correct. . . Love one another as you love yourself…
When the dead talk -- they talk to him |
|
|
|
Slater
SFN Regular
USA
1668 Posts |
Posted - 05/29/2001 : 14:40:09 [Permalink]
|
cont.
Okay, here's a tough question. How does this differ from the behavior of any decent person?
While I agree with you here, I must say that it is possible, (if God is omnipotent) that he is constrained by the laws of physics only so much as he chooses to be. In my mind it is perfectly acceptable to say that he designed the laws of pysics to regulate the world that he had created.
Yeah but what happens here is that you are representing the bible as the word of god. In it whenever the authority of god is demonstrated it is do so with a suspension of the natural laws (miracles)
So is it possible that God designed an entire system of physics, quantum physics, biology, anthropology, astrology, etc. that worked as a unit, but could not have worked before the creators intervention?
Why is it difficult to believe that the theory of relativity, for example, could be created?
When you set up the rule that all things require a creator that leaves you in an anthropomorphic dead end. The creator winds up needing a creator, and his creator and…
Either you have to make a "special case" for the creator, which invalidates the rule, or just go with it like the Hindu religion does.
You would be, then , assuming that your translation of a higher form is more accurate than your own. If it is, in fact, a higher form of communication, how can you expect it to conform to ANY of your pre-conceived notions of what conversation must be?
No, I don't think so, because perfect communication requires that the intended audience understand the communication perfectly. And that understanding is the responsibility of the communicator and not the communicatee.
Here let's pretend that I'm god (I have to model myself after somebody--Woody Allen) and I want to communicate a joke to you. The joke is a self-deprecating one about Dr Pangloss (the same joke that died so horribly a few posts ago. Dr Pangloss, a character in Voltaire's Candide, was the Great Gonzo of Aristotelian logic)
Now, since I'm god, I already know that you don't know who Dr Pangloss is. (I know everything, that's part of my job description). What I then do is tell this joke, that I meant for you, to one of my friends in Hawaii who only speaks Pidgin English. And I tell him this joke in classical Greek to make it seem more important. I instruct the Hawaiian to make sure that you hear my joke.
When you do eventually hear the joke you don't get it.
Whose fault is that, you the imperfect human, or me, mister wonderful, god?
As a Christian you must assume that you are at fault. God is working in mysterious ways. Your finite brain cannot comprehend my infinite thoughts. Etc., etc.
As a Skeptic, however, you are free to question. You see a method of communication used that is not only not perfect but is so imperfect that you would be right in doubting my sanity. Classical Greek to Hawaiian Pidgin to Mid Western English to make a joke about a sixteenth century writer, that wasn't even that funny.
If I couldn't even tell a simple joke you would be right to question if I was the perfect all knowing god that I claimed to be. I don't think so.
Same argument goes for the bible.
If you are the intended audience why did it have to be translated? Why can people get meanings from it that directly contradict each other.
Remember this is supposed to be from a god who already knows all about you, and everyone else. Except he didn't know that you were going to speak English.
Nah, the writers of the bible are no more setting down god's dictation than I am.
What one must ask themselves Dare I sugest that, when you say that we christians are acting upon some un-defined primal instinct (that, frankly, is undoubtedly un-darwinian) that, instaed you evolutionists (I apply this term without prejudice) are in fact responding to some desire to be held unaccountable for your actions?
I'm not suggesting that Christians are acting on some un-defined primal instinct. If that were so then all people, no matter what philosophy held would demonstrate signs of this instinct. They don't which would imply that Christians are acting under social conditioning.
What I'm contending is that Christianity was created (or at least changed into) by the Imperial Roman government with the sole purpose of controlling the population, and keeping the new form of Emperor created by Constantine in power. After the fall of Rome it remained in pretty much the same structure only now it kept itself in power. You were required to weekly go to a priest (originally a government official, then a church official) and confess anything that you may have done that was against church dictates.
Any feeling that you were accountable to some unseen agent after you were dead was foisted on you to trick you into being accountable to church authority.
Strangely enough you have removed yourself from any accountability to a church. But you still have the psychological dependency that they instilled.
Evolutionists are not responding to some desire to be held unaccountable for their actions, one of the prime legal qualifications for being considered a sane person is a realization that you are accountable for.
Evolution is not a religious philosophy (maybe I should replace my John Edwards signature line with that) it is only an explanation of observed facts. In other words it is a science. Science is philosophically and morally neutral (just like, say, plumbing or typing are neutral). It deals only with facts.
As a Skeptic, I am trying to deal only with facts too. But I find myself swayed in a very unscientific fashion by the lack of facts in some cases.
--------
When the dead talk -- they talk to him |
|
|
|
Slater
SFN Regular
USA
1668 Posts |
Posted - 05/29/2001 : 14:42:30 [Permalink]
|
SEGA---This seems a bit suspect to me. The Romans killed many more pagans and slaves throughout the history of the gladiatorial games than christians simply due to te fact that there weren't that many christians around at that time…
Is it your assertion that the Romans were putting non christians to death in gladiatorial games, or were they executions of heretics?
It's odd how a person can say one thing and then be call out on something else that he didn't say. I am pointing out the death tolls because they reflect the hypocrisy of standard Christian teaching which lauds the poor devote Christian martyrs but never mentions the havoc Christians wrought the minute they came to power. One would get the impression from church history that the early Christians were saints, every man Jack of them. That does not appear to be the actual case.
I mean if the Romans were making Christinsanity the state religion, and requiring all citizens to be Christian, then it is logical to beleive that the percentage of non christians killed would go up.
Sigh. The "pagans" were being killed by the Christians for the crime of not being a Christian. Which is not a very "Christian" thing to do, don't you agree?
How many pagans were killed? How many christians, and can we ever Know that? Was there a questionnaire filled out before entering the "Arena"?
Ah, biting wit. The Romans kept records of the crimes people were sent to the arena for. Or do you think that everything before 1980 went undocumented?
I was quoting from A. J. O'Reilly's Martyrs of the Coliseum which is subtitled With Historical Records of the Great Amphitheater of Ancient Rome Doubleday, 1987. It's basically a pro Christian book but in fairness does tell both sides of the story.
I'm calling you on this because the "more blood has been spilled in the name of religion" argument has been used so much it begins to smack of dogma. Sure, sure, the Crusades and the Inquisition, all of that happened, but please be sure and back up new stuff. I really find the flippant use of numbers and statistics irritating.
Yeah, this free speech nonsense is a bitch. Why can't those Atheists stay in their place like in the good old days. Why is it every time anyone boasts about Christian virtues these flippant irritating louts have to bring up history?
History is pretty irritating too. First it doesn't record any of the good stuff like say Jesus or his Apostles. Then it carries on with statistics that make Christianity's reign seem like a pool of blood. Who cares about the auto da fe? One Holocaust after another, big hairy deal. What's a crusade or two between friends?
Actually there were eleven crusades. My personal favorite was the Albigensian Crusade which lasted a few weeks short of twenty years. It wasn't even against the Moslems but rather a Christian sect called the Cathari. Most of the cities in southern France were destroyed by it. On a single day in the city of Beziers the papal legates reported a slaughter of nearly twenty thousand heretics--seven thousand in the Church of Mary Magdalene alone, to which they had fled for asylum. Or do you find these figures too dogmatic? They're from the annals of the Roman Catholic Church, they were proud of a job well done.
When the dead talk -- they talk to him |
|
|
|
broven
New Member
USA
44 Posts |
Posted - 05/29/2001 : 15:54:12 [Permalink]
|
quote:
[b]I'm calling you on this because the "more blood has been spilled in the name of religion" argument has been used so much it begins to smack of dogma.
Frankly, I tend to agree with Sega here. At least in part. Atrocities were most assuredly committed in the name of religion (and christianity specifically). But if you read the papers, attrocities are being committed in the name of seemingly everything! That's just man doing his thing. I think I said that before, but just to reiterate. . .
As for how the modern church portrays her history. . . It really depends on the church. Some churches seem to be pretty honest about these things, in my experience. Some don't mention them much at all. But at least a few of the churches I've attended made a point of showing how the early christians weren't "perfect". The conversation is always limited to the apostles and the churches mentioned in the Bible. Notably, Several of Paul's letters were addressed to young churches experiencing problems "walking the walk". Whether you believe the Bible to be true (or historically accurate) isn't relevant here. It was still what the church based it's doctrine on, and if they wanted to portay themselves as better than the average joe (I say that lightly, as I believe the Bible indicates that we are all equal), they wouldn't have included these sections in their canon.
Everybody's got something to hide except for me and my monkey. |
|
|
|
Slater
SFN Regular
USA
1668 Posts |
Posted - 05/29/2001 : 16:58:45 [Permalink]
|
True.
It could be that since I am a member of a group that has been (and for that matter, still is) persecuted by Christians that I am being less than charitable when it comes to ackowledging their positive aspects. You should hear this Irish boy go on about the English.
When normal decent behavior gets claimed as a purely Christian vitrue. Or I'm told that Evolutionists (meaning Atheists-I suppose) have abandoned belief because they don't want to be accountable for their actions I tend to become a little thined skinned.
Frankly I have yet to understand just what Christianities positive aspects are. Like Bertrand Russel said after religion established a calender that was accurate enough to predict solar eclipes he saw nothing else that they did to benefit mankind.
When the dead talk -- they talk to him |
|
|
 |
|
|
|
Topic Locked
