Religious discussion continued

Remove all ads!

Why should god be interested in our stupid definitions of good and bad.
Priests bless the weapons of every country.
If we would not have a free will, we couldn't evolve. If we couldn't evolve why should we be forced to live?

 

Oh, and something else. Evil is said to be a human invention (which it is, there is no other truely evil living thing besides (some) humans). then is good? Where would Satan have got his evil attitude from? When would God have figured out what good was?
Also, one of the ten commandments clearly states: Thou shalt not kill, But then there are hundreds of stories in it about people killing and becoming great hero's. Condradiction? I think so.

 

Yes, I invented evil. It was a lot of work, but the final version should be up soon. You cannot install Evil without installing Good, and vice versa.

On a more serious note, I'd agree that evil is a human invention. It's just a classification for an action, based upon it's outcome. Kicking a child is evil because it causes the child pain, and we want to live in a society that minimises pain (because we don't generally like to experience it). Good is the opposite of evil... feeding someone that is starving is good, because it again minimises the unpleasantness in the world. Neutral is the inbetween... the zero of the "moral scale".

Of course, this whole view gets very difficult when you start to introduce absolute and relative problems. Not many people want to be killed, so it stands to reason that most people would construe killing as an act of evil. However, let's introduce a hypothetical situation. Let's say you could go back in time to the point when only 10,000 people had HIV/AIDS. You're given details involving the location of these people, and the means to destroy them are also made available to you.

Do you kill them all? Why? Why not? Surely killing 10,000 to save future millions minimises suffering, and as such, must be good, right? Surely slaying 10,000 innocent people is wrong, though? It must be evil, right? Which level do you look at this problem on: the relative level, where slaying these people seems to be the best for the common good, or the absolute level, where every human's personal right to live is important?

Aikanaro, I'll leave my opinion of Judas Iscariot for another time, perhaps another session in chat, or another thread, if anyone else is interested.

 

If you truly read the Bible, study it on a whole, study books of the Bible on a whole, and study chapters on a whole you will find that what at first appears as an inconsitency is not. For example, you may be reading a verse that seems to completely contradict what you've read earlier, so you go "ah-hah, contradiction", but keep reading and think about what the author is trying to say. You can't do it in bits and pieces, you have to look at what the author was trying to convey and the how it relates to the other parts of the Bible.

Judas' fate is mentioned twice AFAIK. First in Matthew 27:3-10 and second in Acts 1:16-19. They two don't contradict, they compliment by both mentioning the Field of Blood that is purchased with Judas' betrayal money that he refused once he got it. Matthew says he hanged himself and Acts says falling headlong, he burst open in the middle and all his bowels gushed it. So those two may seem to contradict. But is it not possible he hung himself on a limb that hung out over a cliff or drop-off. So this contradiction is weak and trivial to begin with.

A lot of Old Testament writers weren't Christians eh? None of them were, not just "a lot". Simply because Christianity hadn't been formed yet in that name. At that time it was belief in the Hebrew God and hope for a Saviour. Jesus had not come yet. But there is plenty of scripture in the Old Testament that prophesies Jesus' coming. That's not a contradiction, it's an amazing compliment.

And sorry no vision of God with a long white beard and sandals here. Look elsewhere for charicatures and fairy tales.

And the "contradiction" of killing. Did you miss the theme? The point? It's all about redemption. Not just killing, we sin. Period. Jesus pays that debt. Sure we broke God's commandment, but the fact that we did isn't the end all and be all. Jesus is. Moses, David, and Paul and many more all became great warriors for God (I'm talking spiritual warfare here not this petty thing on earth we call warfare.) Did they still sin? Yes of course, they're human. It's not a contradiction, it's a fact. If you're human you sin. Period. Don't let sin seperate you from God.

 

I am sure that I had something to do with corruption of the god's original thread, as what Nutrimat had to say was very interesting to me, and, jeez, conversations *flow* -- no one screams "off-topic! off-topic!" in real life.

I thought the whole free will argument was laid to rest before now. My kid is covered in cookie crumbs, and the cookie is missing. Still, I say: "did you take the cookie?"

Do I know the answer? Yes.

I left the cookie where he could get at it, knowing that he might take it. Am I malevolent? Not usually.

So why?

Because as a parent, I must teach my children to follow the righteous path, which includes both not doing wrong, and confessing what they have done wrong to me, their mother. This allows them to experience punishment -- but far lighter than the cruel world deals out for wrongdoing, and forgiveness -- from their mother who will always love them, regardless of the wrong they do.

Though I don't believe in God myself, this argument on the seeming contradiction between God's omniscience and benevolence and man's free will makes perfect sense to me. If this is the shadowlands, the preparation for the world to come, then God is the father and we the children. We are given the opportunity to sin so that we may experience His punishment and forgiveness and be made ready for the coming, "real" world, His kingdom. As C.S. Lewis (my all-time favorite Christian) says, "the blows of his chisel, which hurt us so much, are what make us perfect."

I can set you all straight on the question of God's existence, too, if you want.

 

The real argument is whether God would have you to argue about it at all.

"Two theologues once, as they wended their way
To chapel, engaged in colloquial fray --
An earnest logomachy, bitter as gall,
Concerning poor Adam and what made him fall.
"'Twas Predestination," cried one -- "for the Lord
Decreed he should fall of his own accord."
"Not so -- 'twas Free will," the other maintained,
"Which led him to choose what the Lord had ordained."
So fierce and so fiery grew the debate
That nothing but bloodshed their dudgeon could sate;
So off flew their cassocks and caps to the ground
And, moved by the spirit, their hands went round.
Ere either had proved his theology right
By winning, or even beginning, the fight,
A gray old professor of Latin came by,
A staff in his hand and a scowl in his eye,
And learning the cause of their quarrel (for still
As they clumsily sparred they disputed with skill
Of foreordination freedom of will)
Cried: "Sirrahs! this reasonless warfare compose:
Atwixt ye's no difference worthy of blows.
The sects ye belong to -- I'm ready to swear
Ye wrongly interpret the names that they bear.
You Infralapsarian son of a clown!
Should only contend that Adam slipped down;
While you -- you Supralapsarian pup!
Should nothing aver but that Adam slipped up.
It's all the same whether up or down
You slip on a peel of banana brown.
Even Adam analyzed not his blunder,
But thought he had slipped on a peal of thunder!"
- G.J.

 

I don't think God does want us to argue about it. He wants all of us to come to our senses and accept His gift of salvation. Why in the heck wouldn't you?

 

Anyone else see the abosolutely hilarious irony in this thread?

Hint: Who betrayed Jesus?

 

Yeah but God's not laughing. The bottom line is Jesus died. He died for us. Judas betraying Him was just insult to injury - Satan's pathetic attempt to get back at God. Win the battle but loose the war and all that. Look where that got him. And look where it's going to get him. He's pissed and he'll try to take as many of us with him just to spite God. You going to let him do that? You going to stand for that? You going to fall for his lies? Common, I know all of you are better, smarter, and wiser than that. You talk about logic, that's the real logic.

 

OK, I think that last thing warrents the theory of Judas to be bought out. Its not like Satan himself came to Judas and went, "Hey, dude, wanna betray your savior for ten bucks?"
Satan is the word we put to evil and God is the word we put to good.

 

Please tell me you have a better argument than that, Big B. Why wouldn't you? I can counter that non-argument with one line:

Why would you?

God creates man, man refuses to acknowledge God. Does God take offense to this? Does he bellow in his great majesty and smite us? Or cast us into some fiery hell? How can we abide by someone whom even by our primitive standards would be deemed irrationally tempermental and be sent to anger-management classes? Did Jesus not tell us to, "turn the other cheek?" Then why cannot God? For he is superior? I have often found that coming to blows or making threats over disagreements is a sign of inferior rational capability, not superior.

But maybe that's just me.

Were I to suppose God to exist, how can we know the truest nature of God? What, to propose, if God is a liar, a cheat? How would we know? All of our perceptions and knowledge of him come from, supposedly, him. One might ask why he would have cause to lie- but then again, one might also ask why he would have cause to be truthful. We cannot exact revenge upon his injustices, therefore he is free to act upon them as he sees fit. Point of fact, we cannot know the true nature of God, were he to exist. He could very well be, by our standards, evil, and simply be very good at manipulating us to think he is acting in our interest. Is it unfathomable?

...God a sadist? Phaw, to even think it!...

Therefore, what cause have we to worship him? I would believe that the greatest cause to believe in a God lies not in his nature [for that is irrelevant], but in his act of creation. He created us, so we owe him some kind of homage in return, or something along those lines. To further the logic of Epicurus, the first, third, and fourth lines of his form are indisputable. Be he willing but unable to prevent evil things, he is not perfect. If he is both willing and able, than evil would not exist- and as it does, he cannot be both. If he is neither, then what differentiates him from any man in that sense? The second line, however is agreeable for many christians:

Is he able[to prevent evil], but not willing?

Christians would argue for this- sin is the creation of man, and therefore not God's fault. [Even though he created man which, in turn, created sin. I guess he isn't very good at creating things. They all seem to be flawed.]

It is on this topic that I would give an example of a parallel of God's creation of man. Were I to take children, not fully sentient in nature so they might never know the world around them, and place them in an underground playpen, where they would be fed until they were of the age where they might find ways of getting their own food [which I have so benevolently provided], and I were to raise these children on the understanding that if they did anything I did not agree with they would be punished- am I righteous? (Many would see a parallel with parenthood. The difference here lies in that when a child has grown, s/he becomes independent, and is given the ability to act on his or her own thoughts [with the guidance of his/her learnings], and suffer our repercussions not from our teachers, but from the world. God does not grant us that right) Or, the other case, am I malevolent? I created the world, yes, in which they live. I relayed my word through select few, that they might teach the rest. I gave them entertainment, enjoyment, a beautiful environment, and freedom to act as they may. Yet I punished them so they might learn, and aided them thusly in living. I gave them solace when they sought comfort. I can do things that to them seem miraculous. In all respects that we hold God today, I am alike. Why am I not then God?

One might say that I am flawed, for man is innately flawed, and therefore not fit to judge men. But in my scenario I could say the same to my children, and have the same impact. They are not fit to judge me for I am their creator, and if need be, I will punish them until they submit. They would have no perception beyond what we have now- what we can see, what we've been "taught", and yet from this vantage we would see them as having been duped.

This life is not then, a gift, but a prison sentence. One should not give gifts with the expectation of return. And upon a lack of return, one should not give scorn. These are things that are taught even to us, insofar as we are taught not to covet material things or power. Yet he is allowed to break these rules? Why should we follow such hypocrisy?

What does he benefit from our believing in him? Does he lack sanctity and therefore needs our worship to feel better about himself? Then he is not perfect. Does he not need it, but still demands it with fire and brimstone at arms? Then he is neither wise nor kind. A kind word might remain a kind word, until it is seen to be either not a word, or not kind. Even if we believe God gave us this gift, I cannot see how, were we to live under his demands of faith, it can be truly a gift. It might be grand, and enjoyable, and truly their might not be anything wrong with living a pious life- but the fact that waiting for you at the end of the tunnel is a twelve-gauge straight to hell is so disgusting in my albeit limited [I blame God for that] perception, that I am sickened at the thought of the possibility of such blind powermongering and oppression.

Those are my sentiments for the time-being...

Amon-Ra

 

BigB, I'm still struggling to find a shred of reason in your posts. Your arguments are almost exclusively circular.

Q: Why is the bible valid?
A: Because the bible says so.
Not a valid argument.

Q: Why does god exist?
A: Because he knows everything, and he told me.
Not a valid argument.

You also can't say "We know that God exists because of the Bible, and we know the Bible is correct because it was written by God". Again, a circular argument.

As for the irony of my nick, it's not so surprising to me. I am, in a way, Judas. I was a Christian for many years, but I've left that behind me, "betrayed" it for a fat lump of reason. That isn't why I took that nick, though. It's partly because I like the character of Judas more than that of Jesus. It's partly because it's not a popular name, and isn't likely to be taken by someone else. It's partly because I like to challenge people to consider things from a different point of view before they make their final decision.

As for the character traits, I'll sum it up like this:

Jesus:
1. All powerful.
2. Didn't help as much as he could have. For example: He had a demonstrated ability to feed many with little or no food, but chose to do so only once.
3. Played a critical part in the whole prophesy.
4. At the end, returned to heaven to spend eternity in happiness.

Judas
1. A poor man, not powerful by any means
2. Made quite an effort to help others.
4. Played a critical part in the whole prophesy.
4. At the end, was sent to hell to suffer for eternity.

It just seems that Judas was a little hard done by. As for the betrayal... he didn't betray Jesus for 30 pieces of silver. If he wanted money, he could just have beaten up Jesus' prostitue friend and sold her valuables for over 300. Surely someone who would betray the messiah would have no trouble doing that? Besides... what would he have spent the money on? Judging from his history, probably on feeding the starving, or on financing future journies, allowing the apostles to preach more where needed.

Also, as I understand it, 30 pieces of silver wasn't THAT much cash. As far as my research can tell me, it was the amount you had to pay someone if your ox killed one of their slaves... and that it's equivalent to about $10.

Judas "betrayed" Jesus because the way Jesus was going, he was going to get them all (Judas included) killed. Do you spot the irony? Judas is shunned because he pointed out someone would have ultimately been responsible for his (Judas') death. Had he been allowed to continue, we might be reading about how a madman was responsible for the death of the twelve leading philosophers of the time.

[ September 23, 2002, 08:42: Message edited by: Judas ]

 

Hmmm... it has been positively AGES when I read the Bible, and this thread has me thinking I should do it again. My memories are very hazy, no matter the fact that I have read it multiple times. THe fact that that happened about 10 years ago might have something to do.

I, like Judas (of the boards) am a former Christian. I read the bible, loved RE in school, did visit the church a few times (I lived in a small village with no church nor possibility to go to one)... I believed.
Andstill, somehow, before I turned twelve I no longer believed. I can't remember how it happened, but somehow I just lost faith, and have yet to find anything to replace it.

It's that I no longer bother to believe. i do not care if there is a Gd or if there isn't one. I have tried other religions, such as Wicca or Jedi (I'm too lazy to find a more "proper" name for believing in the Force" but nothing seems to work.

I must say I agree with Judas' reasoning quite much. The older I get (currently in the ripe age of 16, soon to be 17) the more I see the contradictions and get annoyed at the whole "Thou shalt not question the will of thy Lord" thing...

Ara
(Bastard and quite proud of it)

 

indeed Nutrimat, i am satisfied.

my belief in god is fairly liberal, though i still call myself a catholic.

i believe in god because, as a scientist, i find beauty in the complexity of nature. i'm christian because i believe that when you die, you go to heaven, based on jesus having died and through god's power being resurrected. i am catholic because i believe in purgatory, with nearly everyone (eventually) going to heaven. i am liberal in the sense that i don't think that any religion is 'correct'- we are not god, and so are limited by are 'human' understanding. i think that all religions are different interpretations of a single creator, and that none provide a complete picture of what god is like.

the bible (particularly the new testament) should not be taken literally because it was often written long after the events described within it. in addition, passages often contradict one another. when i occasionally go to church (used to go every week when i was younger) i look for the underlying message, rather than interpreting the writing as the word of god.

aside: i've always been intruiged by Klassen's Judas theory.

 

And non-christians DO have better answers?

Q: Why do WE exist?
A: Because billions of years ago there was nothing, suddenly there was a big bang and suddenly there was something, wich evoluted to a dynamic world with millions of lifeforms.... just out of nothing....

One of the most important reasons for me is found in Nature, all those things in nature are so great, everything fits so right... it can't be evoluted from out a one-cell-organism that somehow seemed to be created in a big bang. A great Artist has been at work here.

Jezus, the answers to your questions:

1. Powerful? He was human here, felt pain, fear, hunger... and did even die.
2. When he would have solved the hunger problem, he wouldn't have solved much. Hunger returns, and would only make their short life a bit better, but it wouldn't change our fate, in afterlife.
3. Indeed
4. Does that mean he didn't have to suffer? His death was so much worse then a normal death.

Judas:

That Jesus his death is forboded doesn't make the deed of Judas a deed that has to be done so isn't and evil deed. Judas had a choice and chose against Jesus and killed him, God's son.

Compare it with the Baldur's Gate Saga: It was forboded that Bhaal would walk the earth, and would make that Bhaalspawn would be on earth and cause choas. Your logic is: Well, it was foreboded, so Bhaal didn't do anything wrong, Sarevok neither...... Foreboding isn't an excuse for doing things wrong.

 

It's a little slice off the old free will argument.

Some say that because God knows what we are going to do that we don't have free will. The more logical point out that simply because he knows what we're going to do doesn't mean he causes it.

Your "integral to the prophesy" argument is just silly. By that reasoning most evil in the world can be justified.

You need to lighten up on the attacks on Big B. As a practicing Catholic I disagree with the reasons behind some of what he says, but you're not even taking the time to examine what he's said, and you're certainly not treating him respectfully.

 

In response to Big B:

Just because it's still here, that doesn't mean that it is any more or less valid. There are beliefs that were clearly wrong that survived for centuries (the earth is the center of the universe being one). And you cite no reasoning behind this statement other than bible quotes, which is, as Judas said, circular reasoning.

Read the previous posts. Answer the arguments. OK?

Again, you are putting forth arguments that do not answer the questions asked. BUT, to answer this, God has acted in anger many times in the bible (the Great Flood for one). Is anger not a sin? He destroyed most of humankind (according to the bible) with this flood, out of anger and frustration. Then Jesus comes along and preaches forgiveness and tolerance. This, to me, is a contradiction. There are many other examples in the old testament of God's anger and wrath, and him punishing us. Does he not practice what he preaches? Granted I don't know the mind of God, but how can you say/do two different things and be right?

Good argument, but how do you reconcile free will with God's omniscience? See previous posts (such as hermit09's) if you are not sure what the argument is.

Oblate: I have never ever heard of a priest in any religion in modern times (with the exception of some fanatical muslims that have been denounced by thier fellows) who "blessed the weapons". NO major religion condones violence for any reason.

Methylviolet: If your child was going to be sent to his room "for all of eternity" for taking that cookie, would you still leave it there for him to take? Eternal punishment is NOT a "lesson".

the God: More power to you! But most religious people take the bible as "the word of God" and quote from it constantly, and use it as evidence in thier arguments. One cannot have it both ways, to quote from the bible to support your arguments, and then claim that "you have to look at the underlying message, not the exact words" which being written by man are subject to misinterpretation, when it doesn't support one's arguments or presents a contradiction. Not that you've done this, but if you told most Christians and Catholics they should not interpret the bible literally, they would disagree with you. It is either the absolute and unquestionable word of God or it isn't. If it isn't then NO ONE, including the religious people, are right.

Headbanger: I quite agree with you in that, out of the millions, nay billions, of conditions that had to come together in the exact right way at the exact right time for us to exist, it does seem extremely unlikely that it was all a chance. It is like hitting the lottery every day for the rest of your life.
But there are dozens, or even hundreds, of religions that claim to have an explanation. Who is right? Most of these religions are mutually exclusive and denounce all the others. They can't all be right, for if one is right all the others are wrong.

For the Judas argument, never mind the son of God argument, it is WRONG to betray your friends, especially since he knew it would lead to his friends death. To me this is one of the worst things you could do to someone, and THEN to lie about it to Jesus' face and say he didn't do it afterwards.

Judas (our Judas) says it was a "me or him" situation. If this is so, please provide a little more reasoning behind this (why would Jesus have led to Judas' death if he wasn't killed?). I agree with most of Judas' (again our Judas) other reasoning and arguments though.

Finally, Shralp: I don't dispute whether we have free will and our ability to choose whether or not to sin. I dispute the idea that I am going to suffer in eternity for my sinning, since God knew I would sin, AND (this is the important bit) created me knowing I would sin. Whether I chose to sin doesn't matter, God knew I would.

If you create beings that are flawed, it's one thing to want them to better themselves and give them incentive, guidance, etc, to do so. It's another thing to damn them to hell for eternity because they are flawed.

[ September 23, 2002, 19:36: Message edited by: Nutrimat ]

 

Nutrimat: It's not the sin in itself that you believe you are being condemned for. It's the lack of recognition and responsibility for the sins committed. Knowing that someone is going to sin, and knowing that someone wants forgiveness for the sin are two separate things.

[ September 23, 2002, 19:47: Message edited by: Xenecor ]

 

"Answer: Freedom of choice is the Creator's great gift to the human race."

well, I don't really call "if you believe, good for you, if you don't, I'm gonna torture you for eternity" freedom.

 

The key is realizing the nature of sin. (And all of this is my own onion [sic]. Please do not take it as official Catholic teaching because, although I believe it to be theologically correct, I'm not certain.)

Sin is not just doing one of the list of things that God says is wrong. Sin is voluntary rejection of God.

God is good. That's not just an adjective. God is goodness and all of the subcatergories of good like love, beauty, truth, etc. When you reject goodness/God and do what is wrong, you are exiling yourself from God. Total, complete, permanent separation from God is what Hell is.

So as you reject good/God, you are by your own actions sending yourself to Hell. God is not doing it. You are. So long as you live you have the opportunity to turn back to good.

But, really, what's your point on this issue? You're not going to believe in God because you don't think he's fair?

[ September 23, 2002, 20:37: Message edited by: Shralp ]