ZOMBIE FORUMS

It's a stinking, shambling corpse grotesquely parodying life.
It is currently Thu Mar 28, 2024 8:21 am

All times are UTC - 8 hours [ DST ]




Forum locked This topic is locked, you cannot edit posts or make further replies.  [ 76 posts ]  Go to page 1, 2, 3, 4  Next
Author Message
 Post subject: "We ran out of weed, so we decided to try smoking our bibles instead, to be closer to God."
PostPosted: Thu Feb 23, 2006 5:47 pm 
Offline
Expatriate
User avatar

Joined: Mon Sep 22, 2003 9:44 am
Posts: 94
Location: @ University
Carried over from Here, on ES.

========Edit: Insert discussion history==========
Atzel wrote:
... I'm not really sure it's even really religous.. it sounds more like a gimmick of some sort. And it's too clever to be done by really acctual Christian christians.. I mean, c'mon, taking a verse out of the bible and making a breakfast cereal of it? A real christian would just yell at people who would not eat cereals of said ingrediants.

But that could just be my prejudice that religion erodes the mind and reduces the deductive skills and ability to argument anything into "I'M RIGHT, YOU'RE WRONG! GOD WILLS IT!"

Yorik wrote:
BandMan2K wrote:
tacticslion wrote:
Actually, Atzel, you'd be surprised. I'd guess that most people here in the forums either don't know many Christians, or don't know many good ones. At one point I was going to make a nifty long thing about what we DO believe and what some people SAY we believe, but I figure it wouldn't go to well over the forums. So, if you WANT I could tell you what Christian Christians believe, as opposed to, say, legalistic hyper-fundamentalist extremists SAY that Christian Christians believe. Or the libralistic hyper-revisionist extremists. Or any extremists for that matter. Anyway, if you're actually curious, feel free to ask me. If not, don't worry about it.

And Yorik... I know, man. I know. (With me, it's Neverwinter Nights: "THE LIGHT SHALL NEVER FADE!")


I don't think the problem is us not being exposed to Christians. In fact I'd say it's been pretty much due to our own "problematic" experiences with those of the Faith. We could honestly care less if you're a Fundie or actually one of the ones that follow the idea within that Book, as long as you don't go around condemning us to Hell or trying to convert us. That's pretty much all we ask...

...oh and if you decide to get into some form of a debate, don't use the Bible as your Sole piece of proof. If you can show why your positions are good with reputable and diverse evidence, you might actually persuade some of us towards your view on that topic.

Just watch out for those Commie Crazies and you'll do just fine.


Actually, according to the Christian faith, those who aren't Christians do indeed go to Hell. My problem with this (and the reason why I'm a backslid Christian) is that anyone who seeks redemption and all that shit goes on the 'up' elevator, no matter what they did in life. Meaning, say, Hitler could wind up in Heaven if he repented before his death. Now, most Christians are pretty forgiving, but I myself know quite a few people I'd rather see go to Hell in the first place, and I'm pretty much willing to drag them kicking and screaming down there myself to do it.

So when a Christian comes up trying to preach, usually it's because he/she is genuinely worried about your well being, though sometimes you get the annoying extremists and fanatics who gloat about where you're supposedly going (which btw that's where they're headed themselves for doing so). It's kinda like being out in the middle of a foreign country, and just as you're preparing to walk through a field two native men stop you and start speaking to you in their language, which you can't understand. One says "Stop, don't go into that field without a guide! There's a mine field there!" The other says "Stupid idiot, why don't you go walking straight into that field over there and get your ignorant self killed?"

Then I come up from behind and yell at the second dude "I FIND YOUR LACK OF FAITH DISTURBING." and give them a push.

Imp-Chan wrote:
I used to be Christian. In my personal search for answers, however, I gradually lost my respect for Christianity as a religion. I do still believe in Christ as a teacher, a healer, and overall cool dude... just like Buddha, and Mohammed, and Confucious, and many others, some of them even modern. And I still find the Bible to be occasionally a useful tool for sorting my head out... if nothing else, it provides a story of a bunch of people who tried really really hard to be who they thought they should be. I'm one of the few people I know, Christian or otherwise, who has actually read the ENTIRE thing more than once. Like most religious texts that I've read, the value is in what you take from it, rather than being inherent to the text.

However, what I found myself unable to handle with indoctrinated Christianity had little to do with the text or teachings of Christ, but instead was precisely that absolutist concept that if you repent and believe in Christ, you will be assured of an easy afterlife. I believe that this is a gross misinterpretation of the text, inconsistent with the concept of Christ's teachings that is clearly present if you read the entire thing as stories or accounts, rather than picking through it and citing only specific chapters and verses as though they were spiritual legal code. To me, the indoctrinated interpretation, and the subsequent assumptions that go with it, are unnecessarily literal.

Most specifically, the belief in Christ as a savior and the One True Son of God is something that I find to be an abdication of responsibility, not at all in keeping with the rest of the values as they are presented in the New Testament. It was this sticking point which, ultimately, led to my abandoning Christianity as my religious truth. For me, the problem turned out to be the Christians, and the centuries of selective interpretation that they had practiced, far more than what they were supposed to be all about in a historical sense.

It should be noted that this is not in any way an attempt to dictate or persuade others to my point of view, more a sharing of what I personally have found. Other stories of other people's experiences would be more than welcome... but if folks would rather debate the specific points, that probably should happen in the debate board.

^-^'

Edit: Changed one word and much meaning. Points to whoever figures out which.

tacticslion wrote:
Oh, sweet! This turned out oh so very much nicer than I expected.

Impy, I'm quite glad you've read the entire thing! And, yes, I'd agree that far, far too few have, they just accept what they've been taught at face value, instead of actually SEARCHING and THINKING. While I whole-heartedly disagree with your conclusions, I'm very glad you actually thought about it, searching for truth, instead of just going without ever truly believing on your own.

And Yorik, thanks. I really appreciate the words because, coming from someone like me (self-proclaimed hyper-Christian) I couldn't actually make it sound non-preachy. But, yes, you are indeed very correct about what 'Christian' views should be, and how they sometimes are. The more friends I make in life (especially with groups such as role-players and forumers) the harder it becomes to find anyone who actually understands the nature of what Christian views are, much less who don't find themselves often walking on eggshells for no reason, generally either fearing my unending wrath for someone saying 'crap' or hating me for my endless judgementalism, before ever knowing me. So, it's cool to be able to have people say, "Yeah, I've been there, I know what he's talkin' about." regardless of where they're coming from.

And strangely enough, it seems even harder to find anyone with any kind of religious opinion (outside of 'all religion is stupid') in my chosen field: science (espeically physics).

So anyway, it seems that there are beings here that are even cooler than I thought after a couple of years of browsing the forums. Both Christian and non! :D

And now, to completely de-rail the topic, hopefully avoiding debates on it (at least in this particular forum, for, as Ms. Impy said, it belongs in a debate forum), does anyone have the stats for a half-drow? I mean officially. Drow, yes. Humans, elves, half-elves, of course. But half-drow? I mean, they've GOTTA exist. In fiction. Not in real life. I mean, really, I may be an independant fundamental Baptist (which I am), but I'm not THAT crazy... yet.

Also, does anyone have any kind of official looking stats for a quarter-orc, quater-human, half-gnome. The guy is pretty significantly far from being a mongrelfolk, but he's DEFINATELY got a mixed racial heritage. And finally, does anyone know any rules involving elven (human) pregnancy?

Thanks,
~me

Edit: did I just seriously sign this as a letter? I mean, what the heck?

TB wrote:
Yorik wrote:
Actually, according to the Christian faith, those who aren't Christians do indeed go to Hell.


I thought it was that they got sorted by whether they were "just" or "unjust". (In particular from, "when you give a feast, call people who can't pay you back", since you then get that at the "resurrection of the just", which sounds very much like not going to hell. With no mention of being a Christian or not.)

Quote:
My problem with this (and the reason why I'm a backslid Christian) is that anyone who seeks redemption and all that shit goes on the 'up' elevator, no matter what they did in life.

Ah, but "redemption" has to include true repentance, meaning you wouldn't do that again. Meaning who you are now isn't quite the same as who you were then. And I'd think that what happens to you should depend on who you are, not who you were.

tacticslion wrote:
Can't... resist... talking... hrk!

TB, it depends on how you read "just". Generally Christianity today holds the veiw that "the just shall live by faith", and, in fact, that they are justified BY faith (see James' schpeil on Abraham for more). So, often it's viewed as those who are 'just' are made just, NOT by themselves nor who or what they are or have done or can do (because in Isiah, our righteous works are as filthy rags to the Lord), but are justified by the Lord Himself through our faith. Essentially: we got nothin', He got it all, and if we say "True", He says "Good, come on", and that's justification. Some denominational groups add more, some have less to it, some LOOK like they have more or less around it, but that's the essential belief, even in Catholocism, which is one of the most ritual-centered denominations we got.

Oh, and Saturnella: I've never known a religion whose worst part WASN'T it's followers (even if all they did was follow the religion in the first place!). And yes, the elf is definately pregnant. With triplets.

Wrin wrote:
Actually, my main problem with Christianity is that most of the followers seem to be betraying their very faith every damn day. If you ignore the whole crusades thing and the underlying historical mudflinging that can be said of basically any well-established religion, they still worship Jesus more than they do God. What do I think of Jesus? I don't care if he was the son of God, crazy or both: his followers should not be using his message to tell me I'm going to hell whether or not I'm a great person if I don't think their two-thousand year old story is true. Then there's the whole thing about them saying the Bible was written by God (extreme case, but I've heard it often) or contains the words of God. Even if it did at one point, it's been how long? Translated how many times by people who may or may not have understood or cared for the true meanings? How many books are named after the people who wrote them, not the God that some ignorant folks say did it? Grr! Figure out your own religion before you tell me I'm going to hell for not understanding it I say!! < /angry voice >

Code:
if(thread!=NULL)
    thread->derail++;


Sorry for continuing the derail, Impy...

Vass wrote:
Wrin wrote:
If you ignore the whole crusades thing and the underlying historical mudflinging that can be said of basically any well-established religion, they still worship Jesus more than they do God.

But they are three-in-one: god the father, jesus the son, and the holy spirit the weird ephemeral thing that should include more alcohol. How can they worship Jesus more than God if he is one and the same?
You're thinking of Christianity more akin to that of Arianism. Orthodox view, from what I recall, is that all three beings are equal and part of eachother, as described in the Nicene Creed. I have no idea how much it relates to the crazy subsets of christianity that exist in the US.

Kaz*CheesyDoritoBomb* wrote:
Imp-Chan wrote:

However, I'm also aware that the people I grew up with can't really be considered a fair representative sample. Merely because they preferred to harass and abuse me for my beliefs doesn't mean that every Christian would... really, I'd say the people I met were nothing like real Christians anyways.


Actually thats a pretty close description of all the churchs I've seen in Indiana and heard of from my step mom, from when she was trying out churchs.

Basically here in indiana it breaks down to: those that arn't sure about their spirituality so they mask it behind false zeal, those who are secure and only get affended if you affend them first, and those who don't care and don't want to be preached to.

Yorik wrote:
Imp-Chan wrote:
snipKKK/snip


Those motherfuckers are the reason I'd like to see Stalin elected President, so he can send the whole lot to Siberia.

I adhere to the belief of not discriminating, but rather hating anyone and everyone. Equally. My run-ins with the KKK haven't been pleasant (one incident almost degenerated into a shootout, only they realized that I have the bigger gun), though thankfully they have been infrequent.

What really gets me riled up is that they use Christianity as an excuse for their actions. Right. Hitler tried that too. Dispite the popular belief, Jesus was Jewish, born in the Middle East, raised in a modern day Islamic country, and so forth. He did not have blond hair, blue eyes, and white skin. Using a peaceful religion as an excuse for violence is the same thing Bin Ladin and his cronies are doing, and we're shooting at those types right now. What I don't understand is why we don't deal with the current crop of extremists and terrorists being home-grown right now. Hell, they even wear white sheets to better stand out for nighttime snipers.

Christianity states that there is a time for everything, including war and violence - but those two subjects are to be avoided if at all possible, and should be relegated to a last resort measure. I myself am more the type of shoot first, shoot second, shoot some more, and then when everyone's stopped moving open negotiations. I believe that there are many people that urgently need to meet God (and then get on the express Going Down elevator), and that simply locking these types away for life in the hope that they will "repent and be saved" is being far too lenient. I am not a forgiving man, thus I am not as devout a Christian as I should be.

tacticslion wrote:
Well... this is interesting!

I'm surprised by what I started. Sigh... such is the nature of religious discussion I suppose.

Hey, Yorik? Paul wanted some people to go to hell forever too. You know, the Apostle? The guy that wrote half the Bible? Yeah. He stated that he'd willing trade his soul to hell for eternity if only everyone could be saved in the process, but he also felt that certain ones truly deserved the punishment. Specifically he stated that it was those who abused the religion and used it to further their own ends, taking it away from the Christ-message he gave. KKK would fit into that nicely. Thank God that He's a Jew. It shuts so many people up, or shows that they're fools who desire nothing outside of their own brand of hatred, and aren't actually Christian (which is translated to mean "Christ-like") at all. And then there was Jesus. Who pretty much condemned most every single Pharisee He saw. Repeatedly. With a WHIP. Check out Matthew, if you want that story. (Ok, technically it was the money-changers he hit with the whip, but he yelled for quite some time at the pharisees).

Wrin:
Well, it's pretty much like he said, the Three are One... there is no difference between Jesus and God the Father (Who the Isrealites called/call Yaweh, transliterated of course), and the Holy Spirit (who is considered the comforter). The most direct statement of this belief is the Nicean Creed, which is not, ironically, part of the Bible, and therefore cannot be accepted by many non-Catholic denominations (including Baptists of which I am one).
Instead, the belief in the Trinity that became expressly stated in the Nicean Creed was founded in views of prophetic vision (prophecy was not future-telling) of Isaiah when he saw the Messaiah (the Chosen and Annointed One, Who would come to rule Israel, and, ultimately, the whole Earth) in heaven, with God the Father, whom all the Jews knew, and the Spirit of God, which I believe at that point was seen as a dove, though I could be mistaken (it's been a while). Also, Jesus Himself constantly referenced 'The Father' (meaning God the Father) and called Himself the Son, stating at one point 'I and My Father are One'. The Father, you see, wasn't flesh, but was spirit, so could never be seen in the flesh ('spirit' literally means 'the invisible'). Finally, Jesus refered to One who would come AFTER Him, after He was raised from the dead and ascended into heaven. This, the disciples stated, was the Holy Spirit, Who came to help spread the message and actually is the one who 'seals' the believers for eternity by dwelling inside of them, becoming - after a fashion - one with them. It's all much deeper than this, including marraige symbolism and a lot more, but I'm writing WAY too much now anyway. Sorry... it's a passion of mine. And worse because we know? I'm not a priest or anything, but I'm curious what you meant by the statement. I seriously hate to offend people (though it happens), and I hope I did not do so now by explaining some of the source of the belief.

whitaker:
Hey, sounds good to me! "Spare the rod, spoil the child" so the Proverb goes. A large rubber-band-like device that whacks REALLY hard SHOULD get the point across to an adult, in theory, but, then again, there are some REALLY stupid people out there. It may take a while. But I'm sure that makes it even sweeter to you, right?

Impy:
I cannot apologize enough for the treatment of you and all of those in Quaker religion, by those who should have welcomed you as a sister. They are wrong, and highly perverse (not the definition that most use it, but an accurate statement nonetheless). I am sick to my stomach whenever I hear of anything that claims Christianity only to use it as a tool for hatred. It's wrong, and Jesus taught us against it. You, having read the Bible in full, know what it contains, and, yes, there is violence, and a time for it, but hatred of another is NEVER taught. It's foul, it's wrong, and it's shameful that Christianity is used as a shield for evil. Quakers are indeed deeply rooted in Christianity. I personally disagree with the Quaker's philosophy of experiencialism, and their modern leanings toward universalism (I am a fundamentalist), but I understand their origins and roots, and they sure as all get-out are NOT witches, regardless of what they believe. At 'worst', Quakers are extreme spiritualists, which isn't really a bad thing. Technically all Christians are called to a deep level of spiritualism. I think Quakers take it to an extreme, but such is life.

Um... once again, I wrote too much. Please forgive my arrogance in assuming I could answer all your questions and/or statements. I'm just hoping to shed some light and understanding... because as common and prevailant as Christianity is, it doesn't seem to be very well understood... and unfortunately, there seems to be a large number of people who have been hurt or abused by those who masquerade as a Christian (which is supposed to mean 'little Christ'!) or as a Christian group, and I'm just hoping to set the record maybe a little more straight. Yeah, there are a TON of sick people out there, and many of them think they're religious. Many of them ARE religious, but just wrongly so.

And... to make matters JUST that much more confusing: I'm a scientist. A scientist defending a religion often bastardized, abused, and crushed, on a forum board dedicated to a comic whose author freely admits to having tried many major religions and leaving all of them (committing 'mortal sins', as he puts it), because I'm a fan of his work. How wierd. But then again, so is the modern world. Cool. :D

TB wrote:
"I'm my own grandpa."

tacticslion wrote:
Well, it's pretty much like he said, the Three are One... there is no difference between Jesus and God the Father (Who the Isrealites called/call Yaweh, transliterated of course), and the Holy Spirit (who is considered the comforter).

So how does this fit with "I do not my own will, but His that sent me."?

Quote:
Also, Jesus Himself constantly referenced 'The Father' (meaning God the Father) and called Himself the Son, stating at one point 'I and My Father are One'.

It's also recorded that he prayed for all who would beleive on him to be one "even as we are one", and there's a place that says "he that plants and he that waters are one". So since we can be "one" in the same sense that Jesus and God are "one", it can't mean "no difference" or "the same entity". (There are also *no* places where it says "God the Son", to go with your "God the Father".)


IIRC, the "trinity" is a church tradition dating from slightly after the last of the books in the Bible was written.

Tossrock wrote:
Karl Marx wrote:
Religion is the opiate of the masses.


In specific regard to Christianity, I've yet to see a single good response to the Epicurean paradox that isn't a dressed up form of "God works in mysterious ways." What a fat load of shit.

KirimaNagi wrote:
I object to the need for a blood sacrifice for salvation.

I also object to the notions that sprinkling/dipping in water can forgive sins, or that special words/prayers and rituals (= secret words and handshakes) are needed for admission through the Pearly Gates. I mean, come on now -- this is Heaven we are talking about, not a frat house.

But most of all I object to the idea that you can get someone else to do your dirty work. Although I am not Buddhist either, I do like that in most forms of Buddhism, the Bodhisattva (= Enlightened One) can show you the way and even give some pointers, but you have to do the work yourself, which come to think of it, is about the only time the results are worth having.

Destroyer_of_ants wrote:
being babtised does not instantaneoulsy absolve your sins. It is a public showing of your rebirth as a christian. and it does not give you a clean slate if you don't truly believe in your heart that you are forgiven and that you are ready to start living a life with minimal sin.

You can't get babtised and then act like it's a blank check to do whatever you want.




=========End insert history edit======

tacticslion wrote:
Thanks, Wrin. Good advice, and sensible. I will use it in the future!

Ok... short version.
TB:
God=Jesus=Holy Spirit. Read John. (Jesus=Human=mortal)=different from (God=immortal=spirit) because of humaney-mortal type things that God don't need. Plus a lot of explanation and scientific fact. Nifty! And no, no 'God the Son', but rather, in Hebrew, several of the statements Jesus made meant "I = God". Plus a lot of useful and insightful, explanitory words and information to back up said points from scripture and (nominally) science.

Tossrock:
Epicurian Paradox? Easy: God works in mysterious ways. No, seriously, tell me what the problem is and I may be just unstupid enough to explain it, or I might not. Plus a lot of other useless words.

KirimaNagi:
God agrees sometimes. He likes living stuff. He likes holiness better.
I don't have all the answers. I do have educated guesses, but I will not state that these are irrefutable proof. Yada-yada, a great deal about blood, pictures, prophecy, and the like, detailing these educated guesses plus some interesting asides that I eventually removed to the bottom of the post 'cause it was too long and distracting. Neat. Plus more useless words.

Wrin:

"quote" Wrin Wrote:
"No, you're quite long winded and strange.
"endquote"

Me: thanks!

my notes that I took out of KirimaNagi's reply.

The end... again.


(
Interesting tidbit I found:

John 5:31 If I bear witness of myself, my witness is not true.
John 8:14 Jesus answered and said unto them, Though I bear record of myself, yet my record is true: for I know whence I came, and whither I go; but ye cannot tell whence I come, and whither I go.
)


I just read the first half of John (will continue later), and found very many places where Jesus makes a clear distinction between himself and God. (Where would I find the "I = God" statements you mentioned? I don't recall hearing of them before.) I also saw the "I and my father are one", which as I mentioned has to be some sort of "one" that all of us can also be.

Then there's the first chapter, which talks about a "word" and a "light" which was in the word. There is both "the word became flesh" and that it's pretty clear that the "light" is Jesus. The "word" is:
Quote:
3056 logos log'-os from 3004; something said (including the thought); by implication, a topic (subject of discourse), also reasoning (the mental faculty) or motive; by extension, a computation; specially, (with the article in John) the Divine Expression (i.e. Christ):--account, cause, communication, X concerning, doctrine, fame, X have to do, intent, matter, mouth, preaching, question, reason, + reckon, remove, say(-ing), shew, X speaker, speech, talk, thing, + none of these things move me, tidings, treatise, utterance, word, work. see GREEK for 3004

I'm going to claim that the "Divine Expression" part of that definition comes from how whoever wrote that understood this section, and not from anything to do with what this word means everywhere else it's used. So, in other places this same word that's translated as "word" here means a thought, reasoning, motive, intent.

So (assuming this word means the same thing here as it does elsewhere) this could also be read as, roughly "In the beginning were both God and God's intent. All things were made through it, and without it nothing was made. It [God's intent] included life, and this life was the light of men.". I think this version is easier to make sense of, but don't really know how it compares in accuracy to King James (I'd need to actually know ancient Greek to know that.). I do, however, suspect that it's at least not any worse (if only because the other way is so confusing).

"the word was made flesh". I'd read this in much the same sense as calling someone a "walking encyclopedia". Jesus studied the word, lived it, taught it to such an extent (ie, perfectly) that he essentially was it. Which was only possible because of who he is.

_________________
Tim
:D :D :D
IGnatius T Foobar wrote:
Whack-with-the-cluestick of the day:
"Nubile" is *not* the adjective form of "newbie."
<< cringe >>

Ian did it.


Last edited by TB on Thu Feb 23, 2006 6:46 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Thu Feb 23, 2006 6:03 pm 
Offline
Native
User avatar

Joined: Wed Dec 11, 2002 5:00 pm
Posts: 869
Please explain to a poor heathen what exactly is your point of discourse?


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Thu Feb 23, 2006 6:22 pm 
Offline
Addict
User avatar

Joined: Thu Sep 04, 2003 9:43 pm
Posts: 1096
Usually when you split a thread, it's a good idea to quote enough context so that the new thread makes sense on it's own and people don't have to sift backwards through several pages of unrelated comments in the old thread. (Hence why Impy says she's too lazy to do it ... ) This thread makes no sense.

If you want good replies, I'd suggest editing in the basic topic of discussion at the top of the post and adding some of the quotes that tacticslion is responding to. (Also, I think the "Nick: quote" form of quotes are really hard to read, but that isn't your fault.)

_________________
Always watching, ever vigilant


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Thu Feb 23, 2006 6:29 pm 
Offline
Expatriate
User avatar

Joined: Mon Sep 22, 2003 9:44 am
Posts: 94
Location: @ University
Hmm... yes, people who haven't been following that thread wouldn't know, would they? I'll go back and quote in more of the old thread. (Why yes, this *is* the first time I've tried moving into a new thread. How could you tell?)

Edit: OK, history has been inserted. Hopefully things make more sense now.

_________________
Tim
:D :D :D
IGnatius T Foobar wrote:
Whack-with-the-cluestick of the day:
"Nubile" is *not* the adjective form of "newbie."
<< cringe >>

Ian did it.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Fri Feb 24, 2006 1:38 am 
Offline
Native
User avatar

Joined: Wed Dec 11, 2002 5:00 pm
Posts: 869
The "Epicurean Paradox" is better known as (and better named as) the "Problem of Evil". It's not really a paradox: it's a reductio ad absurdum argument against the statement that God is simultaneously omniscient, omnipotent and omnibenevolent. In essence, one observes that there is evil in the world; thus, if there is a God, He either doesn't know about it, or can't do anything about it, or doesn't care. Furthermore, it's there, so when He created the world, either He wanted it there, or He wasn't able to avoid it, or He didn't expect it to be there in the first place.

But wait! Isn't it better for us mortals to choose to be good when we have the option to choose to be evil? Perhaps so -- but if God were omnipotent, omniscient and omnibenevolent He would have created us with the free will to choose and nevertheless the inclination always to choose the good.

But wait! Aren't we mortals better when we can act to the good in the face of evil? Perhaps so -- but as in the case of a natural disaster which kills many people who are helpless against it, we mortals get no choice at all to be good or evil; the evil just happens. The people who drowned in mud in the Philippines are not better people because they're dead, they're just dead. If God had some plan which required their deaths, we cannot know what it is, but evil happened to them in the form of a terrifying, gruesome demise, and it's God's fault if it's anyone's.

But wait! God created the universe and He knows everything about it, including which mortals He will reward in Heaven for being good and which ones He will punish in Hell for being evil. Demonstrably, some mortals are evil. However, He created those mortals to be evil, so the evil they do is His responsibility.

As Tossrock says, counters to this argument have historically been in the vein of "what God does is good, so there". As suggested above, it often comes with the kicker "God is ineffable and His plans are not for us to understand". Both such counters should be laughed at.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Fri Feb 24, 2006 2:06 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sun Jan 17, 2038 9:00 pm
Posts: 3209
I'd just like to say that Tamayo's posts bring a tear to my philosophy (and computer science!) major eye.

_________________
election results: still an op
Let me put it to you this way: I earned capital in the campaign, political capital, and now I intend to spend it. It is my style.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Fri Feb 24, 2006 8:48 am 
Offline
Addict
User avatar

Joined: Mon Nov 25, 2002 5:00 pm
Posts: 1276
Location: Hanging in the endless void with nothing but entropy and fluff for company.
The Baron wrote:
I'd just like to say that Tamayo's posts bring a tear to my philosophy (and computer science!) major eye.


Agreed, Baron.

My personal opinion is that the omnibenevolent part is wrong. I'm not exactly a Christian though, so you know...I get some flexibility there. I think God is, if he exists at all, mostly if not completely neutral in terms of good and evil. There are two reasons "good" is more prevalent in the world by most peoples' standards.
The first reason good is so prevalent is because we define it as anything not "evil" in too many cases. If everything that is not evil is good, then not feeding your brother to a pack of wolves because you would have to go out of your way to do it is either a good action or a non-action, which many would say is good. A less extreme example is not doing something because you would get in some sort of trouble. Motivation plays a big part, and neutrality must always be considered an option. What is weather if not neutral, or a lifeless body of rock crashing into a planet, or a mudslide? Do they poesses motivation for their actions, or are they capable of choosing not to perform them? Unless you believe in animism, your answer is probably no. Inadvertant consequences are also generally considered neutral actions. Neutrality is the answer in the majority of our choices in everyday life because if we always went one way or the other we would never get anything done, and since we categorize neutral actions and non-actions as good ones, we get lots of good.
The second reason is that evil actions result, directly or indirectly, in a reduction of population in many cases. Society is not as stable and cohesive if everyone just kills or maims everyone who pisses them off. Work that in with evolution for a while (Quiet, creationist! I know you're out there somewhere!) and you get a group of creatures, or people, less likely to be violent or otherwise evil toward one another. Teamwork works well, and it shows in the way we think.

_________________
~ Wrin
Labrat wrote:
As screwed up as the world is, it has to have been designed by comittee. Diskworld-style.

Jin wrote:
...I cursed at the computer screen for an hour and a half while striking it with my genitals.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Peep!
PostPosted: Fri Feb 24, 2006 9:23 am 
Offline
Tourist
User avatar

Joined: Mon Feb 13, 2006 2:52 pm
Posts: 59
Location: Earth
...
sorry Wrin... I really TRIED to be quiet! Honest! :(
...

:wink:

Edited: probably several times to a) I don't lose my post again, and b) I can easier address each thing as I come to it.

now...

Tamayo wrote:
A great deal about the Epicurean paradox that I had once learned and forgotten, and for that I thank her greatly, but am cutting it out, 'cause I write too much anyway.


Thanks for reminding me. Now, here is one thing I think most people forget as part of the Christian religion: Adam. "What's THAT got to do with it?" you ask. Well... Adam sinned. In fact, it was he that performed the first sin. Inherent in free will is unpredictability. It's interesting that yes, I believe in an omnipotent, omniscient, omnibenevolent God (with omnipotence automatically comes omniscience... if you truly have the one simply grant yourself the other and voila! Omnibenevolence... we're just taking God's word on it.), and completely understandible that it seems counter-intuitive that evil exists, but He does nothing. One of the problems with creating free-will is that if it is free will but with strong leanings toward anything else, it is inherently unfree (TECHnically, it COULD be free, but, you know, it won't be, ever.)

Granted divine omniscience, it could also be argued that, yes, there is no such thing as free will, because God, as an omnipotent, omniscient entity has no way to NOT affect the final outcome, ergo we are all doing what God intends and ONLY what God intends... yet He still holds us responsible for the actions He forces us to take. A kind of argument for 'because He knows, even by doing nothing, He forces us down this path' idea.

Honestly, people that are far, far wiser than I am have argued this ad infinitum, and I can never hope to answer every question, and would not be so arrogant to claim this, however I have a few ideas of my own (Admittedly all my ideas very influenced by teachers, counselors, and indoctrination... but then again, who isn't? Technically 'free thinkers' are only free because they've been trained in the method of 'free thinking' and any form of training in a particular style of though is indoctrination, due to the meaning of the word). First, as far as I can tell, everyone is condemned as a sinner from conception, because of Adam's idiocy (Eve tempted Adam and had fallen, but technically she was never forbidden to eat the fruit, as far as I can tell, outside of Adam's instruction, so God had never forced her to make such a promise, so it's Adam's fault.). Sucks for us, but, again from what I could tell, it's a just judgement - at least for the first few generations -, because the son tends to behave similarly to the father with evolving permutations gradually away from one's ancestors in behavior and thinking, with a very rare radical leap in thought and action immitating the evolutionary ideal, only mentally, not physically. Indeed, when giving the law to Moses, God stated that He held the sins of the father up to the seventh generation.

Yet, the condemnation wasn't for only the first few generations or only the one branch... it's all of humanity. If there were any human beings that could be truly holy and redeemed in any other way, Jesus would never have had to die (as seen in His prayer).

- A small aside here to note that a great deal of my text is in "Christianeese", the language "Christians" have developed over the years until it sounds like some kind of wierd secret code to many people. I apologize for this in advance, but I will continue to use it for now in order to facilitate common understanding when I'm differentiating between 'high spiritual' type deals and 'ordinary junk' type mumbo. Thanks for your patience -

So, we have to assume that, if God is, as He says (His word is really all we have to go on, or rather, Moses' word backed up by the testimony of the nation of Israel, or at least their preisthood, all those years ago), both omnipotent and omnibenevolent, He's got a pretty friggin' good reason for this condemnation business. This means that probably, He sees the heart better than humans do (in fact, He makes this claim). Which means He doesn't condemn unjustly. Which means EVERY LAST ONE of us would have made that same judgement, and performed the same action as Adam. Which means we all suck, madly, or, in God's terms, are sinners, condemned to eternity in evil.

So, now there is no such thing as an innocent or good person, at least inherently, because we all would have made the same decision as Adam, at least if we accept that God is omnibenevolent and omnipotent. And as far as making us 'with strong leanings toward good rather than evil': Adam and Eve were forbidden NOTHING. The ONLY rule that was ever placed on them (or more appropriately, Adam) was simple: don't eat the friggin' fruit. ONE tree, and ONLY ONE tree ever grew that fruit. They were in the middle of a garden. The best garden ever. They had less than zero reason to eat that fruit. Heck, right next to it was the fruit of the tree of life, which, if it's the same tree as in Revelations, grows almost every fruit on the planet anyway. So, in other words, God made it DIFFICULT to choose to sin. He told them not to do it. He warned them of the consequences. And He made sin such a deliberate act that it's rediculous. Humans have a great deal of passion in them. Passion for sex, passion for power, passion for anger, and passion for many other things. In the heat of a moment, sometimes we do stupid things because of that passion. Alright. So instead, you have to go forward, take a piece of fruit, pluck it from the tree, and eat it. With no reason to do so. Because if you're hungry everything you could ever want is everywhere in the garden.

Thus the introduction of sin, and death. And as for neutrality, it's a fair point, except that God states that He makes calamity (e.g. natural disasters... translated as 'evil' in the KJV, which, while very beautiful, is no longer the best translation availible) just as He makes peace. So... He causes the natural disasters. Omnipotent, you know. "By doing nothing, He forces all things to happen." That kind of thing.

This means, that He had to expect that, yes, men would eventually sin. So, He knew, before He ever made the world, everything that would happen as a result. This means that He had to plan around the whole 'sin and death', as that really wasn't His thing. This means, as it is stated in later texts, that Jesus was also planned from the beginning. So, was everything made without flaw? Nah. In fact, the flaw was 'free will'. I'll probably still make the statement, 'everything was made perfect' sometimes, but technically, it's not true... not in OUR definition of perfect anyway. But if you define 'perfect' as 'complete' as in 'lacking nothing, or given everything' (the technical definition of the word), then yes, it was designed perfectly... it was given free will.

Oh, and as to any claims that He can't beat evil, check it: there's a book called Revalation. In it, are the following contents: "God beats teh 3v1l, everyone lives happily ever after, the end". It's a prophecy of the future, you know. Or, depending on your interpretation, it could be taken to mean the entirety of events that were occuring around Rome and the Roman empire at that particular time... but, you know, that's open to debate.

Ok, end wierd mood... sorry about the strange attitude coming across in my typing, I suppose it's because I'm upset about having to do laundery. One day, when I'm a good Christian with SMITE powers, because I follow Jack Thompson, I'll simply be able to smite my laundery clean. (Please, please note the sarcasm in this last statement. Jack Thompson, while well-meaning, is an idiot. He has best interests at heart, but that doesn't stop him from being wrong. And apparently my weird mood has not entirely ended. Huh.). I'll be back for more punishment after laundery.

Edited: to try to make paragraphs appear. And then to just seperate it all by extra lines of empty space. Also, Wrin, it was actually a joke. I COULD go into a long rant about my submissive/apologetic nature in order to appease people, but, you know, I'd probably offend people, and apparently I'm afraid of that so <insert apologies here ad infinitum, just to annoy and endear>... or, you know, don't. It's a psychological thing. Gotten used to defending myself alot, it's hard to stop. So... I'll try. But, yeah, that one was just a joke. Oh, and the subject message was meant as part of it. And, uh, I'll make a new post 'cause this one keeps getting longer.

_________________
DNI'ed by Wrin (for editing a bunch) and Tomkat (for being longwinded)!
_____________________________________
If a wizard did it,
And if Ian did it,
And if Sarda is the wizard who did it,
Does that make Sarda Ian's alias?


Last edited by tacticslion on Fri Feb 24, 2006 10:25 am, edited 3 times in total.

Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Peep!
PostPosted: Fri Feb 24, 2006 9:44 am 
Offline
Addict
User avatar

Joined: Mon Nov 25, 2002 5:00 pm
Posts: 1276
Location: Hanging in the endless void with nothing but entropy and fluff for company.
tacticslion wrote:
...
sorry Wrin... I really TRIED to be quiet! Honest! :(
...

:wink:


....?? Damnit just say it!! This is freakin' DEBATE CLUB! I didn't come here to hear you apologize for debating with me!

Edit: Aha! Thank you. I'll reply when I have more time.

_________________
~ Wrin
Labrat wrote:
As screwed up as the world is, it has to have been designed by comittee. Diskworld-style.

Jin wrote:
...I cursed at the computer screen for an hour and a half while striking it with my genitals.


Last edited by Wrin on Fri Feb 24, 2006 10:58 am, edited 1 time in total.

Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Fri Feb 24, 2006 10:38 am 
Offline
Native
User avatar

Joined: Thu Nov 24, 2005 12:57 am
Posts: 729
Location: everywhere and nowhere
First of all this is not fact this is my own idea so no need to get upset.

I belieave that god does know the future. but people take this the wrong way as if he knows what is happening everywhere at anytime or even in the future.

He doesn't know what will happen tommorow or the next day but instead he knows how it will end. with the rapture and the apocolypse and all that good stuff. so by knowing exactly how all that will go down he does know what the "future" is.

_________________
“Justice is a cruel cruel truckload of pointy crapâ€


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: "We ran out of weed, so we decided to try smoking our bibles instead, to be closer to God."
PostPosted: Fri Feb 24, 2006 11:15 am 
Offline
Tourist
User avatar

Joined: Mon Feb 13, 2006 2:52 pm
Posts: 59
Location: Earth
TB wrote:
tacticslion wrote:
Thanks, Wrin. Good advice, and sensible. I will use it in the future!

Ok... short version.
TB:
God=Jesus=Holy Spirit. Read John. (Jesus=Human=mortal)=different from (God=immortal=spirit) because of humaney-mortal type things that God don't need. Plus a lot of explanation and scientific fact. Nifty! And no, no 'God the Son', but rather, in Hebrew, several of the statements Jesus made meant "I = God". Plus a lot of useful and insightful, explanitory words and information to back up said points from scripture and (nominally) science.


(
Interesting tidbit I found:

John 5:31 If I bear witness of myself, my witness is not true.
John 8:14 Jesus answered and said unto them, Though I bear record of myself, yet my record is true: for I know whence I came, and whither I go; but ye cannot tell whence I come, and whither I go.
)


I just read the first half of John (will continue later), and found very many places where Jesus makes a clear distinction between himself and God. (Where would I find the "I = God" statements you mentioned? I don't recall hearing of them before.) I also saw the "I and my father are one", which as I mentioned has to be some sort of "one" that all of us can also be.

Then there's the first chapter, which talks about a "word" and a "light" which was in the word. There is both "the word became flesh" and that it's pretty clear that the "light" is Jesus. The "word" is:
Quote:
3056 logos log'-os from 3004; something said (including the thought); by implication, a topic (subject of discourse), also reasoning (the mental faculty) or motive; by extension, a computation; specially, (with the article in John) the Divine Expression (i.e. Christ):--account, cause, communication, X concerning, doctrine, fame, X have to do, intent, matter, mouth, preaching, question, reason, + reckon, remove, say(-ing), shew, X speaker, speech, talk, thing, + none of these things move me, tidings, treatise, utterance, word, work. see GREEK for 3004

I'm going to claim that the "Divine Expression" part of that definition comes from how whoever wrote that understood this section, and not from anything to do with what this word means everywhere else it's used. So, in other places this same word that's translated as "word" here means a thought, reasoning, motive, intent.

So (assuming this word means the same thing here as it does elsewhere) this could also be read as, roughly "In the beginning were both God and God's intent. All things were made through it, and without it nothing was made. It [God's intent] included life, and this life was the light of men.". I think this version is easier to make sense of, but don't really know how it compares in accuracy to King James (I'd need to actually know ancient Greek to know that.). I do, however, suspect that it's at least not any worse (if only because the other way is so confusing).

"the word was made flesh". I'd read this in much the same sense as calling someone a "walking encyclopedia". Jesus studied the word, lived it, taught it to such an extent (ie, perfectly) that he essentially was it. Which was only possible because of who he is.


Erg... part of the problem with my 'short version' is that a great deal of explanitive text is missing. Quite a number of the statements that Jesus made on the subject of He being God were subtle. VERY subtle. To Jews, they stood out, and to priests, they screamed blasphemy (for what mortal could dare claim to be God?), but to many others, and to those Jews who had little or had forgotten most of their religious training, Jesus was just talking. There are several different instances when Jesus states that He is the same as God. One of the coolest, to me, is the statement, 'before Abraham was, I Am.' This little statement meant a number of things, all of which caused priests of every persuasion to hate Jesus with a passion. First, it meant that there were things beyond normal, mortal experience, because Jesus just claimed to have existed before Abraham... the father of all the Jews, biologically speaking, and therefore, the first Jew. That is something that the Sadducees could never except. They were very similar to our modern day 'science rules all' philosophy, who didn't believe in the ressurrection of the dead and thought of all such references as either optimistically stupid or beautifully pictured metaphor for themselves ('living on' through their descendants or some such rhetorical nonsense). Second, it was blasphemy of the highest nature, because I Am, the way Jesus used it, is the exact definition of God's name, the one that was so holy that the scribes would never write more than an anagram, after which they'd throw the pen they used away because that name of God was so very sacred, the pen could never be used for a greater purpose ever again. This is one example, and I don't wish to go line-by-line explaining when Jesus did it, but He never came out and said "I am Yaweh God", but that one statement He made was more than enough to get that point across. If you want proof, check out the records of His trials, when they demanded to know if He had really claimed that He was God... he never denies it (technically, He never admits it out loud, but under Jewish law, a refusal to deny was admission, plus, He was fulfilling an old testament prophecy about the Messaiah by remaining silent). So, I had even more than this written down, but it's all gone now.

So I'll go on to the next topic...

Logos is indeed 'thought or concept', but it's more than just that. It is 'Word', and, in fact, is the word that's used to reference the scriptures a number of times, as well as the word chosen when the Hebrew texts were translated into the Septuigent (the greek version) when a 'Word of the Lord' was made to the people, Moses, or whoever. It is not used outside of this context, until Jesus.

The way it speaks of the Light being in the Word, indicates the same relationship that the Word had with God... in other words, because the Word (Logos) was in/with God and was God, in the same manner as this, the Light was with the Word, and was the Word, ergo, the Light was God. (If a poodle is a dog, and a poodle is white, then a white poodle is a dog. Stupid math/logic-proofs. Ruined me for life.)

Another example that I used for this, expaining how Jesus WAS God while being DIFFERENT from God simultaneously is found, ironically enough, in the pages of DnD (ironic only because of the large amount of negative publicity that it has recieved spirituality-wise). In the expanded psionics handbook, there is a power that can be manifested called 'mind-seed'. What it does is eliminates the other person's mind and replaces it with yours (at a deficit of, like, eight levels or something, I think) over time. By the end, the creature no longer has memories of anything it used to be, and instead has all of your mental attributes (whether better or worse than its own), your alignment, your job-class, but it's own physical scores, creature type, body, and inherent traits (including specialized first-level-only feats, if applicable) and none of yours. Now you and the subject of the power are, in a very real way, 'the same person'. You might have been a gnome, or drow, or half-orc, and the creature could have been a Troll, a Tarasque, or a kobold. Fact is, there's two of you now. Each of you, from that point on, have two completely different experiences, and generally, this would mean that the subject will go away, and you'll never see them again, and you become two completely different people over time. This, then, makes it a kind of poor, but still poignant example. God took the THEORY of Himself and posted it into a human body. Jesus was a kid, once, who did silly kid things (He probably threw up on Mary after eatin, possibly cried when Joseph put Him to bed, and fell over when He was learning how to walk, discovered that He had a penis, learned the scriptures the hard way, and had to be taught everything).

So instead of God's infinite everything to back Him up, He literally gave up everything, after a fashion, and gave up His advantage over human kind, and stuck the core of Himself and His essance into a human body, complete with frailty, suckage, and limitations. Jesus' power came NOT from divine Godly PWNAGE!1!one!elevnety-one!11 but rather from how righteous He was. He was perfect, and as a result of His goodness, He literally EARNED his Authority... so He never did anything outside of God's provision, nor caused any rift to split between Them, no matter how much His human body didn't want to die, or suffer, or anything. He never gave into weakness, or, as we said, He excercised His right to waive His free will and place it under Divine will.

So... uh... I actually started taking on two topics there. Heh-heh *scratches head* oops. Rabbit trail. Technically, I guess it was still on topic, which just goes to show how complicated the topic is, when you deal with infinites and finites mixing... at all.

Oh, and, I think I already said this, but it's worth repeating. KJV (the King James Version) is a beautiful and very nice translation of the Bible, but, because of the way modern language has changed, it can no longer be claimed to be the best English translation ever, nor can it be called inherently error-free for its own sake. The '1611' you hear about is not the KJV we use now. We actually use the 1780-something. The 1611 had four printing errors, including a page that was repeated, and the KJV went through seven or eight editions before arriving at the one we have now. Even the ones labled '1611' are lying. There is nothing wrong with the KJV, but King James was not God's divine messanger, and just because we've had one translation around forever, doesn't make it more accurate than newer ones that use the same sources. Look at what the Hebrews did to preserve their texts, and quickly realize how stupid that argument is. So yeah. It's pretty, but don't rely on it to the exclusion of everything else. There ARE bad translations out there. But that doesn't mean they ALL are. End Rant.


Edit:
tacticslion wrote:
So, I had even more than this written down...

... Yeah. It's called the Bible. I should remember that before I make stupid statements based on laziness. Well, anyway, I think you get the idea, despite my rather poor attempts. Heh... I'm really wierd.

_________________
DNI'ed by Wrin (for editing a bunch) and Tomkat (for being longwinded)!
_____________________________________
If a wizard did it,
And if Ian did it,
And if Sarda is the wizard who did it,
Does that make Sarda Ian's alias?


Last edited by tacticslion on Fri Feb 24, 2006 11:34 am, edited 1 time in total.

Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Fri Feb 24, 2006 11:19 am 
Offline
Expatriate
User avatar

Joined: Sat Nov 30, 2002 5:00 pm
Posts: 149
I agree totally with Tamayo.

The idea that God is ment to be omniscient, omnipresent, omnipotent and omnibenevolent while still allowing bad things to happen to good people is just silly, and in my opinion, the nail in Christianity's coffin.

Most other religions get away with bad things happening to good people, as thier God(s) lack one or several of the above components.
The old Norse Aesir worship gets away with it, as while those components are present (Odin is omniscient, Thor is pretty much omnipotent, etc etc) but they are spread between differnt individuals. That and they are a bunch of rather mean chaps and no real benevolence to be seen.
Islam gets away with it as well, as Allah is a bit more on the vengeful side.

_________________
"Never send chain letters via electronic mail. Chain letters are forbidden on the Internet. Your network privileges will be revoked. Notify your local system administrator if your ever receive one."

- IETF will send the Internet Police on you if you send chain letters!


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Fri Feb 24, 2006 12:05 pm 
Offline
PostWhorePornStar
User avatar

Joined: Fri Jan 17, 2003 5:00 pm
Posts: 7672
Location: Tallahassee, FL
Atzel wrote:
I agree totally with Tamayo.

The idea that God is ment to be omniscient, omnipresent, omnipotent and omnibenevolent while still allowing bad things to happen to good people is just silly, and in my opinion, the nail in Christianity's coffin.

Most other religions get away with bad things happening to good people, as thier God(s) lack one or several of the above components.
The old Norse Aesir worship gets away with it, as while those components are present (Odin is omniscient, Thor is pretty much omnipotent, etc etc) but they are spread between differnt individuals. That and they are a bunch of rather mean chaps and no real benevolence to be seen.
Islam gets away with it as well, as Allah is a bit more on the vengeful side.


Islam doesn't get away with it. Islam worships YHWH just the same as Abraham and Paul.

Allah is just arabic for God, in the same way that Hebrews don't say his name.


Now, what I'd like to see is debate over the polytheism of Christianity and Judiasm in general. In the beginning of the bible, God is referred to as Elohim (literally Hebrew for lord, but it is used as a name, not title.) and by the time we reach Moses, he's YHWH. Could we have multiple dieties here? Could this explain our problem of evil? Perhaps Earthworm Jim was correct after all and we're just a snowglobe in a snowglobe?


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: nifty enough...
PostPosted: Fri Feb 24, 2006 12:26 pm 
Offline
Tourist
User avatar

Joined: Mon Feb 13, 2006 2:52 pm
Posts: 59
Location: Earth
Interestingly, people fail to realize, mostly because of communication mistakes, as the one I made in my previous post, that God is not, in all ways, omnibenevolent (ergo isn't omnibenevolent by semantics, but I'll get there).

People often view deities in the following ways:
Allah: Vengful
Norse/Greek/Roman/etc Pantheon: Superpowered Emotional Jerks
Buddism: Enlightened
Hindu: Old
Christian God: soft fuzzy bunnies! ooh! look at the shineys! plus happy free-love and stuff, man! Have some! Ooh, and I always liked chocolate, so here's this! Oh, and don't forget to smile all the time!

Er... well, no. That's not the Christian God at all, and if that's the definition of omni-benevolence then He does not possess that quality... at all. I admit, I was probably using the word incorrectly, and the above fits into the definition much nicer. I defined it as that which is not lacking in any way, is, in fact, full and completely holy, perfect, sacred, and true, completely Good in every way that is possible, and not evil in any form, no matter how minor.

So...

In many ways, the Christian God fits all of the above catagories (well, with the exception of the 'jerk' one). Where do you think we get our wide range of emotions from? Vapor? Evil? Evolution? It's strongly implied in the scriptures that we get it directly from God. Even hatred. Hatred makes sense, and isn't entirely evil. For instance: there's the hatred OF evil. That's pretty much the only place it's justified (note hatred of evil, not of people), but it is justified there. I think we can agree that a man who goes out, finds a toddler, and kicks the little guy very hard, many times, because he thinks its funny is evil. I also think we can all agree to hate his kicking of that child. Heck, most people could probably agree to hate him, although some would say that this, too would be wrong.

Well... God hates evil. He loves people. He knows the difference between the two, yet sometimes people will not ever leave their evil. They become too attached to it. Whether pornography (which I used to search for constantly before finally getting free of the addiction), lieing (an addiction in itself, for some), racial bigotry (hating another for their skin is supposed to be surprisingly hard to end voluntarily), or murder (not just killing for self defense or the like), evil can be very seductive and attractive.

I know that I probably just offended people on the forum by my list (yeah, I know where I am and what the first thing on my list was... death warrent, but oh well, and as I said, I used to do it all the time. I've actually got a talk I can give about the neutrality of pornography itself, but for my purposes in this post, it's listed under an 'evil'). I'm sorry, because it's not my purpose to offend. But, as I've been reminded, this is a debate club for our ideals, so yeah, and also take a look at a list of sins in Revelations, then get angry. I certainly know that I fall into the 'liar' catagory... how many 'innocent' fibs I've said in my life, I don't know.

The thing is, people can't 'accidentally' do evil. Because God knows the heart. They can accidentally do something stupid, but generally they've put themselves in that situation. Sometimes, they simply happen across something and obsess about it so much, evil comes as a result. But evil is, ultimately, an act of the will, and a direct result of choice of actions, a specific choice we've made, whether to act or not.

So... God takes vengence on evil and those so deeply attached to it they cannot and will not ever let it go (note that this does not explain all natural disasters, though it certainly allows for them; as a Christian, I've had to come to the realization that there is nothing I can do to be worthy of salvation... it's pure grace, and I cannot demand or expect anything from God, because it's freely given, it's His, and His right to take anything He gives. I've violated His law and love many times, and don't deserve, on His standard, to live, even if I were the most righteous, good human ever to live from this day forth). Free will is the one thing that He doesn't (refuses to) circumvent with His power. So, does evil exist? Probably not as a force, like we're used to thinking of it. I'd say it's more like the dark, or cold compared to light and heat respectively. The lack of the latter creates the 'presence' of the former. So, where good is absent - deliberately pushed aside - evil exists.

Now, I understand there are instances such a rape, or deciet where evil is done to or via innocents, however those who are innocent in these cases are just that... innocent (in this case). And because of the nature of the evil perpetrated the evil of these types of cases are that much worse. But this is evil perpetrating itself, and has nothing to do with God. He is justified, being God, to annihilate any and all beings who perform an evil act like this on the spot. Yet, He is also known for His mercy, as well as vengance. He allows all people a chance after some form or another.

Look... it's kind of like Yorik said. In the Christian view, there is a minefiled out there. We can point and tell and warn, but we can't force someone to avoid going in. The problem is, we've ALL created and placed those mines. Sometimes WE are the ones that set our own mines off, and sometimes others are. As the word says, 'all have sinned and come short of the glory of God'.

So, via our own sin (even one), we fail to hit the standard of 'perfect' that is the only thing God can accept. This is the ENTIRE PURPOSE of Jesus. So that we get in based on HIS results on the check against the standard, and not our own. Because no one deserves another breath, much less a long, happy-filled life. Not according to God's standards.

I had a rather beautiful, if disgusting, analogy to a crap-coated world. It's one of those things that got lost a while ago, but I might try to re-craft it, if I get the time, energy, and non-laziness enough.

Edited for talking to krylex too!:
Actually, Elohim is the plural for 'God'. In the older forms of the Hebrew langauge, anything deserving of incredible respect was referred to in the plural (similar to the 'royal we' that kings used of themselves in the olden-type days).

So, Elohim literally translates 'Gods', which seems to indicate a plurality, even though all the articles refer to a singular. This was, incidentally, the first place some philosophists believe that proof of the triune nature of God is shown (plurality in singularity). Especially in the Creation, when God speaks to Himself (plurality talking to singularity of self, referencing with a plurality 'saying to Himself "let Us make man in Our image"') this is evidenced.

Further, the introduction of Yaweh as God's name was the big revelation to Moses. Elohim is the general term, used for His name, because He'd never given His name to anyone before Moses. It's this great revelation of the scripture to the people, this incredible moment, that this God that they've worshipped since before their ancestors were chil'uns finally told them His name. And what WAS His name? "I AM THAT I AM". In otherwords, He's self-sufficient... the only being that can truly claim to be so. He exists because of Himself... as opposed to everything else, which exists because He made it to.

So... yeah. The explanation for the difference between Elohim and Yaweh. Also, in English, a lot of times, the word 'Lord' is used for Yaweh, as well as the actual word 'Lord' and every time the word Elohim is used it's translated 'God', so both are scattered rather liberally throughout the scripture, but Elohim is known to no longer be His appropriate name, so it's never used as that anymore.

End edit(?)

Edit Part 2: deleted one word, and changed a whole HOST of meaning. 10 points to the person who can figure out what it was. Ten, big, shiney, fictional points that actually don't buy anything and are worthless outside of the transaction in which I give them to you. But, there you go.

_________________
DNI'ed by Wrin (for editing a bunch) and Tomkat (for being longwinded)!
_____________________________________
If a wizard did it,
And if Ian did it,
And if Sarda is the wizard who did it,
Does that make Sarda Ian's alias?


Last edited by tacticslion on Mon Feb 27, 2006 2:09 pm, edited 2 times in total.

Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Fri Feb 24, 2006 12:31 pm 
Offline
PostWhorePornStar
User avatar

Joined: Sun Dec 09, 2001 5:00 pm
Posts: 5769
Location: Boston, Massachusetts
The Baron wrote:
I'd just like to say that Tamayo's posts bring a tear to my philosophy (and computer science!) major eye.


QFT.

Well, except the philosophy and CS bit. :)

_________________
iothera: a science fantasy


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Fri Feb 24, 2006 3:04 pm 
Offline
PostWhorePornStar
User avatar

Joined: Mon May 20, 2002 5:00 pm
Posts: 6793
Location: OI!
tl;dr

But I'm sure as hell going to be using the term 'Bible Smokers' now.

-Kitty

_________________
No. Antidisestablishmentarianism. Enigma. Muraena. Pundit. Malaise. Clusterfuck. Hootenanny.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Fri Feb 24, 2006 5:43 pm 
Offline
Expatriate
User avatar

Joined: Mon Sep 22, 2003 9:44 am
Posts: 94
Location: @ University
tacticslion wrote:
Another example that I used for this, expaining how Jesus WAS God while being DIFFERENT from God simultaneously is found, ironically enough, in the pages of DnD (ironic only because of the large amount of negative publicity that it has recieved spirituality-wise). In the expanded psionics handbook, there is a power that can be manifested called 'mind-seed'. What it does is eliminates the other person's mind and replaces it with yours (at a deficit of, like, eight levels or something, I think) over time. By the end, the creature no longer has memories of anything it used to be, and instead has all of your mental attributes (whether better or worse than its own), your alignment, your job-class, but it's own physical scores, creature type, body, and inherent traits (including specialized first-level-only feats, if applicable) and none of yours. Now you and the subject of the power are, in a very real way, 'the same person'. You might have been a gnome, or drow, or half-orc, and the creature could have been a Troll, a Tarasque, or a kobold. Fact is, there's two of you now. Each of you, from that point on, have two completely different experiences, and generally, this would mean that the subject will go away, and you'll never see them again, and you become two completely different people over time. This, then, makes it a kind of poor, but still poignant example. God took the THEORY of Himself and posted it into a human body. Jesus was a kid, once, who did silly kid things (He probably threw up on Mary after eatin, possibly cried when Joseph put Him to bed, and fell over when He was learning how to walk, discovered that He had a penis, learned the scriptures the hard way, and had to be taught everything).

Wouldn't it be a violation of free will for God to do that? I still say "walking encyclopedia" -- Jesus chose to take on the essence/theory of God (and succeeded because God had made him perfect). Same result, different person making the choices.

tacticslion wrote:
So instead of God's infinite everything to back Him up, He literally gave up everything, after a fashion, and gave up His advantage over human kind, and stuck the core of Himself and His essance into a human body, complete with frailty, suckage, and limitations. ...

Except there was nothing for God to give up, since God stayed himself.

Quote:
... Jesus' power came NOT from divine Godly PWNAGE!1!one!elevnety-one!11 but rather from how righteous He was. He was perfect, and as a result of His goodness, He literally EARNED his Authority... so He never did anything outside of God's provision, nor caused any rift to split between Them, no matter how much His human body didn't want to die, or suffer, or anything. He never gave into weakness, or, as we said, He excercised His right to waive His free will and place it under Divine will.

Oh, he very clearly kept his free will ("not my will, but thine, be done"). He just consistently chose to do what God asked, instead of what he would have preferred.


tacticslion wrote:
{King James, and revisions, and errors, and changing language}

Yes, but it's what's on my shelf. (Wasn't there even a printing of it where they left out the "not" in "thou shalt not commit adultery"?)

[Edit: replying to the other giant post too...]

tacticslion wrote:
Free will is the one thing that He doesn't (refuses to) circumvent with His power. So, does evil exist? Probably not as a force, like we're used to thinking of it. I'd say it's more like the dark, or cold compared to light and heat respectively. The lack of the latter creates the 'presence' of the former. So, where good is absent - deliberately pushed aside - evil exists.

Evil itself is no more a force than good. Trouble is, evil has a rather nasty champion (the thief, devil, dragon, lucifer, etc) promoting it, meddling in the world to trip people up so they fall.

_________________
Tim
:D :D :D
IGnatius T Foobar wrote:
Whack-with-the-cluestick of the day:
"Nubile" is *not* the adjective form of "newbie."
<< cringe >>

Ian did it.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Fri Feb 24, 2006 9:24 pm 
Offline
Addict
User avatar

Joined: Mon Oct 04, 2004 12:31 am
Posts: 1587
Location: Bay Area
I explained it in the original topic, but Tamayo's said all the important things.

Edit: Seeing as this is debate club I'll be nice.

If your religion relies on some "original sin" bullshit explanation for an entire universe of evil, perhaps it needs some revision. Being culpable for the sins of an imaginary progenitor is laughable.

_________________
<img src="http://i50.photobucket.com/albums/f340/Tossrock/sigreducedjx2-1.jpg">


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Fri Feb 24, 2006 11:00 pm 
Offline
PostWhorePornStar
User avatar

Joined: Sun Nov 30, 2003 2:17 pm
Posts: 5983
Location: Around about there.
Tossrock wrote:
If your religion relies on some "original sin" bullshit explanation for an entire universe of evil, perhaps it needs some revision. Being culpable for the sins of an imaginary progenitor is laughable.

What's wrong with people believing that there was once a golden utopia, where people could have anything they wanted, including every cable channel ever created and super high speed internet connection for downloading all the porn you would ever want, and then some retarded n00b came along and fucked up the entire deal for everyone by doing the one stupid thing that they've been told not to do?</end silly conversion of bible to modernism> It does help to bring home the point that we can be better than what we are now.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sat Feb 25, 2006 12:55 am 
Offline
Native
User avatar

Joined: Tue Nov 19, 2002 5:00 pm
Posts: 999
Location: Midworld
River said: <s> wrote:
</s>It says 'Don't be afraid'.


First, I'd like to make a remark about how many people have chosen to leave chrstianity behind because of the people they've had to deal with associated with it, as if that's a legitimate reason to choose or shy away from any religion. It is perfectly acceptable to be a Christian and detest most of the people who call themselves Christian around you, as long as they only label themselves as such out of convenience and not actual adherence to the faith. In fact, if I read most of what Tactics has been saying correctly, that's exactly what you should be doing as a true Christian. Myself, I chose (not that there was much choice involved, really) non-christianity because I just don't have the belief that there exists a conscious will that created the universe and governs our actions. It's a fairly scientific mindset, and not entirely environmentally based, as my twin brother does in fact have the belief. As such, belief should be the only deciding factor in 'choosing' one's religion, inasmuch as there is ever a choice involved.

Second, I want to thank you, Tactics. You've proven to me that there are, in fact, sane Christians out there, who talk like civilized people and can back up their claims with history as well as scripture. You've given me the idea that I may want to go ahead and read the Bible, not because I believe I will convert to Christianity, but because I wish to understand more about the message it holds. Specifically in what Impy mentioned as it being a story of people who really did just try to do the best they could. It's long been my belief that although Jesus wasn't divine in any respect, he was exceptional in that he was a person who always did what was right, no matter the personal cost.

_________________
Go then. There are other worlds than these.


Top
 Profile  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Forum locked This topic is locked, you cannot edit posts or make further replies.  [ 76 posts ]  Go to page 1, 2, 3, 4  Next

All times are UTC - 8 hours [ DST ]


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 21 guests


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot post attachments in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  
cron
Powered by phpBB © 2000, 2002, 2005, 2007 phpBB Group