#270560 - 24/11/2005 17:14
Their god less valid?
|
carpal tunnel
Registered: 06/10/1999
Posts: 2591
Loc: Seattle, WA, U.S.A.
|
From last Saturday to Tuesday I staffed an academic symposium at a large downtown hotel (mostly I babysat laptops, projectors and such).
On Saturday AM, as I rode the escalator, I noticed a "Gay and Lesbian (something or other) Conference" on the hotel's conference board.
At about 10AM, I looked out the window and noticed a police sergeant standing on the sidewalk. A few minutes later, seven or eight people showed up, one of them carrying a stack of signs. Several of them pulled on brightly-colored T-shirts that said "God Hates Fags!", two of them wrapped themselves in large USA flags which they proceeded to tread on, and they all picked up one of the signs that either said "God Hates Fags!" or something more bizarre, more hateful, and/or more crude. One of them had a small bullhorn and, during a break, they attracted a fair amount of interest from conference participants, many of whom had come from overseas.
With my wireless laptop, I Googled a bit, and I was able to tell a gent from Sweden that the folks on the sidewalk were likely members of the W3ztb0r0 B4pt1zt Church (trying not to give them anymore Google time here!). These folks chanted until about 12 Noon, took a lunch break, and then returned to chant from 1PM until around 3PM.
In another (Walmart?) thread recently, I poked some fun at the notion of the mysterious, inscrutable god. The god that makes it hard to figure out what He/She/It wants us to do. Well, it seemed pretty clear that these WBC folks suffer no such tribulation. They seem to know *exactly* what their god wants them to do. Given how nasty those folks were, it occurred to me that I should be more sympathetic to folks -- politicians, say -- who are having a little more difficulty figuring out exactly what their deity wants them to do.
All that being said, as I looked out at this disagreeable group on the sidewalk, I asked myself:
- What makes their god less valid?
Why is their god not the one, true god? Whatever we think of their god's message, their god does not seem to have any problems with communication. The message could not be more clear.
So, I am prepared, for the sake of argument, to adopt a devil's advocate position: The god of WBC is not only not *less* valid, it is more valid than yours.
Eh?
_________________________
Jim
'Tis the exceptional fellow who lies awake at night thinking of his successes.
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#270561 - 24/11/2005 18:00
Re: Their god less valid?
[Re: jimhogan]
|
addict
Registered: 18/02/2002
Posts: 658
|
My argument as to why their god is invalid is pretty simple I guess. I don't think God hates. So, "God hates Fags" is an inaccurate statement. If they got that from their god, than their god is invalid, because again, God doesn't hate anything.
I'm sure he feels pretty strongly against a lot of things like republicans and black licorice, but I just don't think he hates anything.
Does that make sense? Maybe not. Did to me.
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#270562 - 24/11/2005 18:10
Re: Their god less valid?
[Re: visuvius]
|
addict
Registered: 23/12/2002
Posts: 652
Loc: Winston Salem, NC
|
The God of the Bible is a God of both love and hate. While the Bible is clear about what God hates, it is even more clear that God loves his creation. I strongly disagree with any "Christian" (and I use the term lightly) that would publicy show hatred against a group of people in the name of God, especially in an attempt to shame them into conversion (if that was indeed their goal). If anything, they are missing the big picture: that God loved the world so much that He sent a sacrifice so that all can know Him.
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#270563 - 24/11/2005 18:16
Re: Their god less valid?
[Re: jimhogan]
|
addict
Registered: 23/12/2002
Posts: 652
Loc: Winston Salem, NC
|
According to the WBC website, God hates Jews and Blacks as well. I'm sure Polish and Gypsys aren't far down the list. Perhaps their god is Hitler?
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#270564 - 24/11/2005 18:38
Re: Their god less valid?
[Re: jimhogan]
|
carpal tunnel
Registered: 05/01/2001
Posts: 4903
Loc: Detroit, MI USA
|
You thrive on this stuff don't you?  To start off, I guess I disagree with a premise or two that this conversation is started on. First of all, just because someone thinks they know the "message" loud and clear does not in any way mean that they are correct. My wife can attest to this! So, despite the fact these guys are 100% sure "their God" hates homosexuals, that doesn't mean there isn't a huge "communication" problem here. In fact, I'm not aware of the Christian God hating any group of people. Certain behaviors like homosexuality and me not honoring my mother and father might be frowned upon, but nothing to the point of hatred. More importantly however, I don't buy into the whole "my God" vs. "your God" thing. I don't think there is a Lutheran God, a Catholic God and a W3ztb0r0 B4pt1zt Church God. I'd even go so far as to say I don't believe in a Jewish God, a Christian God and a Islamic God. I believe that there is just one God and there happens to be ton of different interpretations of God. And many of those differences in interpretation happen to be driven by politics rather than idiology. (Does anyone really think the "Protestant vs. Catholic" conflict in Ireland was driven by hatred over Vatican control?) I've found that most Christians that I've talked to believe this as well. That Muslims, Jews and Christians are all praying to the same God. We just have very differant interpretations of God. So when I come across some group like your W3ztb0r0 B4pt1zts, I rarely ever try to understand them from a theological viewpoint. I know enough about Christianity to know their hatred must be rooted in something else. Their problem is very much rooted in a communication breakdown and is driven, IMO, by something unrelated. The same could be said for the suicide bombers in Islam. They pray to the same God as more peace loving Muslims, but they are being driven by an outside force (politics, what have you) and are being exploited by people that feed off of that hatred in order to gain power. So, like I said, rather than look at this in a theological way, I tend to look at it in a psyological or sociological way. Most homophobes I know have severe insecurities. I bet their wives can attest to that.
_________________________
Brad B.
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#270565 - 24/11/2005 18:46
Re: Their god less valid?
[Re: visuvius]
|
pooh-bah
Registered: 13/09/1999
Posts: 2401
Loc: Croatia
|
Quote:
My argument as to why their god is invalid is pretty simple I guess. I don't think God hates. So, "God hates Fags" is an inaccurate statement. If they got that from their god, than their god is invalid, because again, God doesn't hate anything.
I'm sure he feels pretty strongly against a lot of things like republicans and black licorice, but I just don't think he hates anything.
Heh, that's what you think. Here is what they know:
Quote:
To every lover of Arminian lies -- believing and preaching that God loves every individual of mankind -- we say, You are going to Hell! Period! End of discussion! God's decree sending you to Hell is irreversible! Hypocrites! How can ye escape the damnation of Hell?!
So, the first Google hit for WBC in not a parody!? Amazing!
(BTW, about licorice: infidel!  )
_________________________
Dragi "Bonzi" Raos
Q#5196
MkII #080000376, 18GB green
MkIIa #040103247, 60GB blue
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#270566 - 24/11/2005 19:07
Re: Their god less valid?
[Re: SE_Sport_Driver]
|
pooh-bah
Registered: 13/09/1999
Posts: 2401
Loc: Croatia
|
Quote:
So, like I said, rather than look at this in a theological way, I tend to look at it in a psyological or sociological way.
I agree that's a reasonable approach. That's how I look at any religion. Some interpretations of (hypothetical) god(s) lead to volunteer work at soup kitchens and orphanages, others to blowing up people one doesen't even know (and oneself, for good measure). Interpretation depends on interpreters, not some inherent truth value of religion in case.
BTW, good point about "religious" conflicts having nothing to do with religion.
_________________________
Dragi "Bonzi" Raos
Q#5196
MkII #080000376, 18GB green
MkIIa #040103247, 60GB blue
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#270567 - 24/11/2005 20:50
Re: Their god less valid?
[Re: jimhogan]
|
Pooh-Bah
Registered: 13/04/2001
Posts: 1742
Loc: The land of the pale blue peop...
|
sorry but this did remind me of this here From a tree hugging salad eating mate of mine with a recording studio
_________________________
P.Allison fixer of big engines
Mk2+Mk2a signed by God / Hacked by the Lord
Aberdeen Scotland
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#270568 - 25/11/2005 08:50
Re: Their god less valid?
[Re: SE_Sport_Driver]
|
pooh-bah
Registered: 27/02/2004
Posts: 1914
Loc: London
|
Quote:
First of all, just because someone thinks they know the "message" loud and clear does not in any way mean that they are correct.
More importantly however, I don't buy into the whole "my God" vs. "your God" thing. I don't think there is a Lutheran God, a Catholic God and a W3ztb0r0 B4pt1zt Church God. I'd even go so far as to say I don't believe in a Jewish God, a Christian God and a Islamic God. I believe that there is just one God and there happens to be ton of different interpretations of God. And many of those differences in interpretation happen to be driven by politics rather than idiology. (Does anyone really think the "Protestant vs. Catholic" conflict in Ireland was driven by hatred over Vatican control?)
The same could be said for the suicide bombers in Islam. They pray to the same God as more peace loving Muslims, but they are being driven by an outside force (politics, what have you) and are being exploited by people that feed off of that hatred in order to gain power.
So, like I said, rather than look at this in a theological way, I tend to look at it in a psyological or sociological way. Most homophobes I know have severe insecurities. I bet their wives can attest to that.
Very well said, especially the bits above. I don't have a problem with anybody whether they believe or not, religion and politics are inextricably linked that's undeniable. And as you've said all the homophobes I've known have deep insecurites.
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#270569 - 25/11/2005 20:06
Re: Their god less valid?
[Re: SE_Sport_Driver]
|
carpal tunnel
Registered: 25/12/2000
Posts: 16706
Loc: Raleigh, NC US
|
Well, Jim's coming at it from more of a humanist viewpoint whereby Gods exist because of their followers, or, rather, that Gods exist only in the minds of their followers. Of course, that kind of interrupts the notion that their God can be more valid, since they would all be as valid as the followers.
That said, if that humanist viewpoint is incorrect, and God is inscrutable, how can you be so sure that you're getting the correct message and that they're the ones getting a garbled transmission? Then apply that to your sociopolitical viewpoint on religions.
_________________________
Bitt Faulk
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#270570 - 25/11/2005 21:49
Re: Their god less valid?
[Re: visuvius]
|
carpal tunnel
Registered: 06/10/1999
Posts: 2591
Loc: Seattle, WA, U.S.A.
|
Not sure if is correct, but when I say "valid" I tend to tie that to some amount of logic and tests of internal and external consistency...a statement or belief is consistent *within* itself -- doesn't contradict itself "if the birds that build bluebird nests are bluebirds, then bluebird nests are built by bluebirds"-- and is consistent with external references, like I have lots of video footage of bluebird nest-building and I have never seen a report or some other bird building a bluebird nest. Quote:
My argument as to why their god is invalid is pretty simple I guess. I don't think God hates. So, "God hates Fags" is an inaccurate statement. If they got that from their god, than their god is invalid, because again, God doesn't hate anything.
As plain old Jim, I'd say that your premise is flawed. You don't think your God hates, but that sounds like wishfui thinking, just your assumption of how it should be.
Putting on my WBC devil's advocate hat, I guess I would just trot out some biblical references from their FAQ: "God will have mercy on whom He will have mercy, and whom He will He hardeneth (Romans 9:18)." and point out that God does *indeed* hate. You just don't want to admit it.
Quote:
I'm sure he feels pretty strongly against a lot of things like republicans and black licorice, but I just don't think he hates anything.
 No comment!
Quote:
Does that make sense? Maybe not. Did to me.
Your argument has internal consistency, but the logic is circular.
As WBC DA I could simply offer the counterargument "I know God hates homosexuals. So, 'God doesn't hate homosexuals' is an inaccurate statement. If you got that from your god, than your god is invalid, because again, God hates homosexuals."
To add a questionable dose of external validity to this, I could testify as to how God made himself apparent to me one night, proved beyond any doubt that he *was* God (by some means that I am not at liberty to discuss) and let me know that he absolutely, positively *hates* homosexuals.
When did your God last spend some one-on-one quality time with you?
And if the One, True God doesn't hate, why did he kill another 30 innocents in Baghdad today?
_________________________
Jim
'Tis the exceptional fellow who lies awake at night thinking of his successes.
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#270571 - 25/11/2005 22:05
Re: Their god less valid?
[Re: Cybjorg]
|
carpal tunnel
Registered: 06/10/1999
Posts: 2591
Loc: Seattle, WA, U.S.A.
|
Quote:
The God of the Bible is a God of both love and hate.
I have not devoted any time to becoming a biblical scholar, but I do remember that whole pillar of salt thing. Do homosexuals get turned into a pillar of salt?
Quote:
While the Bible is clear about what God hates, it is even more clear that God loves his creation.
Not according to WBC. And they seem to have the biblical quotes to back it up.
Quote:
I strongly disagree with any "Christian" (and I use the term lightly) that would publicy show hatred against a group of people in the name of God, especially in an attempt to shame them into conversion (if that was indeed their goal). If anything, they are missing the big picture: that God loved the world so much that He sent a sacrifice so that all can know Him.
OK, you strongly disagree with them, but how do you know/demonstrate that they are wrong?
I hope you'll understand that it was all I could do to restrain myself -- to keep from going down and insulting them, perhaps even spitting on them. I didn't. Not because they don't deserve it, but because it is my firm sense that they would be *thrilled* if I did.
Quote:
According to the WBC website, God hates Jews and Blacks as well. I'm sure Polish and Gypsys aren't far down the list. Perhaps their god is Hitler?
WBC DA: Our God is the one, true God of the Bible. If you want to ignore him then that's your tough luck.
_________________________
Jim
'Tis the exceptional fellow who lies awake at night thinking of his successes.
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#270572 - 26/11/2005 00:42
Re: Their god less valid?
[Re: wfaulk]
|
carpal tunnel
Registered: 05/01/2001
Posts: 4903
Loc: Detroit, MI USA
|
Quote:
That said, if that humanist viewpoint is incorrect, and God is inscrutable, how can you be so sure that you're getting the correct message and that they're the ones getting a garbled transmission? Then apply that to your sociopolitical viewpoint on religions.
Well, with something like religious faith, it's hard to "prove" one side vs. another. Faith (religious, marriage or otherwise) is often defined as believing in something without needing concrete proof. So, I can't say that a humanist viewpoint is incorrect compared to my viewpoint but perhaps I can say it's "incorrect for me." Was I reading too much into what you wrote? I'm just trying to be deliberate about not coming off as "you're wrong, I'm right."
As I write this, I'm thinking that a humanist fueling a debate on which particular group's view of God is "more valid" makes about as much sense as me fueling a debate between two feuding camps of gamers on which is better, the PS3 or the XBox 360. I know nothing about either system and nothing they could say would convince me to buy into either one.
Back to your rewording of the original debate: (H)ow can you be so sure that you're getting the correct message and that they're the ones getting a garbled transmission? That's quite easy. Because they are calling themselves Christians, I not only feel I have a little personal experience on my side, but I also have 2000+ years of history as well. With the exception of a handful of groups like this, Christianity has never been self-described in a way that these guys are demonstratiing. In fact, their messages of hatred are in direct contrast to the core teachings of Christianity. And, being Lutheran, I put less faith in any doctrine if it can't be found in the Bible. Because Christianity is based on the teachings of the Bible, the fact that this group contradicts the Bible makes it easy to conclude that their message is the garbled one and not mine.
If this group had called themselves something other than Christians, I'd have more trouble proving they were ideologically wrong, but any of us would have a field day proving this group was morally and ethically wrong.
A more interesting debate, IMO, would be between Lutherans and Catholics on the Vatican's system of sainthood or a debate between Jews and Christians on whether or not Jesus was the messiah. Those debates really come down to a matter of faith and can have a "point/counterpoint" discussion going. But they would only be of interest to people who believe in God and would likely be boring to someone looking to disect from a humanist perspective. In contrast, the group that Jim ran into isn't worth debating. They are simply bigots hiding behind the name of something they shouldn't be.
_________________________
Brad B.
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#270573 - 26/11/2005 05:54
Re: Their god less valid?
[Re: jimhogan]
|
addict
Registered: 23/12/2002
Posts: 652
Loc: Winston Salem, NC
|
Quote:
I have not devoted any time to becoming a biblical scholar, but I do remember that whole pillar of salt thing. Do homosexuals get turned into a pillar of salt?
I don't know a homosexual in the Bible who was turned into a pillar of salt. Lot's wife was turned into a pillar of salt while fleeing from the destruction of Sodom and Gomorrah, which were being destroyed because of their extreme wickedness. God had commanded those who were escaping not to look back upon the destruction. Lot's wife's sin is generally attributed to a greater love and desire for the things of the world as opposed a desire to obey God's direct instruction.
Quote:
Not according to WBC. And they seem to have the biblical quotes to back it up.
What their biblical quotes illustrate is that God hates sin. At the same time, they fail to point out is that God loves sinners. Their biblical "illustrations" are a bit one sided.
Quote:
OK, you strongly disagree with them, but how do you know/demonstrate that they are wrong?
Their teaching is anti-biblical. I'm afraid I don't have time to pull up every reference about Jesus' sacrifice for sinful mankind and his mercy towards all who would accept him. There are also verses concerning believers showing the love of God to all men (thereby they will know that you are his disciples), etc., but I'm sure most of you are familiar with these verses.
It's easy for anyone to take a handful of verses from the Bible and support a personal argument and agenda. In these situations, however, such verses are either taken out of context or are extremely unbalanced when compared to other biblical texts.
Quote:
WBC DA: Our God is the one, true God of the Bible. If you want to ignore him then that's your tough luck.
Well, I have a hard time believing this statement when Jesus claims to have died for all of mankind, not just Anglo-Saxon homosexual haters. Their statements of belief and their actions are in complete opposition to each other.
EDIT: Upon closer inspection of their website, I came upon this verse which they use as ammunition in their crusade against homosexuality:
Quote:
Proverbs 6:16-19 - These six things doth the LORD hate: yea, seven are an abomination unto him: A proud look, a lying tongue, and hands that shed innocent blood, An heart that deviseth wicked imaginations, feet that be swift in running to mischief, A false witness that speaketh lies, and he that soweth discord among brethren.
I can't help but note how much of this list WBC is guilty of.
Edited by Cybjorg (26/11/2005 06:13)
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#270574 - 26/11/2005 05:58
Re: Their god less valid?
[Re: SE_Sport_Driver]
|
addict
Registered: 23/12/2002
Posts: 652
Loc: Winston Salem, NC
|
Quote:
A more interesting debate, IMO, would be between Lutherans and Catholics on the Vatican's system of sainthood or a debate between Jews and Christians on whether or not Jesus was the messiah.
Don't forget the debate between Islam and Christianity as to which is correct.
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#270575 - 26/11/2005 22:25
Re: Their god less valid?
[Re: jimhogan]
|
carpal tunnel
Registered: 14/01/2002
Posts: 2858
Loc: Atlanta, GA
|
Quote:
- What makes their god less valid?
Depends on what you mean by "less valid". Legally they are free to persue their beleifs, whatever you or I think. In that case their beliefs are as equally valid as anyone else's. From a personal perspective, we each have to make decisions about what we think is valid. It is certainly reasonable for me to find their views and actions invalid, and it is reasonable for you to asses my view and theirs as equally invalid, if that is what you believe.
Of course, if they claim to be a church goverened by the Bible then there is that rule by which you can determine their validity, especially if you believe that the Bible is the "word of God" (I do, and of course you do not). It is meaningless for me to try and argue to you why their beliefs are inconsistent with our scriptures, but certainly any Bible believing church is going to take issue with their actions and beliefs. As previously stated, they twist a few scriptures to make their points, and from a standpoint of orthodox Christianity, this is invalid, especially since it doesn't line up with the most central theme of the Bible regarding forgiveness by grace and not works.
_________________________
-Jeff
Rome did not create a great empire by having meetings; they did it by killing all those who opposed them.
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#270576 - 27/11/2005 02:16
Re: Their god less valid?
[Re: SE_Sport_Driver]
|
carpal tunnel
Registered: 06/10/1999
Posts: 2591
Loc: Seattle, WA, U.S.A.
|
Well, crap, I just crafted a pretty lengthy response to your post and then got a "form no longer valid when I hit submit. It wasn't up on screen for long. Teach me to use an external editor more often. I don't think I can deal with much more typing until tomorrow. Jim Quote:
You thrive on this stuff don't you?
To start off, I guess I disagree with a premise or two that this conversation is started on. First of all, just because someone thinks they know the "message" loud and clear does not in any way mean that they are correct. My wife can attest to this! So, despite the fact these guys are 100% sure "their God" hates homosexuals, that doesn't mean there isn't a huge "communication" problem here. In fact, I'm not aware of the Christian God hating any group of people. Certain behaviors like homosexuality and me not honoring my mother and father might be frowned upon, but nothing to the point of hatred.
More importantly however, I don't buy into the whole "my God" vs. "your God" thing. I don't think there is a Lutheran God, a Catholic God and a W3ztb0r0 B4pt1zt Church God. I'd even go so far as to say I don't believe in a Jewish God, a Christian God and a Islamic God. I believe that there is just one God and there happens to be ton of different interpretations of God. And many of those differences in interpretation happen to be driven by politics rather than idiology. (Does anyone really think the "Protestant vs. Catholic" conflict in Ireland was driven by hatred over Vatican control?)
I've found that most Christians that I've talked to believe this as well. That Muslims, Jews and Christians are all praying to the same God. We just have very differant interpretations of God.
So when I come across some group like your W3ztb0r0 B4pt1zts, I rarely ever try to understand them from a theological viewpoint. I know enough about Christianity to know their hatred must be rooted in something else. Their problem is very much rooted in a communication breakdown and is driven, IMO, by something unrelated.
The same could be said for the suicide bombers in Islam. They pray to the same God as more peace loving Muslims, but they are being driven by an outside force (politics, what have you) and are being exploited by people that feed off of that hatred in order to gain power.
So, like I said, rather than look at this in a theological way, I tend to look at it in a psyological or sociological way. Most homophobes I know have severe insecurities. I bet their wives can attest to that.
_________________________
Jim
'Tis the exceptional fellow who lies awake at night thinking of his successes.
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#270578 - 27/11/2005 13:59
Re: Their god less valid?
[Re: JeffS]
|
pooh-bah
Registered: 13/09/1999
Posts: 2401
Loc: Croatia
|
Quote:
It is certainly reasonable for me to find their views and actions invalid, and it is reasonable for you to asses my view and theirs as equally invalid, if that is what you believe.
For me (and, presumably, Jim) it is not a matter of belief, but logic (as Mr. Spock would say ): there are so many mutually exclusive "true Gods", and each has a nice bunch of followers absolutely convinced in "The Truth" of their respective religion, that the only rational conclusion is that none of them is real. The fact that I don't see any sign of divine presence in the world, while I do see plenty of phycological and sociological mechanisms giving rise to belief in supernatural, also helps, of course.
But all this is beating a dead horse: we have been through this more that once.
What I would like to see is a debate between several knowledgeable Bible scholars using different parts of [what seems to me to be] internaly inconsistent collection of holly texts to defend their respective shades of Christianity. You know, like a court drama: using the same evidence to reach different conclusions; for me that kind of stuff was always interesting to watch. I am sure there are untold forests of dead trees on this subject, but live sparring is more fun. We wouldn't have an eloquent devout Catholic or Orthodox around here? 
More seriously, can anyone recommend an accessible (to an infidel) book on genesis and differences between different strains of Christians?
Edit: Hm, this 'strain' sounds like strain of E. coli, for example. No offense indended.
Edited by bonzi (27/11/2005 14:01)
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#270579 - 27/11/2005 15:43
Re: Their god less valid?
[Re: JeffS]
|
carpal tunnel
Registered: 25/12/2000
Posts: 16706
Loc: Raleigh, NC US
|
I notice that both you (Jeff) and Brad essentially base your claim that your God (Gods?) is correct on the fact that you feel that your version is right. I guess I just don't understand how either one of you can base your life on an assumption. I mean, there are certain things that I feel are inherent to my being, things that I feel that don't have any particular basis in rational thought, like an aversion to spiders or the desire to not kill or the desire to argue, etc. But I don't see these things as having been created by a supreme being (that is, I don't feel the necessity to anthropomorphize these feelings) but I just see them as parts of my personality as filtered through both evolution and experience.
Hmm. Do you view your personalities as having been created by God?
_________________________
Bitt Faulk
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#270580 - 27/11/2005 21:22
Re: Their god less valid?
[Re: wfaulk]
|
Anonymous
Unregistered
|
Do you feel that God doesn´t exist, or do you have proof?
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#270581 - 27/11/2005 21:26
Re: Their god less valid?
[Re: ]
|
pooh-bah
Registered: 13/09/1999
Posts: 2401
Loc: Croatia
|
Quote:
Do you feel that God doesn´t exist, or do you have proof?
Which particular God?
_________________________
Dragi "Bonzi" Raos
Q#5196
MkII #080000376, 18GB green
MkIIa #040103247, 60GB blue
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#270582 - 27/11/2005 21:29
Re: Their god less valid?
[Re: bonzi]
|
Anonymous
Unregistered
|
Quote:
Quote:
Do you feel that God doesn´t exist, or do you have proof?
Which particular God?
Any.
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#270583 - 27/11/2005 21:34
Re: Their god less valid?
[Re: bonzi]
|
Anonymous
Unregistered
|
My point is that nobody has concrete scientific proof whether God exists or not. Whether or not you believe in any god, it´s based on your personal feelings.
I feel, like many christians, that the muslim god doesn´t exist, and you feel the same way. What´s the difference?
Edited by Billy (27/11/2005 21:40)
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#270584 - 27/11/2005 22:12
Re: Their god less valid?
[Re: ]
|
pooh-bah
Registered: 13/09/1999
Posts: 2401
Loc: Croatia
|
Do I have proof that anything and everything anyone can imagine does not exist!? Strange logic, no?
But as I said, this amounts to beating a dead horse. We are rehashing the samo old arguments....
_________________________
Dragi "Bonzi" Raos
Q#5196
MkII #080000376, 18GB green
MkIIa #040103247, 60GB blue
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#270585 - 27/11/2005 23:35
Re: Their god less valid?
[Re: bonzi]
|
Anonymous
Unregistered
|
Quote:
Do I have proof that anything and everything anyone can imagine does not exist!? Strange logic, no?
Then how do you know that God doesn´t exist? You only have faith that he doesn´t.
Quote:
But as I said, this amounts to beating a dead horse. We are rehashing the samo old arguments....
I dunno. I thought I just saw his eye twitch. I´m getting my 9 iron.
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#270586 - 28/11/2005 00:27
Re: Their god less valid?
[Re: ]
|
old hand
Registered: 01/10/2002
Posts: 1039
Loc: Fullerton, Calif.
|
Quote:
I feel, like many christians, that the muslim god doesn´t exist, and you feel the same way. What´s the difference?
Three Faiths, One God: Judaism, Christianity, Islam
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#270587 - 28/11/2005 02:41
Re: Their god less valid?
[Re: ]
|
addict
Registered: 23/12/2002
Posts: 652
Loc: Winston Salem, NC
|
Quote:
I feel, like many christians, that the muslim god doesn´t exist, and you feel the same way.
Actually, I believe the Muslim God exists. In fact, like Larry pointed out, I believe that Muslims, Christians, and Jews all worship the same God. Each faith has different ideas concerning the attributes of God, as well as the path to salvation. All three can't be right, of course, but that's a different discussion.
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#270588 - 28/11/2005 22:50
Re: Their god less valid?
[Re: ]
|
pooh-bah
Registered: 13/09/1999
Posts: 2401
Loc: Croatia
|
Quote:
Then how do you know that God doesn´t exist? You only have faith that he doesn´t.
Do I have a proof there isn't a monster under my bed? I don't, and neither do you, but I will bet you €20 that there isn't. Just a sec.... I looked: now I have a proof, there isn't. I won.
There in infinitely (as in cardinality of, say, real numbers, 2 to the power of aleph-zero) more things that don't exist than those that do. So, for any given apparently non-existing thing (that is, one that gives not a clue of its existence, and not even circumstantial evidence hints it might actuely be there somewhere) it is very practical to adopt a working hypothesis that is actually does not exist.
There is infinity of possible gods. By their very nature, they are mutualy exclusive. I see no evidence that any of them exist. Even if one of them does exist (and there can be only one god or at most one pantheon), probability for any given particular god to be the one is approaching zero. Therefore, I assume it is zero.
Look, if we don't make salami quickly out of this horse, it is going to spoil.
_________________________
Dragi "Bonzi" Raos
Q#5196
MkII #080000376, 18GB green
MkIIa #040103247, 60GB blue
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#270589 - 29/11/2005 02:34
Re: Their god less valid?
[Re: bonzi]
|
Anonymous
Unregistered
|
Quote:
Do I have a proof there isn't a monster under my bed? I don't, and neither do you, but I will bet you €20 that there isn't. Just a sec.... I looked: now I have a proof, there isn't. I won.
That is something that can be tested. It can be proved or disproved. You can´t do either regarding the existance of God.
Quote:
There are infinitely ... more things that don't exist than those that do. So, for any given apparently non-existing thing (that is, one that gives not a clue of its existence, and not even circumstantial evidence hints ...) it is very practical ... that it actually does not exist.
You´re using fuzzy math. You´re basically saying that if a branch falls in the woods and nobody is there to witness it and there is no evidence of it ever happening, then it doesn´t exist.
Besides, if you took a worldwide poll asking people if they believe in some sort of higher being, the result would be overwhelmingly in favor of it. I would say that counts as a "clue of its exitence".
Quote:
There is infinity of possible gods ... they are mutualy exclusive ... probability for any given particular god to be the one is approaching zero. Therefore, I assume it is zero.
There is an infinite number of outcomes for what will happen tomorrow on planet Earth. The probability of any given outcome actually occuring is also approaching zero. If you assume that it is zero, then that means no outcome for tomorrow exists, and sometime between now and tomorrow will be the end of the world. Assumptions make bad logic.
By the way, what are the odds of life forming and evolving on Earth after the Big Bang? Pretty close to zero I imagine.
Besides, the point of the possibility of God existing is that this higher being doesn´t play by the same rules as we do. Therefore you can´t use things like science, math, and human logic to describe, find, prove/disprove, or figure out God.
Imagine a stick figure that lives in a two-dimensional world trying to imagine three-dimensional space. It´s impossible. He can write theories about it and draw reflections of 3d cubes in 2d space, but he´ll never experience it.
Imagine how small a one-cell organism is and how small its comprehension is of its surroundings. Now think about how incredibly brilliant a dog is in comparison. Yet, a dog will never figure out things like atomic reactions, internal combustion engines, computer systems, or perhaps sometimes even simple stuff like levers, pulleys, and ball-fetching.
If dogs were at the top of the food chain, they´d be pretty cocky, too. Cause that´s what we are. Just cocky, arrogant, little humans, who think they know, or will eventually know, fuck-all about the universe and their existence. We understand concepts that a dog would never dream of, and dogs understand things that are impossible for single-celled organisms to comprehend. Imagine how we would appear to something many times smarter than we are. If there is a God that is infinitely more knowing than we are, what makes you think you´re capable of understanding his existence?
We´re just a tiny little speck on a planet, that occupies a miniscule speck in a solar system, that is an astronimically small speck in the universe. And we think we know every damned thing there is to know because we have a fancy telescope that sees pretty faraway colors. If fish could build periscopes they still wouldn´t know much about us.
And every single day that we humans collectively learn something new, the people that lived before us appear to have been more and more dumb. People from 1,000 years ago were simple minded, and those from 10,000 years ago even moreso. If you want to find out how little you know, take a time machine 300 years into the future.
A caveman would´ve been laughed at if he described his idea to build a computing machine, but here we are 10,000 years later and it sure as hell is possible. The laughing cavemen just had a closed mind and couldn´t believe that something far beyond their wildest dreams had the capability of existing.
Assuming that God doesn´t exist is just having a closed mind.
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#270590 - 29/11/2005 06:15
Re: Their god less valid?
[Re: ]
|
pooh-bah
Registered: 13/09/1999
Posts: 2401
Loc: Croatia
|
Quote:
That is something that can be tested. It can be proved or disproved.
OK, then under your bed. That's something I can't test. (But yes, the analogy was not very appropriate; FSM would serve better).
Quote:
The unseen branch thing
Not quite; I have personally experienced many branches and got credible accounts on lots of others. If I were to draw a very precise, to molecular level, picture of a branch and asked myself whether it exists, the answer would be "probably not, but similar ones do".
Quote:
Besides, if you took a worldwide poll asking people if they believe in some sort of higher being, the result would be overwhelmingly in favor of it. I would say that counts as a "clue of its exitence".
Countless different, incompatible and mutually exclusive higher beings, some being forgotten, others invented. This tells about humans and their desire for simple explanation of the world, for hope and comfort, or for cunning use of those needs in others in order to controll them; it tells me nothing about Universe. As you pointed out quite eloquently later in your post, cosmological questions are not decided by vote.
Quote:
By the way, what are the odds of life forming and evolving on Earth after the Big Bang? Pretty close to zero I imagine.
Oh, prety high, judging by very crude experiments on formation of organic molecules. Probability of evolution taking exactly the road it has or any other particular one is close to zero: little green men in Andromeda galaxy have little reason to believe that exactly these two chaps mentioning them in their argument exist (but we do, as you will be quick to point out).
Quote:
... the people that lived before us appear to have been more and more dumb.
On the contrary, they (say, from Cro-Manon onward, that is Homo Sapiens, not other Homo species) were every bit as ingenious as we are; perhaps even a bit more so, because with development of civilization evolutionary pressure weakens.
Quote:
Flatland and '2001: Space Odyssey' argument
Exactly. I think you are making my argument here. All "gods" I am hearing about are ridiculously anthropomorphic: two-dimensional beings describing two-dimensional gods; Arthur Clarke (in "Lost worlds of 2001" - bits and pieces that Kubrick rejected) describing civilization that gave us a push millions of years ago in full detail, completely with kids with toy ray-guns.*
You will find in my other posts on this topic (while the horse still kind of moved) that I am not dismissing in principle the idea of the Universe being created, or tuned. It is just that we cannot know anything about it**, so that postulating any particular scenario is completely arbitrary and irrelevant. While I cannot know our Universe wasn't created in the way Benford's Cosm or Brin's Earth describes, I could safely bet my life on it. (Actually, acording to most of today's prevalent religions, by choosing not to adopt "just in case" attitude towards existence of their gods I am betting my ethernal life, am I not?)
Cheers!
*) BTW, reading this was a major disappointment; Clarke completely missed the idea; obviously, the movie was more or less completely Kubrick's work.
**) Even if we found something like the image in Pi (from Sagan's Contact), it would still not be the proof of the Universe being created. Pi has infinite nmber of digits, so 'infinite number of mokeys' argument applies. But, of course, by 'we' I mean hunams as we are here and now. A million years from now, who knows?
_________________________
Dragi "Bonzi" Raos
Q#5196
MkII #080000376, 18GB green
MkIIa #040103247, 60GB blue
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#270591 - 29/11/2005 07:50
Re: Their god less valid?
[Re: ]
|
veteran
Registered: 01/10/2001
Posts: 1307
Loc: Amsterdam, The Netherlands
|
Quote:
Besides, if you took a worldwide poll asking people if they believe in some sort of higher being, the result would be overwhelmingly in favor of it. I would say that counts as a "clue of its exitence".
Considering all the research showing the psyclological and cultural need for humans to have some "greater power" to believe in as a safety blanket, I would take it as a very strong inventive to critically investigate any claims of existence of such an entity. Millions of people desperately wanting to believe something doesn't make it true. Millions of people also believed the earth was flat (and probably still do).
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#270592 - 29/11/2005 08:36
Re: Their god less valid?
[Re: ]
|
old hand
Registered: 20/07/1999
Posts: 1102
Loc: UK
|
Quote:
By the way, what are the odds of life forming and evolving on Earth after the Big Bang? Pretty close to zero I imagine.
Based on the available sample size, I'd have to go for odds of 100%
pca
_________________________
Experience is what you get just after it would have helped...
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#270593 - 29/11/2005 20:56
Re: Their god less valid?
[Re: wfaulk]
|
carpal tunnel
Registered: 14/01/2002
Posts: 2858
Loc: Atlanta, GA
|
I've been meaning to answer this particular post: Quote:
I notice that both you (Jeff) and Brad essentially base your claim that your God (Gods?) is correct on the fact that you feel that your version is right. I guess I just don't understand how either one of you can base your life on an assumption. I mean, there are certain things that I feel are inherent to my being, things that I feel that don't have any particular basis in rational thought, like an aversion to spiders or the desire to not kill or the desire to argue, etc. But I don't see these things as having been created by a supreme being (that is, I don't feel the necessity to anthropomorphize these feelings) but I just see them as parts of my personality as filtered through both evolution and experience.
Hmm. Do you view your personalities as having been created by God?
I think that you've gone down a pretty logical path toward the way I think about faith. We all make certain assumptions based on our experiences, but we don't know anything for sure. If we were properly skeptical about everything we didn't have absolute proof of, we'd end up like that guy in Hitchhiker's who is reduced to inactivity because he can't be sure if his recollection of what a pen or cat is is reliable.
We base our lives on assumptions all the time. We assume that everything we remember experiencing up until this point in time has really happened to us, we assume that the universe reacts the same way when given the same stimuli- it's those assumptions that allow us to operate reasonably. Do we know that nightfall will come tonight or the sun will rise again in the morning? Our science and recollections tell us so, but those could be faulty (Dark City, anyone?)
What we each try to do is make what we believe are the most reasonable assumptions based on what we've seen and experienced, and then base our lives on those things. Faith is one of those things for me.
And yes, I believe a large part of my personality is created by God. I also believe He sometimes uses events of this world to do it.
I suppose my return question would be, why follow things like a desire not to kill if it is only an evolutionary instinct? Not that I am trying to encourage that, but if given a situation where you could be sure of not being caught (no penalty for the act) where the positive benifit to you would outweigh your instictive feelings on the matter, would you commit murder then (and I mean murder, not self defense or anything like that)? Or is the instinct that strong that you are beholden to it even to your own detriment?
_________________________
-Jeff
Rome did not create a great empire by having meetings; they did it by killing all those who opposed them.
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#270594 - 29/11/2005 21:30
Re: Their god less valid?
[Re: JeffS]
|
carpal tunnel
Registered: 25/12/2000
Posts: 16706
Loc: Raleigh, NC US
|
Quote:
Or is the instinct that strong that you are beholden to it even to your own detriment?
For me, yes, absolutely. I can't imagine what it would take for me to kill something bigger than a fly, and even that takes a good amount of persuasion on my non-instinctive part. (And, yes, I am a complete hypocrite when it comes to meat.) That doesn't mean that those situations don't exist, only that I have not encountered them yet.
And it not only supersedes my personal wellbeing, but the wellbeing of others. Like those who I genuinely believe would be better off dead and support euthanasia for; I don't think I could ever pull the plug. I was part of putting a cat to sleep about two years ago and I'm still not over it: not the loss -- I all but hated that cat -- maybe the loss to Teri, but definitely the fact that I was part of choosing to kill it. I know that the cat was in terrible pain, but I still feel pain from choosing to kill it. I can't kill mice that our cats toy with, despite the fact that they're in so much pain. It's definitely an integral part of my being.
I think that other people have that instinct much less than I do. I think that it's a sliding variable that ends with psychopathic killers. (I also think that there are others at that point on the scale who don't have the initial desire to kill, but are equally psychopathic. I think a lot of politicians and other successful ambitious people fit that description.)
That said, is the worry of sinning (and earthly punishment) the only thing that prevents you from killing to your benefit?
_________________________
Bitt Faulk
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#270595 - 30/11/2005 02:09
Re: Their god less valid?
[Re: SE_Sport_Driver]
|
carpal tunnel
Registered: 06/10/1999
Posts: 2591
Loc: Seattle, WA, U.S.A.
|
Quote:
Grrr... I hate that!  I usually do a quick Select All/Copy of the text box before hitting submit now. I've been burned like that too many times!
I saw Tom's note about downrevving the board software. That was the only time I got bit.
Quote:
Patiently waiting for reply.
Hokay.
Quote:
You thrive on this stuff don't you?
Well, my fixation with such stuff on the BBS may appear little out of balance. It would not be proper or reasonable to raise some issues like this in a work environment. Friends? Well, they all agree with me, so what's the fun in posing this type of question to them? If I went door-to-door on a Saturday morning asking complete strangers about stuff like this, I couldn't live with myself. But on the BBS you can pose all sorts of opinions, hare-brained ideas and expect that people of many different viewpoints will offer responses that don't involve spitting, gunfire, or putting flaming bags of dog poop on your front steps. Unique, eh?
Quote:
To start off, I guess I disagree with a premise or two that this conversation is started on. First of all, just because someone thinks they know the "message" loud and clear does not in any way mean that they are correct. My wife can attest to this! So, despite the fact these guys are 100% sure "their God" hates homosexuals, that doesn't mean there isn't a huge "communication" problem here.
I think I said it before: three cheers for people in authority who aren't 100% sure what their god thinks. That being said, if a deity is capable (in theory) of creating the whole universe, suns, planets, continents, rivers, beaches, fossils, mitochondria, and can even set the wheels in motion to bring us musicals like "Mamma Mia" then that is pretty friggen' omnipotent. I would expect him/her/it to have plenty of spare cycles left for getting their message across. If WBC is 100% sure, maybe they just happen to be the only people whose transmission was not borken by sunspots (hmmm, sunspots, you'd think He would have his crew work on those).
Quote:
In fact, I'm not aware of the Christian God hating any group of people. Certain behaviors like homosexuality and me not honoring my mother and father might be frowned upon, but nothing to the point of hatred.
If (looking down the page) we just go with the notion that there is one god who has been adopted as the Christian God -- and it is the same Christian God who has been around for many years -- then it would seem like at various times his adherents were pretty damn sure he hated *lots* of different people. Enough to burn plenty of them at the stake, draw and quarter them, stuff like that.
It is my impression that it is your *desire* that the Christian God be of a type that it would not be an unreasonable hater. I'm just not sure what evidence you have for that that trumps the WBC types.
edit: it occurred to me whilst pedaling to work that using the term "desire" could be be interpreted to mean "desire to believe", meaning that you want to believe something (but maybe really don't). I don't want to say that you don't believe something. Not for me to say. How about I translate this something closer to "choose to believe"?
Quote:
More importantly however, I don't buy into the whole "my God" vs. "your God" thing. I don't think there is a Lutheran God, a Catholic God and a W3ztb0r0 B4pt1zt Church God. I'd even go so far as to say I don't believe in a Jewish God, a Christian God and a Islamic God. I believe that there is just one God and there happens to be ton of different interpretations of God. And many of those differences in interpretation happen to be driven by politics rather than idiology. (Does anyone really think the "Protestant vs. Catholic" conflict in Ireland was driven by hatred over Vatican control?)
The notion of "One God, many interpretations" seems like a pretty recent one. Is this liberal ecumenicalism? Among other things, it means the priest, the mullah and the rabbi can all go to the same pancake breakfast and make nice. This is no small thing and wasn't always so. I would say that ecumenicalistic acceptance of other faith beats the living pants off of theological blood feuds and mass murder.
So, three cheers for "One God, just many interpretations." But what makes it true?
Quote:
I've found that most Christians that I've talked to believe this as well. That Muslims, Jews and Christians are all praying to the same God. We just have very differant interpretations of God.
I think I was maybe 14 or 15 when I concluded that I was an atheist. My leap from the decks of the Ark of the Vatican was probably hastened by those scurrilous Jesuits who, in the interests of liberal ecumenicalism, brought a Buddhist monk into our Freshman religion class so we could get a dose of "One God, many interpretations". I thought "That's nice, but if everybody is saying how anybody's interpretation is just as good as the next guys -- yet they are all so different -- that doesn't lend much credence to any of them".
The monk shouldn't blame himself. I was going to jump anyway.
Quote:
So when I come across some group like your W3ztb0r0 B4pt1zts, I rarely ever try to understand them from a theological viewpoint. I know enough about Christianity to know their hatred must be rooted in something else. Their problem is very much rooted in a communication breakdown and is driven, IMO, by something unrelated.
Had I spit at them or abused them in some way, I truly think they would have been thrilled. My my, how some people get their jollies. And while I'd like to think that any supreme being (if one day I am surprised to find that one exists) would not be such an asshole as to sponsor that bunch of jerks, I still have to ask, wishful thinking aside, how do we *know* they are tuned to the wrong station, god-wise?
Quote:
The same could be said for the suicide bombers in Islam. They pray to the same God as more peace loving Muslims, but they are being driven by an outside force (politics, what have you) and are being exploited by people that feed off of that hatred in order to gain power.
I agree that many other things other than straight theological principle feeds the actions of people we consider extreme. I mean, look at Jimmy Swaggert. Does that dude have some bad juju goin' on or *what*?
More to your point, I guess you could say that one reason reason I brought WBC zealots up is that, I think, they are a small domestic representation of the issue without getting into the politics of jihad, radical Islamists all that (and without mentioning Nazis, abortion, or Bush).
Quote:
So, like I said, rather than look at this in a theological way, I tend to look at it in a psyological or sociological way. Most homophobes I know have severe insecurities. I bet their wives can attest to that.
They almost never post, but just lurk here
Edited by jimhogan (30/11/2005 13:52)
_________________________
Jim
'Tis the exceptional fellow who lies awake at night thinking of his successes.
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#270596 - 30/11/2005 05:01
Re: Their god less valid?
[Re: ]
|
carpal tunnel
Registered: 13/02/2002
Posts: 3212
Loc: Portland, OR
|
Quote:
Quote:
There is infinity of possible gods ... they are mutualy exclusive ... probability for any given particular god to be the one is approaching zero. Therefore, I assume it is zero.
There is an infinite number of outcomes for what will happen tomorrow on planet Earth. The probability of any given outcome actually occuring is also approaching zero. If you assume that it is zero, then that means no outcome for tomorrow exists, and sometime between now and tomorrow will be the end of the world.
Just because the probability of any particular outcome happening is effectively zero, you cannot say, therefore, that there will be no outcome. The end of the world's existance is only a single outcome of the infinitely possible outcomes. There are far more outcomes that do not involve the end of the world, so, while the probability of any particular outcome happening is near zero, the probability of the earth continuing to exist is actually significantly high (1 - the sum of the probabilities of events happening which cause the end of the world).
What I understood bonzi to be saying when he says "I assume it is zero", is that he assumes the probability of any particular god is zero, so he's not going to believe that the Christian god exists, nor is he going to believe that the Islamic god exists, nor is he going to believe that the Greek pantheon exists.
Similarly, he's not going to believe in any particular outcome of what will happen on Earth tomorrow, because any single outcome of the infinite outcomes has an effectively-zero probability of happening. However, he probably will believe that the earth will continue to exist.
Quote:
Assuming that God doesn´t exist is just having a closed mind.
No more so than assuming that God does exist. Further, either of those assumptions may have been arrived at through a quite open-minded investigation.
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#270597 - 30/11/2005 11:32
Re: Their god less valid?
[Re: ]
|
pooh-bah
Registered: 25/08/2000
Posts: 2413
Loc: NH USA
|
Quote:
You´re using fuzzy math.
Damn, where did I put my theological trigonometry book? I keep losing these things.
-Zeke
_________________________
WWFSMD?
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#270598 - 30/11/2005 13:12
Re: Their god less valid?
[Re: jimhogan]
|
carpal tunnel
Registered: 25/12/2000
Posts: 16706
Loc: Raleigh, NC US
|
Quote:
My leap from the decks of the Ark of the Vatican was probably hastened by those scurrilous Jesuits who, in the interests of liberal ecumenicalism, brought a Buddhist monk into our Freshman religion class so we could get a dose of "One God, many interpretations".
Notably, Buddhists don't believe in a god. Well, they may believe in some supernatural beings, but none of them fill the role we traditionally ascribe to a god: creator of the universe, etc.
_________________________
Bitt Faulk
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#270599 - 30/11/2005 14:00
Re: Their god less valid?
[Re: wfaulk]
|
carpal tunnel
Registered: 06/10/1999
Posts: 2591
Loc: Seattle, WA, U.S.A.
|
Quote:
Notably, Buddhists don't believe in a god. Well, they may believe in some supernatural beings, but none of them fill the role we traditionally ascribe to a god: creator of the universe, etc.
That was part of the Jesuits' evil genius, I think. We had at least one other monk/priest of some sort, IIRC, but it's that guy's robes that stuck in my mind!
So, 14 years old and I'm probably thinking "So you can have this *huge* religion with no real God of note". For a brief while I think I considered that to be a cool, low-impact alternative. Ditto Unitarianism. But then I decided that the whole mess was just completely arbitrary and figured there were better things to do on Sunday mornings.
_________________________
Jim
'Tis the exceptional fellow who lies awake at night thinking of his successes.
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#270600 - 30/11/2005 14:13
Re: Their god less valid?
[Re: jimhogan]
|
carpal tunnel
Registered: 14/01/2002
Posts: 2858
Loc: Atlanta, GA
|
Quote:
The notion of "One God, many interpretations" seems like a pretty recent one. Is this liberal ecumenicalism?
Sometimes, sometimes not. It really depends on the perspective of the person making the statement and what he or she means by "One God" or the "Same God".
A liberal interpretation would take the standpoint that there are many roads to God and as long as you follow a reasonable one sincerely then you'll do OK. I think this is a popular notion today, but it really doesn't float for me. It only really works if you boil each religious system down to a set of rules to appease God, and while that might be a popular understanding of religion in general, it isn't consistent with very many of them- especially Christianity.
However, "Same God" terminology might not mean that all systems are viewed equally. Rather it can mean that various religious traditions share a common root but on key points they differ. A prime example of this would be Judaism, Christianity, and Islam. Christianity believes that Judaism had the truth but didn't accept the Savior when He came and died of our sins. We both, however, believe in the "Same God" of the Old Testament. Muslims believe in same God as well and accept Jesus as a prophet, not Savior. So what you have is a sense that all three religions believe in the "Same God" because they share common text that they all agree upon, however each ascribes some different characteristics to that God. In this sense (and really, I believe, the most important sense), these faiths do not share the “Same God”.
Really for me it comes down to a matter of semantics. There are Christians who will never agree that Muslims worship the same God, and those who insist we do. For me it's kind of a moot point since we disagree on the most important aspect- Christ as Savior. We can use whatever terminology we like, but on that point the two religions are irreconcilable.
_________________________
-Jeff
Rome did not create a great empire by having meetings; they did it by killing all those who opposed them.
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#270601 - 30/11/2005 14:36
Re: Their god less valid?
[Re: wfaulk]
|
carpal tunnel
Registered: 14/01/2002
Posts: 2858
Loc: Atlanta, GA
|
Quote:
That said, is the worry of sinning (and earthly punishment) the only thing that prevents you from killing to your benefit?
You know, I'm not sure, really. I can say for certainty that there are lesser sins that I've not committed only because of my faith. Like you, I have a strong adversity to killing. Even killing bugs makes me uncomfortable.
I think, though, that if I had no faith and were faced with such a situation, not committing the murder would be an irrational act, even if I might not do it on the basis of instinct. At that point I'd have to evaluate why I adhere to my instincts so greatly without a rational reason to do so. Without faith, the only rational acts are those that make my life better and bring me happiness. Acts that put others ahead of myself are not rational- while they might bring greater happiness into the world, what is my motivation for doing that except for the instinctive rewards that make me feel good when I make others happy?
I think that were I not a person of faith then I would likely start with some of my smaller instincts that don't directly benefit me and try to overcome them. If you assume that evolution is responsible for a lot of our instincts (rather than being put there by God), then it makes little personal sense to adhere to them and put the greater good ahead of yourself.
And before you write this off as crazy, I think a lot of people do exactly what I’m suggesting. They won’t jump right to murder, but they’ll start eroding their instincts (God or evolution given) to the point they don’t feel badly anymore even when they act badly. Given enough time it seems we are capable of just about anything. For me, faith is what keeps me from even trying to overcome even the smallest instinctive moral reactions. I pray and work very hard at being the person God created me to be, because it is right and good and I want to be that person.
_________________________
-Jeff
Rome did not create a great empire by having meetings; they did it by killing all those who opposed them.
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#270602 - 30/11/2005 14:51
Re: Their god less valid?
[Re: JeffS]
|
carpal tunnel
Registered: 25/12/2000
Posts: 16706
Loc: Raleigh, NC US
|
I don't expect people intentionally erode their instincts, though. I mean, there are people who will work to fix their fear of spiders or flying or whatever, but I don't think there are people out there who intentionally work themselves up to killing people. Well, outside the military. That doesn't mean that it doesn't happen as a result of something else. I can certainly believe that there are petty criminals who slowly work up to being murderers as their qualms wear away. But (and I'm probably wrong) I read what you said as someone doing it intentionally.
There are definite frequent benefits to overcoming some of those instincts, whereas I can't see the frequent benefits of overcoming the aversion to killing that would come at a point where you hadn't already overcome it, unless you're in the mob or the military.
What I'm getting at is that I don't see a reason that someone would start down that road. Their instincts would tell them not to, unless those instincts aren't there to begin with, in which case no "progress" is necessary.
_________________________
Bitt Faulk
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#270603 - 30/11/2005 15:52
Re: Their god less valid?
[Re: wfaulk]
|
carpal tunnel
Registered: 14/01/2002
Posts: 2858
Loc: Atlanta, GA
|
Quote:
But (and I'm probably wrong) I read what you said as someone doing it intentionally.
Right and wrong- what I'm saying is that people do it unintentionally all the time. For me personally thought, if I didn't have faith to hold me to my instincts I would probably try to work to overcome a lot of them. I doubt I'd ever make it up to murder because my instincts are too strong. However, I'd view that as irrational, even if I couldn't do it. Of course, this is completely hypothetical. I can't imagine myself being that person because it is so different than who I am. The only thing I know for certain is that my faith (for the most part) keeps me from knowingly allowing the errosion of even the smallest of moral instints.
Quote:
What I'm getting at is that I don't see a reason that someone would start down that road.
If a person logically evaluates that a life lived without the constraints of moral instinct would be more rewarding, that would certainy be a reason to start down that road.
This whole concept would make an interesting idea for a novel or movie, don't you think? Someone intentionally trying to errode away their moral instincts to make for a better, more self serving life?
_________________________
-Jeff
Rome did not create a great empire by having meetings; they did it by killing all those who opposed them.
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#270604 - 30/11/2005 16:16
Re: Their god less valid?
[Re: JeffS]
|
carpal tunnel
Registered: 25/12/2000
Posts: 16706
Loc: Raleigh, NC US
|
Actually, that does sound like an interesting idea for a movie. Maybe we could get David Fincher to direct.
_________________________
Bitt Faulk
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#270605 - 30/11/2005 22:02
Re: Their god less valid?
[Re: ]
|
carpal tunnel
Registered: 08/07/1999
Posts: 5549
Loc: Ajijic, Mexico
|
Billy -- You have redeemed youself with this post. I actually was half way through it and had to scroll back to the top to verify that it really was you. That said... By the way, what are the odds of life forming and evolving on Earth after the Big Bang? Pretty close to zero I imagine.
Let's arbitrarily postulate that the odds against life forming and evolving are, oh, pick a number: say 800 trillion to one against. That's a one in 800,000,000,000,000 chance. Pretty slim odds, wouldn't you say? Well, there are by recent estimates about 10,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 stars in the universe. If one in every 800 trillion of those stars had life forming and evolving, that would leave about one and a quarter billion places where it happened. And wherever it happened would be "here" to the beings involved, and they would wonder if the odds favored it happening anywhere else. People from 1,000 years ago were simple minded, and those from 10,000 years ago even moreso.Absolutely not so!. In terms of intelligence and reasoning ability, they were every bit as smart as we are. I guarantee you that there were people a thousand yeares ago that would put your intellect to shame. (This is not meant as a slam -- they would shame me too.) The difference is, of course, that we "modern" humans have a much larger storehouse of knowledge (knowledge contributed in great measure by those "simple minded" people you disparage) upon which to base our reasoning. Sir Isaac Newton said it best when he said, "If I have seen further than other men, it is because I have stood on the shoulders of giants." tanstaafl.
_________________________
"There Ain't No Such Thing As A Free Lunch"
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#270606 - 01/12/2005 11:33
Re: Their god less valid?
[Re: tanstaafl.]
|
Anonymous
Unregistered
|
I don´t have time to respond to everyone, but I just wanted to say a couple things.
Quote:
In terms of intelligence and reasoning ability, they were every bit as smart as we are. ...there were people a thousand yeares ago that would put your intellect to shame. (This is not meant as a slam -- they would shame me too.) The difference is, of course, that we "modern" humans have a much larger storehouse of knowledge ... upon which to base our reasoning.
I agree. I was also thinking along the same lines and even the Newton quote came to mind when I wrote that. I guess my point was that we don´t know everything there is to know, particularly about our existence, and future generations will view us as simple and unknowledgable. So even brilliant people shouldn´t be so sure about what they ´know´.
It´s interesting though how out of all of the species on earth, humans are the only ones that consistently increase their knowledge through each generation. And at this rate, sooner or later, humans will know everything there is to know, assuming that the universe is finite. And it´s interesting to note that how in the Bible, Adam and Eve ate from the garden of knowledge, and the snake told them that they would become like God and that they would know everything that God knows. We are also the only creatures on Earth that appear to worship a god, and the only ones to be ashmed of nudity.
Quote:
If one in every 800 trillion of those stars had life forming and evolving, that would leave about one and a quarter billion places where it happened.
So if we can assume that we live on one of 1.25 billion inhabited planets, then we can also assume that it´s a 1 in 1.25 billion chance that we are the most advanced life form. That´s pretty slim odds, so chances are there are creatures much more intelligent than us, which might mean they could teach us about our existence as well as we could teach a dog how an internal combustion engine works.
But, like you pointed out, there´s a difference between intelligence and knowledge. So perhaps these super intelligent creatures don´t possess the uniquely-human ability to build upon knowledge from generation to generation.
They say there´s a very small difference (like 2% difference I believe), between the chimpanzee brain and the human brain. I wonder if a human who lived in isolation from other humans his whole life (therefore not gaining any handed-down knowledge) would be any smarter than a chimpanzee. And this is the main reason why I think the disappointing books and movies about Tarzan are so damned unrealistic.
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#270607 - 01/12/2005 21:36
Re: Their god less valid?
[Re: wfaulk]
|
pooh-bah
Registered: 13/09/1999
Posts: 2401
Loc: Croatia
|
Le Mouton enragé touches somewhat on that theme.
_________________________
Dragi "Bonzi" Raos
Q#5196
MkII #080000376, 18GB green
MkIIa #040103247, 60GB blue
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#270608 - 01/12/2005 22:54
Re: Their god less valid?
[Re: bonzi]
|
carpal tunnel
Registered: 25/12/2000
Posts: 16706
Loc: Raleigh, NC US
|
I suppose Crime and Punishment does, too, somewhat. Sounds like an interesting movie, though.
_________________________
Bitt Faulk
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#270609 - 02/12/2005 02:49
Re: Their god less valid?
[Re: wfaulk]
|
carpal tunnel
Registered: 14/01/2002
Posts: 2858
Loc: Atlanta, GA
|
Quote:
I suppose Crime and Punishment does, too, somewhat.
I actually thought of that right after I posted.
_________________________
-Jeff
Rome did not create a great empire by having meetings; they did it by killing all those who opposed them.
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
|
Previous Topic
Index