The Big Big Thread of Religious Discussion

[Azisien]

Originally Posted by Darth SS

I mean, look at it likes this.

"So I created the universe. Then I decided what is good, I.E. what I want. Except, when I created it, I knew that one of my favorite angels was going to turn on me and do everything that I didn't want. I could've stopped anything bad from happening, but I decided it's more honorable to let them do what they want regardless of how many people he may hurt. So then I made the earth. Now, I made these things called humans. They are my mostest favoritest things on the whole planet."

Now, his message to humans.

"So, you have to acknowledge that I am completely awesome. You must praise me almost constantly, and you should do your best to get other people to praise me. If not, I'm going to let someone torture you horribly forever. Oh, and by the way, my rival, Satan, is going to offer you everything that you find good. I'm also going to stand by and do nothing as you all suffer terrible horrible fates that I knew were going to happen. Some people claiming to represent me will then tell you that if you read a book that is totally incomprehensible and tell me how awesome I am, and ask for me to help you which I probably won't do because I want to test you, you'll feel less sad about the terrible things that I watch on my TiVO."


Well, either a complete wuss or he has a MASSIVE ego.


Did I miss anything?

I think I'm breaking a personal bylaw here by coming to religion's defense, but, this is at least a little Straw Man, no?

[Darth SS]

I'm paraphrasing what we've been told by other people in this thread, albeit in a cynical fashion.

However, I think the ego thing is justified though. I mean, He supposedly wants us to do good stuff. Except, no matter how much good stuff we do, we ultimately have to acknowledge that He is "awesome" or we get tortured for all eternity.


I mean, according to the rest of this thread I'm going to go to hell because I choose to do good for the sake of doing good. When I die, I damn well don't care if God wants to me to acknowledge him because everything I've done has been my own initiative. Furthermore, I admit I've done bad things, but I don't feel bad or feel the need to be forgiven by a higher power. I want the people I wronged to forgive, otherwise I just want to balance the "good and bad" scale by doing more good.

Everything in this thread has said that because I won't acknowledge some high power, regardless of what I've done, I'm going to hell.

Hence, massive ego.

[Bob The Mercenary]

Originally Posted by Darth SS

Everything in this thread has said that because I won't acknowledge some high power, regardless of what I've done, I'm going to hell.

Well, if you're referring to Christianity...yeah, that's about it.

[Demetrius]

Darth,
Sounds like you have spent time thinking about and establishing your beliefs! I don't agree with them, but I respect you for making a reasoned conscious choice.

(EDITED FOR AZISIEN and humor) See you in hell! And may the white unicorn be with you all of your days!! :p

[Darth SS]

Believe me, you have no idea how refreshing it is to hear that.

[Azisien]

Originally Posted by Demetrius

Darth,
Sounds like you have spent time thinking about and establishing your beliefs! I don't agree with them, but I respect you for making a reasoned conscious choice.

No no, at the very end you're supposed to say 'See you in Hell!'

:p

Aw come on, Azi needs to have some fun too.

[POS Industries]

Originally Posted by Demetrius

Yup, it was what he had in mind, hence tithing, christian relief organizations, youth groups and church volunteering. I have spent several summers helping rebuild/repair homes for people who couldn't afford it asking nothing in return.

Well, then it appears that you've got the right idea and I salute you. Carry on.

Originally Posted by Bob the Mercenary

I guess the point is that, our time on this planet is, what, 60-80 years? Heaven is eternity. Christians tend to put that ahead of the problems they face now, which makes it seem like it gives us a reason to stop thinking.

Which is my whole problem with the idea. See, it promotes too much "Well, I go to church every sunday and have a guy read the Bible at me and tell me what he thinks it means, so that makes me right. I'm going to heaven no matter how much of an asshole I am" type of thinking (or non-thinking, rather). It's selfish and completely against what their chosen savior made clear that he wanted. And sure, in the grand scope of eternity, 60-80 years isn't very impressive, but it's a very long time while you're living it. We wouldn't be here if God wanted us to just accept Jesus and wait for death, or yammer on incessantly about how they've accepted Jesus and everyone else should, too, while they wait for death.

Of course, the waiting for death thing explains all those people with "We Still Pray" stickers on their cars who are always cutting me off in traffic without putting their signal on....

[Demetrius]

Which is my whole problem with the idea. See, it promotes too much "Well, I go to church every sunday and have a guy read the Bible at me and tell me what he thinks it means, so that makes me right. I'm going to heaven no matter how much of an asshole I am" type of thinking (or non-thinking, rather). It's selfish and completely against what their chosen savior made clear that he wanted. And sure, in the grand scope of eternity, 60-80 years isn't very impressive, but it's a very long time while you're living it. We wouldn't be here if God wanted us to just accept Jesus and wait for death, or yammer on incessantly about how they've accepted Jesus and everyone else should, too, while they wait for death.

Ah yes, the church itself... can I just say that that is an amazing summation of what is called stagnated faith. It is something that is very unfortunate and does happen. It also leads to divisions in the church (I am speaking of the actual gathering) and people leaving the churches in disgust. The fellowship that I have been a part of is formed by a group of people in our area who have left other churches for this reason and attempt to live out a 'living' or active faith.

[Tydeus]

(this does go somewhere, trust me)

Nietzsche, in his final fit of expression just after his mental breakdown in Turin in 1889, wrote a series of letters, which progressively become a portrait of madness.

In one of them, he declares, "In the end, I would much rather be a Basel professor [He once was a professor at Basel University in Switzerland] than God; but I have not dared push my private egoism so far as to desist for its sake from the creation of the world. You see, one must make sacrifices, however and wherever one lives."

Strange, and humorous, in a sordid way, that Nietzcshe's onset of madness corresponds with a sudden declaration of his own divinity (this pervades all the letters). Ultimately though, consistent with his views, in a way.

A biography of Nietzsche is in many ways a chronicling of loss and lonliness. There were many things at first that tied him to others, beginning of course as child with his family and their faith, but these quickly slipped away. After serving as a medical orderly in the Franco-Prussian War, Nietzsche lost his health. In Wagner, he had an idol and then friend, and some of his happiest years were when this relationship still existed. Ultimately, though, Nietzsche had to break it, when Wagner's anti-Semitism and jingoism became more than personal views, but political stances as Wagner himself gained influence. Further, Wagner himself had tendency to use Nietzsche to his own benefit, rather than to Nietzcshe's. Thus, an already highly individual, intellectual man was betrayed and shattered, and links to others were gradually cut. He met a woman, Lou Salomé, in whom he found perhaps his only true confidant, with whom he was able to share everything of his philosophy. Ultimately, though, she was far less interested in Nietzsche than he was in her, and they parted ways after a brief friendship.

By this time, Nietzsche had already resigned from his professorship, and lived alone in cramped apartments off of a small pension. His hopeful companion and protegé departed, his academic work relinquished, his health taken, his friend exposed a traitor, Nietzsche was left with little other than himself.

He proceeded to become exceedingly prolific, although at expense to his health. He would write ten hours a day, despite coughing up blood, debilitating headaches, and intense insomnia, which he attempted to remedy with opiates.

In short, Nietzchse lived quite alone, and spent the vast majority of his time in his own mind. Those few he had looked to as equals, or companions, at least kindred spirits, were gone. As an Overman, who would look down from the highest peaks on humanity, so did Nietzcshe elevate himself, seperate himself, as he was called to do by his intellectual integrity, and his self-sufficiency.

And in the end, what is insanity, but the ultimate solitude, unable to communicate one's mind to any other? And so it is amusing, and fitting, that Nietzsche should have asserted (though admittedly, with some bitterness and irony) his divinity as his sanity was lost, his final possession stolen.

I say this, knowing myself Nietzsche's experiences -- the early ones. I worry that I am surely treading down a similar path to solitude, and all the time it seems reinforced. Anyway, what I have noticed, as I have grown calloused and solitary, is the mountaintop perspective, from which I view most others, that self-elevation that Nietzsche wrote of as characteristic of the Overman, and was characteristic of himself.

In order to climb to such heights, one must abandon ties to the ground, and those who dwell there. And in being above, or superior, one must grow cold and solitary, otherwise being unable to make that climb.

And so would God be the lonliest, most wretched creature to ever exist. No wonder that such a being would toy with us so callously, would present us with mad choices and punish us with eternal suffering -- after all, to God, eternal suffering would be his own experience as an utterly solitary being. So elevated, so superior, as to be unkowable to any other entity. Imagine the staggering lonliness of it, to be unable to share yourself fully with anyone, and to experience that for eternity? Surely, I would lose any compassion and humanity which may yet temper my actions.

And, though to the religious believer, God may dictate objective and absolute purpose, meaning, and morality, what dictates such things to God? Is God's infinite power somehow inextricably bound to purpose? What purpose could God find for himself, in his miserable solitude? God has no trouble following his own laws -- they are his creations, and extensions of himself. He could never fail in upholding them, for he and they are the same, correct?

But why would God find meaning and purpose in simply being what he naturally is? That which he is not required to strive for, even in the slightest? Essentially, the Christian God merely asserts himself as the absolute, the measure of all things. Why would he ever think himself to be that template of perfection? Merely because of his power, or intellect? And how pointless, how meaningless would it be, to provide onself as a template to beings which are utterly incapable of truly living up to that template, let alone understanding he who embodies it.

It would be as though one of us would try to command ants to perform as we do, and to declare ourselves as the objective perfection to all antkind. Would we really have such a reason to do so? Would we find purpose or satisfaction or meaning or morality in it? Or would it be but diversion? Would it still be solitude?

Morality is only ever "objective" or "absolute" when it comes from without, specifically from a higher, superior source. But if God has no equal, let alone superior or higher counterpart, then is he not without objective morality for himself? After all, his template is born of himself, and to him, that could never seem objective.

Loose ends:

I don't see how knowing the future cannot violate the idea of free will. If free will hinges upon choice, and if God knows what choices we will make, and if God is never wrong, then God knows long before we even exist exactly how we will behave, and to behave in any other manner would be to disprove God's knowledge of events. Therefore, we are bound by the correctness of God to act in the way that God expects us to. We merely perceieve the illusion of free will, in such a situation. We might think we have a choice, but God already knows it, and cannot be proved wrong. Therefore, his knowledge cannot be overturned, and our choices are predestined.

If God knows that we will, say, steal a certain purse, when we are on a certain day presented with an opportunity to do so (I say "certain" to be clear that I mean a specific hypothetical, that is, not of being generally predisposed to purse-snatching, but that God knows we will take this specific purse on this specific day, because he has already seen it), how could we ever make the other choice? That would provde God's knowledge to be incomplete.

I suppose the only counter-argument to offer is that God knows our decision only after we make it, in the future, or something? But then we have a God who exists in all times at once, and a non-linear idea of time. And then we, at a given instant, would be coexisting with ourselves at all other instants throughout our life. Of course, this would mean infinite selves, which is awkward certainly, but it would also mean that we are not one single being progressing through time, but rather simply a succession of beings, each one bound to his own instant. And each one remembers the ones that dwell to the "before" of him (much as one would dwell to the north or south) as being part of himself, so the illusion is maintained. Each instant self is perfectly unchanging for all eternity.

If God knows our choices because he exists in all times, we therfore have non-linear time. God is distinctly unique in such a scenario because he is somehow able to transmit information between his instantaneous selves (or somehow exists "outside of time" whatever the hell that means), and remain a whole, unified, progressive being. Meanwhile we are but predestined particle conglomerations playing out to prescripted actions that our non-linear God has already seen and known as inevitable since the beginning of the universe.

I really don't see how free will and a knowable future are compatible.

Further, if God knew that Adam and Eve would eat of the tree -- betraying God -- before he even made them, why would he make them, if he already knew how such an endeavor would end? Or at least, wouldn't he remove the tree? But of course, then Adam and Eve wouldn't have eaten of the tree, and God's knowledge of the event would then correspond to their obedience, which in turn eliminates the need for God to retroactively fix the problem of obedience, because futre God would never have relayed to past God what Adam and Eve were to do, and so past God would have made the tree, as that was apparently the original design. But, then, Adam and Eve would have eaten of the tree to future God's knowledge, and he would inform past God, and so we have a paradox.

So, either, we have not free will, or God does not know the future. Otherwise, we presented with the kind of paradoxes of causality that tend to appear sci-fi films. If God does not know the future, he still must answer for providing us with these extremely difficult choices. Why put the tree in the Garden of Eden in the first place? If it had the potential to ruin his creations, could he not have left it out of creation? Or if he were truly dead-set on it, could he not have placed it on some other world in the vast universe?

Similarly, instead of making us choose between believing in God, or going to hell, why would he not simply reveal himself, and make the choice a matter of plain fact, so that none of his "children" have to suffer eternally? Or why not make the consequences of not believing far less severe, since he is, after all, the one who makes it a point of choice in the first place.

Even if our decision on whether or not to believe in God is our own, the fact that we must make such a choice in the first place is God's doing. He could easily remove that choice from among the innumerable burdens that his children must bear, and thus prevent any of them from facing a fate of hellfire, and all this without ever actually infringing on the freedom of our wills.

[Nique]

Originally Posted by Archbio

I think they don't object to free will so much as they object to the idea of Hell.

But I do find that there's a lot of problems with the idea of a god creating free will, then arranging for two possible fates: do what it says or suffer an eternity of torture.

Krylo mentioned the word 'Gehenna', which many assume to be a much more literal analogy to the condition of the dead than it is. This is just one of the many reasons, both from the bible, and from rational thinking, that makes me not belive in the doctrine of hellfire.

As far as predestination... I don't know. That makes some assumptions about how time actually works, and the nature of God's 'forethought'. Does he see possibilitys, or the actual outcome? Or is he merely so intuitive so as to see with 100% accuracy the future? I don't know, but he obviously doesn't use whatever ability he has to infringe on our induvidual free will, minus actually interacting with us, if ever.

As to the issue of God's control and free will etc... I guess what I'm having a hard time understanding from the agnostic viewpoint, is why God wouldn't subject himself to his own rules? What I mean by that, is that, by and large, it seems like the argument is, 'well, if god is, he should just fix things instantaniously, and just make us worship him'.

I mean, we've got an issue of rebellion, ostensibly (sp?) in Eden... and instead of crushing the opposition, he says 'Ok. I'm giving you a good long amount of time to prove your case - you, as reps of the human family, want life dissconnected from me. I mean, I could just tell you what's going to happen, but 1) in addition to the idea that I have no right to rule, I've also been accused of being a liar, so this gives you some proof that things are better when I'm involved and 2) this establishes a precident for my relationship with humans after I fix things, which, just so you know, I'm totally going to do'.

To me, that just seems fair. As to punishment / reward, well... I mean, I don't know how frightening the idea of unconciousness in death is to a person who has already ruled out any possibility of religion in their lives, but I guess when the bible says that the dead are concious of nothing at all... I just dont know if that's much of a punishment, really. It's really more about love of god and the reward as an incentive than morbid fear, for me, then, becuase I don't belive in hell.

Of course, this is just a dictionary. And not all dictionaries have carried the same meanings. I'm also not sure if I have called it a religion yet, I think I called it a Doctrine

The way you seemed to intend it was to equate it with religious doctrine. That's an apples and oranges situation if ever there was.

My point, Nique, wasn't the motivator. Even if religion was the motivation, the point is that only reason produces results.

Then your comparision is just as flawed as calling atheism a religion. Science and religion are two totally different things except in a very vaugue definition.

Religion is a platform through which to worship a higher power, and following that to answer the 'why' of exsistance with varying amounts of credibility towards that end, I'll admit. Science provides us with a technical knowlege about how things work. Religion CAN'T, and never claimed to bring us the modern wonder of things like Toothbrushes.

Religion has done a lot of harm, so no one is arguing that. But, esspecially on an induvidual level, many people find a great deal of personal fullfilment in having (or beliving they have) a relationship with God. Even if it doesn't amount to complete altruism when it comes to acting on that relationship, I don't think that diminishes humanitarian efforts or technilogical advancement done under it's banner. I mean, can you tell me that all secular efforts to assist hurricane victims and the like aren't motivated at least partly by a desire to be viewed in a positive light? To make themselves feel good? If I told you that I was raising 5 million dollars to fund AIDs research, would you ridicule me for advertising it, claiming that I was only doing it to look good?

Yes such efforts exsist outside of religion, but if it acts as a partial motivator, provides sense of morality that doesn't infringe on the rights of others... I mean, we're talking about defending religion in it's beneficial applications, not this overarching 'anything goes becuase it's religion'.

Anyway, Ty ninja'd me with a novel, so I'm going to be reading for the next 6 hours it looks like.