The Big Big Thread of Religious Discussion

[Loki, The Fallen]

Locke, I can't prove Europe exists right now. I've never been there. I can't even prove beyond a reasonable doubt that anyone else on this forum (Except Demetrius, as he is currently sitting in the desk I used to occupy) exists. I have yet to meet them. I have not set foot in thier house. All I see are post which could quite possibly be written by a random computer program.

I mean, with the advent of image editing technology, software programs, and other means of shaping someone's 'truth', I would have a hard time even proving who the president was. Could not all of this be some sort of crazy game the people in the black helicopters play on us, letting us think we know the 'truth'? Of course, this is all the conspiricy theorist way of seeing things.

I myself am probibly going to prove Japan exists soon, but perhaps it's just an illusion. Ah well, it'll be a fun illusion at least.

Redundancy, I'm sure we'll see more of it too. We're at 19 pages, I don't think everyone who visits this thread will re-read every post, so we will see more of this. And as has been argued by other people, things are done in many peoples/theories name. I'll try to let other people take that, as I have enough arguments on my plate right now.

Getting close to quitting time for me, the night shift will take over.
Down with your Infidel Pink Unicorn!

-Edited only because I was really on page 19, not 18-

[Archbio]

Loki,

To imply that since nothing (besides "I think therefore something exists") has an absolute level of certainty allows one to say that everything has an equal level of certainty is a non sequitur.

And, I might add, is very corrosive to any understanding of the world.

[Loki, The Fallen]

Loki,

To imply that since nothing (besides "I think therefore something exists") has an absolute level of certainty allows one to say that everything has an equal level of certainty is a non sequitur.

I really don't think it is. The existance of something is questioned, because one cannot experiance it. I'm simpy trying to make the point that many things cannot be proven easily, or quickly, to everyone, because not everyone can experiance it, and the fact that data is quite easily corruptable makes it even more difficult. Like wikipedia, anyone can edit things and make reality appear as they wish, unless one is THERE and experiancing it.

And I think it's healthy, keeps peoples brains working, helps them question the ideas they hold dear, and maybe steel the resolve of those who may waver from thier ideals. Keeps people 'on thier toes' if you will.

Ack, I'm doing it again! Must... drag...self...from...forum...
The White Unicorn (Blessed be her Hovves) be with you!

[Demetrius]

*Kicks Loki outta his chair* "The night shift has arrived!!"

Originally Posted by BRS

I'm basing this off of Jesus giving the keys to the gates of heaven to St. Peter. And I speculate that St. Peter may have a say in who is let in, being the "gatekeeper" to heaven per say.

Ok, this would be one of those pet peeves of mine concerning organized religion, specifically Catholics... READ THE BIBLE!!! Where the heck do you get that crap from? Peter is asked to continue in the Great Commission, he isn't given any divine priviledge or made the mouth piece of GOD.

For the second sentance...Uh no. Your admittance to heaven is based on one thing (going by the Bible as the Word of GOD here) and one thing only, the acceptance of Jesus.

Also where the heck do you get off adding purgatory, a place where your half ass bullshit in life can be paid off by your relatives by check or charge to the catholic church. The catholic church is no longer a religous entity, but a political/ money machine, man has corrupted that horribly.

FREE WILL/ OMNISCIENCE/ THE INFINITE--->

GOD in no way limits Himself by giving you the freedom to choose your path, He has put you in the sand box, He knows what you will do and how it will affect you and others and why you will do what you will do. Does He stop you? Did He stop Job from making his choice? Yes, He called a faithful family home, put a faithful man through trials and allowed the devil's influence, but He knew what would happen, He loved Job the entire time.

What is a lifetime against infinity? Picture time as something that no longer exists, in this state you are, you exist, there is nothing to mark any temporal passage, indeed there is no need. What is a lifetime of pain when a lifemtime has no way of relating to infinity.

HE's GOD for Crying Out Loud!

Where do you get off placing a limit on GOD's power? In the bible it says that every man will be allowed the choice in his life. A child that is killed to our knowledge may be allowed to live to the end of their days in that last moment (see infinty) and be given the choice to follow GOD.

Mesden, I have no idea of the grief you have faced for your friends, and the dissillusionment you have felt with the church. That is the works of man you are dealing with though, I have all faith in the fact that a perfect knowledge and understanding was given to your friends before their time was through, they will have had their choice. GOD does care and love us all, He created us to have free will so we our choices would have value. He wants us all to choose life eternal with Him, but that would have no value without our free will.

[Archbio]

I really don't think it is. The existance of something is questioned, because one cannot experiance it. I'm simpy trying to make the point that many things cannot be proven easily, or quickly, to everyone, because not everyone can experiance it, and the fact that data is quite easily corruptable makes it even more difficult.

The existence of something is not questionned merely because of a lack of personal experience. It's the lack of everything else that's problematic. The proof of these supernatural powers is reduced to depend on personal experience, which is also lacking.

Which is one of the many reasons why it's different from the existence of distant lands. Locke has experience of lands, cities and living things. Europe is composed of lands, cities and living things. Removing Europe from existence would raise many pressing questions in Locke's mind about reality. Removing a supernatural power from existence doesn't.

And so on.

These things aren't comparable at all. This is a non sequitur.

Also where the heck do you get off adding purgatory, a place where your half ass bullshit in life can be paid off by your relatives by check or charge to the catholic church.

I think Indulgences has been forbidden by the Catholic Church, and that a while ago. Have you been hanging out with Martin Luther?

[Demetrius]

I think Indulgences has been forbidden by the Catholic Church, and that a while ago. Have you been hanging out with Martin Luther?

RFOL, was talking about the origin of the idea, its kept around so the Catholic church doesn't have to admit they are wrong.


I believe (heh) what Loki was attempting to point out was the perception of reality can have a major impact on you but makes no difference to reality itself.

That then allows for discussion on the nature of reality, Schrodinger's Cat and other philosophies but that isn't so much on topic.

More to pick on--->

Things are defined by their opposites, or what they are not, take light and dark, one is dependant on the other. So then we know that finite things exist, for there to be a finite there must be that which defines it, the in-finite. So also in the same way there is the universe, and something beyond it.

[Tydeus]

Originally Posted by Bob the Mercenary

I have a really good resource for info on Hell and answers to some of your questions that I just couldn't find the answer to.

http://www.ch-of-christ.beaverton.or...Hell_Exist.htm

I liked one quote in particular: "If we have a problem with endless suffering, it means that we have not yet fully comprehended the wickedness of human rebellion, and we have failed to grasp how evil it is to go contrary to the will of God."

I don't think you get what I'm driving at. Punishment, in any form, ever, is entirely unjustified unless it produces some beneficial result. The end justifies the means. To Machiavelli, that end (it was a singular, I may remind you all) was stability of the state. We may have other ends, but we justify those as good ends worth striving for. Punishment is only justified by the end it produces. If it produces no end, it lacks justification. It's only redeeming hope at that point is the possibility that it could have produced a good end. The death penalty, for instance, is held aloft (by some) on the principle of deterrance. It may not always deter, but it could deter. I'm not sure this really justifies taking a possibly innocent life, but, well, that's another thread.

The point I'm trying to make is that punishment without a just end is unjustified. We have a word for it -- revenge. In fact, revenge is spoken of in the Bible, in revelations. It is wholeheartedly admitted. Revenge. And what is revenge for? To please ourselves, by hurting others. This is known as sadism. It is generally considered to be an unhealthy, immoral, destructive presence within the consciousness of a human being. It erodes their decent qualities and capability for good.

Why should revenge be considered different with God? Fact is, the Christian Hell is no deterrent to most people. Mainly beacuse they believe in other religions, or none at all. Many have never even heard a verse from the Christian scriptures. And it is an unreasonable thing to expect it to be a deterrent to anyone. After all, no single person has ever had the slightest, tiniest, most infentismal morsel of evidence of its existence. We only are informed of it by hearsay. And that is no deterrent. That is entrapment, if such a horrific, mad, and unbearably evil place were to ever exist.

God is justified in making himself feel better by causing us pain why? Or why does Hell exist then? What purpose can it serve but revenge? Even if it were a deterrent, eternal torture is far beyond anything necessary to deter people. Certainly a century, even a millenium of torture would suffice, would it not? It would still be barbaric and disgusting and lacking all love, compassion, or humanity, and it would be a poor deterrent indeed, never showing itself, but it would suffice to such purposes. Eternity is a concept that one never wants to have arrayed against oneself. That is a pain beyond all comprehension.

And if God never shows himself, if other gods vie for my faith, then why should I be considered evil to go against him? I did not ask for life. I was forced into it. That's not to say that I wish to die, nor that I don't appreciate it, but it was utterly involuntary. As such, I think there is not a single thing owed to any God, you know, if he were actually real. A gift is a gift is a gift. You cannot demand it back, unless it was asked for. And even then, you are on tenuous ground. But a gift given, one which may indeed be more a curse than a blessing (had I died in the Holocaust, or of some terrible degenerative disease, or had I been tortured and raped and burned, I might think this way), that cannot be called in as a debt. Money given without the asking or acceptance of the recepient is not a loan. It is a gift. And so it is with all things.

We did not ask for this. Some of us, undoubtedly, wish we had never been cast into such a mad, dark, hellish world as ours can be. And we owe nothing to any entity that may have cast us there, so callously, so arrogantly, so piously.

It is like a trader taking a slave from Africa, and bringing him to a plantation in some Southern state, and then demanding that the slave act with utter obedience, work with efficiency, and love his owner. The slave owes no such things to the master, because he did not ask for this to happen to him. He may be a house slave in Kentucky, with an indulgent family, living a life more secure than any he would have encountered in Africa, but he still owes them nothing. They have given freely gifts and burdens, most, if not all of which were given without asking the recepient. He owes nothing.

And so are we unbound, undebted to any god.

Could we ever fault such a man if he did not do what was asked of him? Could we call him evil? Let us conjure up the most extreme scenario for examination -- the man, had he not been taken slave, would have lived a hard, short, Hobbesian life of toil and hate and brutality and soon, death. As a slave, he has been given a moderate work load doing household chores, is treated well, and is generally taken care of. Is he not perfectly within his rights to run away? To defy his masters? Is he, in fact, not correct for doing so? For defying the arrogance, the inhumanity of the life which was forced upon him? For defying manipulation, callous, hard, and inhuman coldness?

I've felt such coldness in my soul. I have been less than human. I still tread the line daily. I did not ask to be that way, to be seperate, to put myself above. I felt cast into that role. In some ways, I still feel it, though not as strongly as I have at other times. I cling so deperately to any human relationship that can arouse feeling within me, and melt some of that great glacier within me. I can put on or take off my humanity like you might a coat. In ways, it is freeing to rid oneself of the burden. It grants power. But at what cost? Only in my coldest nights of bitter, isolated despair have I wished for things that even begin to approach the horizon, over which may be seen a star, and in it Hell. I have wished for horrible, horrible things. I have reveled in the malicious bile that was drowning my humanity. It is vindicating, certainly. And so horribly, horribly cold.

I have personal experience with hell, friend. I have contemplated it in excruciating, maddening detail. It is not some fleeting passion I felt, but a calculated, well thought-out bitterness, nurtured and fed and grown to monstrous proportions. And still, I have but wished but the smallest iota of Hell on other sapient beings. And I am ashamed of that, very deeply. I am forever injured and scarred by it. I will always, always have that wish deep down. I must struggle with it daily, I must do my best to warm my frozen soul. Any being that could, without reservation, endorse that which even I dare not tread near -- that being would be one of utter emptiness. Resignation, passivity, death personified. Malicious beyond the comprehension of any mortal being to ever be thrown into the heady maelstrom of sapient life!

I could never tolerate such a being, and I would do anything in my power to destroy it, even if it cost me everything. Even if it damned me to the most vicious idea ever devised, in the coldest minds to ever churn with bile and wrath and hate. I would resist. Such a being deserves no existence, deserves no pleasure, no vindication, let alone servants! Worshippers!

This post, overwrought and grandiose as it may be, is written so for a purpose, friend. To exhort in you your humanity, which you feel so much more easily than I do, I would venture. To exhort you to cherish that wonderful, immeasurably comforting gift, and to place in you a burning outrage that could never be quenched against anything that could endorse Hell. Anything that cold. In the face of the cessation of all things, I would hope to arouse a burning passion which would stir this world, this species to action against it, would resist such an idea with all their conscious might. Hell, friend, robs you of your humanity. By believing in it, friend, you worship the devil.

[Demetrius]

I don't think you get what I'm driving at. Punishment, in any form, ever, is entirely unjustified unless it produces some beneficial result.

Agreed, mostly. Punishment is a consequence, a result of an action, first and foremost. The justification is inherent in the fact that the punishment is merited by the act.

Certainly a century, even a millenium of torture would suffice, would it not? It would still be barbaric and disgusting and lacking all love, compassion, or humanity, and it would be a poor deterrent indeed, never showing itself, but it would suffice to such purposes. Eternity is a concept that one never wants to have arrayed against oneself. That is a pain beyond all comprehension.

One issue I have with this statement is that you are not thinking in terms of what it is to be infinte. After you die that is the plane upon which you exist. Also I'm fairly sure the true pain of hell is that you are completely removed from GOD's presence... well that and the whole fiery pit thing.

[Tydeus]

Originally Posted by Demetrius

Agreed, mostly. Punishment is a consequence, a result of an action, first and foremost. The justification is inherent in the fact that the punishment is merited by the act.

No, no, no. This is what I have argued is precisely wrong. Punishment merely because someone has done wrong is not justified. Punishment is only justified if it will produce some beneficial effect as a result. If punishment is meted out to some improper act, and yet no beneficial result is produced, it was not merited, even though an improper act was indeed comitted.

One issue I have with this statement is that you are not thinking in terms of what it is to be infinte. After you die that is the plane upon which you exist. Also I'm fairly sure the true pain of hell is that you are completely removed from GOD's presence... well that and the whole fiery pit thing.

If we are anything like what we are in this world, in some eternal plane, then it would be unbearable. Only by slipping into unconsciousness or by losing our minds -- that is to say, to lose our sapience -- could it become tolerable. Eternity would seem to be just as long and intolerable for any being, no matter what frame of reference they are used to, for it is infinite. Even if a billion years is but the blink of an eye to some eternal being, eternity means that it will be punished for all those billions of billions of billions of years, never ceasing. Frame of reference is obliterated in the face of the absolute that is eternity.

[Demetrius]

Frame of reference is obliterated in the face of the absolute that is eternity

Exactly my point, a billion years and the blink of an eye are the same.

Back to punishment and consquences.

I am right now unable to wrap my head around preventative punishment. Why should I care about committing an act if there are no direct consequences? If I want sex now and there is a chick and I rape her what will I learn from a punishment? Your being punished is a result or consequence of your actions, merited by those actions.