The Big Big Thread of Religious Discussion

[ZAKtheGeek]

Who says God wouldn't deliver empty threats?

An empty threat is still a deterrent. If there simply is no punishment, I can think of no way to rationalize an omnipotent being threatening its lowly inventions into obedience.

And now that I've thought about it a tiny bit more, it makes this concept of God that much more horrible. Don't appeal to people by proof or even ask for faith... Just terrorize them into doing what you want. I'm not going to write my next sentence because it would invoke a version of Godwin's law.

[Loki, The Fallen]

42PETUNIAS:

Still, if people knew that they didn't have to go to church to get into heaven, being a good person was the only requirement, then many fewer people would probably attend, giving the churches less money. It's as simple as that.

...Or perhaps even simpler, such as just believing the fact that He sent someone to save you from the results of your actions? People don't always give to religions because it's the way out of Hell; they give usually because they support the mission. Well, unless you were Catholic during the indulgence thing, but other people covered that.

But it sounds like you are setting the bar. What do you think is a good person?

Zak's belief:

It makes absolutely no sense than an omnipotent being would need something like hell as a "deterrent" from sin. The entire point of a deterrent is to stop people from doing things you don't want them to do, which an omnipotent being, especially one that made the very people in question, would never have to resort to if it really didn't want people to do those things

We were given free will. Just because He knows what our choice will be does not invalidate that choice. Others have covered this before me in this thread.

He gives us the choice, and tells us the consequences of the choice. I see three myself:
A) Imagine if you could live a guilt free life, doing whatever you wanted without fear of what will happen in the end? You could lie, cheat, steal, do all the things the Commandments warn against, and in the end, suffer nothing, because you don't believe there is a Hell.

B) Then there are those in the middle, who know of the consequences, yet still act contrary to His will. Perhaps that is the worst possible path to choose, as you will live a life full of regret for all the things you do wrong. But perhaps their Sin is the worst of these three, for they know the way and choose to act against it. Well, it's their choice in the end.

C) Then there are those who see the consequences, and choose the tough path of putting up with ridicule, pain, and suffering, and perhaps untimely death, all for the possibility that they will experience 'Heaven'.

It's a hard choice for some. But the joy is He gives everyone the choice.

-Edit-

He gave Christians proof; I guess it's too bad His schedule didn't work out to show us during these "Modern Times".

[Lockeownzj00]

Originally Posted by Mesden

Maybe that's a difference between how you and I are thinking. See, even after years of religious living, I not once had some overwhelming feeling of "God". I could pray, hope, ask, beg, plead, cry and scream about it, but I've never felt anything special or some alien presence upon my being.

A very interesting point; there was a recent book which argued that there is a specific cerebral structure for those who are predisposed to believe. I've heard many times from more apathetic (though still through-and-through) atheists that they simply "can't" believe. They sit down in the church, they listen, they squeeze their eyes closed and clasp their hands, but they just can't bring themselves to feel or believe it.

Originally Posted by Bob the Mercenary

On the age of the Earth. I can't provide you with any actual scientific evidence to prove that the world is only a couple thousand years old. In theory, God didn't create a "baby world". He made a mature Earth, shown in his creation of Adam and Eve as adults. So, even with carbon dating, everything could seem millions of years old. Also, the Bible doesn't really leave the seven day creation to much debate. "And there was evening and there was morning, the second day" and so on.

That's nothing but a retcon. It's all about likelihood. Likelihood, likelihood, likelihood, likelihood.

Scientific knowledge represents everything man has to show for himself; it is the culmination of everything we could possibly say we know in any concrete way about the world. It's a slap in the face to all that to refer to the Bible over that. If we're talking about "reliability," even if you can fathom these minute ways in which the Bible has been "kinda sorta indirectly proven to be kinda sorta true-ish maybe," science is so reliable as to be worthy of the authority that we give it over matters of truth. What makes you think your fantastical theory of "false carbon dating" makes sense? What makes you think you know better than this laborious process of human knowledge?

Imagine you were a child or an alien: either would have the neutrality we seek. You are comparing science and religion--quantifying it (of course, I'm sure I'll be met with the idea that 'one can't quantify the benefits of religion,' even though for pages and pages quantitative arguments have been used). You figure, whichever has more to show for itself is clearly the more advantageous of the two. Let's make a list of what significant marks these two things have made on mankind (it is almost unfair to make this list, because everything that mankind has ever done that amounts to anything was achieved through reason and deductive thought. but here goes anyway):

Science and scientific thought:
-The wheel
-Computers (you, sitting in that chair right now)
-Medicine
-Space exploration
-Flight
-Refrigerated food
-Plumbing
-Architecture
-Electricity
-All of our understanding of the physical world that surrounds us: ecology, marine biology; essentially anything that we could hope to know about our global environment.
-Mathematics
-Psychology
-Sociology
-The telephone/television/radio (communication technologies)
-Fire (essentially, food: our ability to manipulate fire and establish a system through which we receive nutrition)
-Toothpaste

Religion/Faith:
-Religious wars
-Religious persecution
-Terrorism
-Christmas
-Jewish comedians

And the last two are cop-outs. You can't really say charity of any kind, because that's not distinctly religious and exists/has existed secularly.

You can't deny what it has brought. It is the only thing that has ever gotten us anywhere in any conceivable way at all. I don't see how anyone can blithely swipe it aside because they totally wish there was a 'plan.'

Originally Posted by fifthfiend

To my imagining an honest-to-goodness God would be even less interested in trying to moderate a religious discussion.

Hey, it's your fault I'm here anyway mon.

[ZAKtheGeek]

Look, I could get into a free will argument here (I've already started one, actually, but it's buried), but that's not what I'm talking about. A deterrent implies God wants us to do something. If it wants us to do something, why not simply make us so that we would always do it? Or failing that (which should never actually happen with an all-knowing being), simply force everyone to do it? The thing to understand is that an omnipotent being does nothing out of necessity. Its will is reality.

Furthermore...

He gives us the choice, and tells us the consequences of the choice. I see three myself:
A) Imagine if you could live a guilt free life, doing whatever you wanted without fear of what will happen in the end? You could lie, cheat, steal, do all the things the Commandments warn against, and in the end, suffer nothing, because you don't believe there is a Hell.

B) Then there are those in the middle, who know of the consequences, yet still act contrary to His will. Perhaps that is the worst possible path to choose, as you will live a life full of regret for all the things you do wrong. But perhaps their Sin is the worst of these three, for they know the way and choose to act against it. Well, it's their choice in the end.

C) Then there are those who see the consequences, and choose the tough path of putting up with ridicule, pain, and suffering, and perhaps untimely death, all for the possibility that they will experience 'Heaven'.

It's a hard choice for some. But the joy is He gives everyone the choice.

It's more of a temptation than a choice. Like I said, it's very sadistic to dangle a carrot in front of a horse, knowing there's a sharp blade inside of it. I don't know what sort of "loving god" would let people suffer unimaginably for obeying basic instinctual urges that very god instilled in them.

He gave Christians proof; I guess it's too bad His schedule didn't work out to show us during these "Modern Times".

I don't know what percentage of this is in jest. I'll assume 100, since the first part creates a circular arrangement where the only ones that could have any reason to believe are those that already do, and the second is absolutely preposterous given a timeless, omnipotent being.

[Loki, The Fallen]

Locke. What has your Doctrine brought humanity? Your Doctrine has brought the following to the world (and more):

The Gun, which can be used to kill.
The Wheel, which can be used to kill.

Okay, we can all see where that will go. But hey, you kept going, so shall I

Flight, which makes all those virus and bacteria so much easier to transfer from one side of a world to another.

Electricity, which can not only be used as an instrument of torture, but can also be used to kill, and because we now have a ‘need’ for it, we must go acquire fuel for it, which leads us to

Nuclear Energy, which gave us the wonderful invention called the Atomic Warhead, which could annihilate billions of people.

Don’t forget fire, which can destroy pretty well.

I could make a longer list, but why bother? Heck, even one of the contributors of the study of Nuclear Energy wishes he could put that Genie back into that lamp, but I’m just remember Albert here, perhaps the others saw the downsides. Where was the wisdom in discovering that? We have opened Pandora’s Box and we can not shut it regarding those, short of outlawing all technology and returning to 2nd century lifestyles.

I don’t believe in controlling these things, for I see their benefits, some being intangible, like the security those with nuclear weapons have, or the tangible, which we see in the preservation of the things we like to consume. You pile on to Religion and Faith as only providing war. Humans have proven time and again that they will go to war, they will kill, they will kidnap, they will torture, they will maim, and they will steal for any number of reasons, from believing that things are the source of evil, to believing that the person wanted them too, or others.

But here’s the best part, from every post I have read by you it appears you wish to control this thought; that you wish to have humans only believe in your belief. What is with that?

[42PETUNIAS]

He gave Christians proof; I guess it's too bad His schedule didn't work out to show us during these "Modern Times"

What?! God has a schedule now? And this same schedule has a 2000 year gap? He's omnipotent, the only reason there is no proof for us, is that he either does not exist, or that he does not want humans to have proof. I mean, his schedule didn't work out?... Let's be serious. Additionally, prove to me that the ancient christians had proof. The bible os the only source that suggests that jesus was resurrected and showed himself to his followers. You can't declare that there was proof, simply because an old, repeatedly translated, book says so. Religon simply isn't a matter of proof anyway, it's a matter of faith. Whether or not he gave proof is irrelevant, cause its contrary to the idea of a religon.

Originally Posted by Locke

Religion/Faith:
-Religious wars
-Religious persecution
-Terrorism

You can't say all the great things that science has brought us, and then say everything bad that Religon has. First of all, science has definitly brought things bad with the good. Nuclear weapons, attrition, and a whole lot more stuff (I don't feel like making a list right now) just for starters. Rosseau would have your ass for glorifying science and progress without listing any painful effects. Secondly, religon has definitly done good things. They may not outweigh the bad effects, but they are still there. religon does make many people happy, it gives people a purpose in life, and while it might not create feelings of charity, it helps, and serves as an organizational tool for many charities. Leaving that much stuff out and portraying it as a complete list of the things each has brought us is misleading.

[Nique]

Locke and Loki are both wrong.

It's entirely concivable, and likely, that religion has been involved as motivator in many technilogical developments in the past. Printing presses, anyone? So locke, you can't really attribute 'advancement' to scientific interests alone. Some people also do it for the money?

And Loki, locke expressly has no 'doctrine'. I'm not much happier than he is about people constantly calling athiesm a religion. I can understand how atheists can be religious about their non-belife, but this point has been beaten to death.

Look, I could get into a free will argument here (I've already started one, actually, but it's buried), but that's not what I'm talking about. A deterrent implies God wants us to do something. If it wants us to do something, why not simply make us so that we would always do it? Or failing that (which should never actually happen with an all-knowing being), simply force everyone to do it? The thing to understand is that an omnipotent being does nothing out of necessity. Its will is reality.

I'm not sure you understand what you're saying; So, if God DID exsist, you would want him to severely constrict our ability to think and act independantly so we wouldn't hurt each other? I mean, is that an exchange we're willing to make? Painful lives with the joy of free will in exchange for painless lives that are meaningless?

Originally Posted by Loki

But here’s the best part, from every post I have read by you it appears you wish to control this thought; that you wish to have humans only believe in your belief. What is with that?

I presume it is for the same reason I wish that everyone was a member of my religion (didn't someone say I didn't have a religion a couple pages back? I thought I wasn't being very subtle at all when I was linking the Jehovah's Witness website, but whatever...). If everyone shared belife in the ultimate truth about exsistance, what big problems could we possibly have?

EDIT: Ninja'd by the Hitchhiker Fan! Curses!

[Bob The Mercenary]

Originally Posted by POS

Never liked the idea of life on Earth being nothing more than an audition for some nice little condo overlooking the beach of the afterlife. Worry about this life, where you are now, where you're going in the next few years, what your and other people's kids and grandkids have to deal with on this planet.

There's another rub. Christians feel that, since life could end at any second for any reason, they should get the truth out to as many people as possible.

Originally Posted by ZAKtheGeek

Just throwing something in here. It makes absolutely no sense than an omnipotent being would need something like hell as a "deterrent" from sin. The entire point of a deterrent is to stop people from doing things you don't want them to do, which an omnipotent being, especially one that made the very people in question, would never have to resort to if it really didn't want people to do those things. The only way hell pans out is as some sort of sadistic experiment, then. Give beings urges and punish them if they don't resist. It's kind of like putting mice in rooms full of baited mousetraps.

How does it not make any sense to use a deterrent in a world full of temptation. We all seem to be forgetting Satan in all this. The reason God didn't make us machines and do just as he wills all the time was because he wanted us to make the choice to follow him on our own, thus "free will". But, Satan continually tries to derail that through tempting us all day every day. Satan gives the urges, not God. And if you look at the bible, he's given us plenty of warnings.

Heaven's given to us as a gift. It's a person's choice to fall away.

Originally Posted by 42PETUNIAS

Or maybe there is no hell, and the only reason that one is talked of is so that people are scared into doing good things and accepting Jesus. Who says God wouldn't deliver empty threats?

He said he never makes empty promises. How would promising to send someone to Hell who doesn't believe not apply?

Still, if people knew that they didn't have to go to church to get into heaven, being a good person was the only requirement, then many fewer people would probably attend, giving the churches less money. It's as simple as that.

Maybe I'm misreading this, but if the only requirement was faith, why would people give more money than if being a good person on the outside was part of the deal? It doesn't say anywhere that giving money is required/recommended. You give because you want to give in thanks.

Originally Posted by ZAKtheGeek

An empty threat is still a deterrent. If there simply is no punishment, I can think of no way to rationalize an omnipotent being threatening its lowly inventions into obedience.

And now that I've thought about it a tiny bit more, it makes this concept of God that much more horrible. Don't appeal to people by proof or even ask for faith... Just terrorize them into doing what you want. I'm not going to write my next sentence because it would invoke a version of Godwin's law.

He's not threatening, he's just telling the facts. "I gave you this for free. I gave you the rules. You don't want to follow them that's your decision." People keep forgetting that bad things are caused by sin. And sin is a result of temptation. And temptation is a result of Satan. And Satan wants your ass in hell. God's just giving you fair warning.

Originally Posted by 42Petunias

What?! God has a schedule now? And this same schedule has a 2000 year gap? He's omnipotent, the only reason there is no proof for us, is that he either does not exist, or that he does not want humans to have proof. I mean, his schedule didn't work out?... Let's be serious.

I have to admit that was worded rather poorly on his part.

Additionally, prove to me that the ancient christians had proof. The bible os the only source that suggests that jesus was resurrected and showed himself to his followers. You can't declare that there was proof, simply because an old, repeatedly translated, book says so. Religon simply isn't a matter of proof anyway, it's a matter of faith.

Exactly! So why is everyone asking for it?

When Jesus was in front of the sanhedrin, did he have proof then? If you were living 2000 years ago would you have believed him when he said he's the son of god? I'm interested, what kind of 2000 year old proof would you like?

[Edit] Also, Hell isn't some lava playground where red men poke you with sticks. It's the absence of God. Think of it this way, this world has God, and it still blows.

[POS Industries]

Originally Posted by Bob the Mercenary

There's another rub. Christians feel that, since life could end at any second for any reason, they should get the truth out to as many people as possible.

Yes, but how is that helping? "Go to Heaven after I die? That's nice. Anyway, you say you follow a carpenter, right? Well, I'm busy building this house for a family who lost everything in a fire and couldn't afford homeowner's insurance. Mind giving me a hand?"

Because, you know, I'm pretty sure that's more what Jesus had in mind.

[Archbio]

Bob,

People keep forgetting that bad things are caused by sin. And sin is a result of temptation. And temptation is a result of Satan.

According to most christian traditions (except mainly the gnostics), Satan is also created by god. Many go so far as to say that god knew that Satan was going to rebel. That makes sense in relation to the claims of omniscience and predestination.

This is only more reason why this is a cop-out.

Nique,

I'm not sure you understand what you're saying; So, if God DID exsist, you would want him to severely constrict our ability to think and act independantly so we wouldn't hurt each other? I mean, is that an exchange we're willing to make? Painful lives with the joy of free will in exchange for painless lives that are meaningless?

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.

Especially considering that god then went around basically making its very existence very dubious.