<!--QuoteBegin-Snidely+Oct 25 2004, 08:03 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Snidely @ Oct 25 2004, 08:03 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> I just wished both extreme camps would concentrate solely on the goddamn message instead of the book's historical value. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd--> merely doing it to prove a point <!--emo&:)--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html//emoticons/smile-fix.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='smile-fix.gif' /><!--endemo-->
<!--QuoteBegin-Swiftspear+Oct 25 2004, 10:02 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Swiftspear @ Oct 25 2004, 10:02 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> The problem is that no one reads literary style. Alot of christians claim that the whole thing is history, but it just isn't. On the other side alot of athiests claim the whole thing is myth, but much of the writing is clearly an attemt at accurate history. There is quite a gap in style and writing when the genre's change.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Connected to this problem is that not all books are as realieable as others. When it comes to the books Kings and Chronicles I would bet on that Kings is the most acurate since it doesn't seem to have been edited as much as Chronicles. In some of the cases where they say different things other historical facts have been on kings "side".
<!--QuoteBegin-Nadagast+Oct 25 2004, 01:55 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Nadagast @ Oct 25 2004, 01:55 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--><!--QuoteBegin-Okabore+Oct 25 2004, 07:21 AM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Okabore @ Oct 25 2004, 07:21 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> Got a question for you. What prof do you have that god doesn't exist? Seems strange question but do you got any? It's like saying that there isn't any green ravens. Untill you have found them all you can't say for certain that there isn't any. And as far as I know no sicentist have every found proof that god doesn't exist. Even the most knowledgable ateist have been forced to back on that question. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Umm, you're making the claim. The burden of proof lies upon you. I don't need to do anything. Are you born believing in God? No. Atheism is the default.
Show a shred of credible evidence that god exists, please?<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> Actually isn't it the new theory that has to prove that it is valid? People seems to have allways belived in some kind of god(ess) so isn't it up to science to prove that those who belive are wrong? New idéas has never trully been accepted by scince before they have and evidence that they are right. Every scientific "fact" has started out as an assumption and untill a better assumption or facts that proves or disproves has come along the assumption will stand. After that it will either fall or become a fact untill a new assumption comes along. So what we have at the moment is in one cornour the religious assumption that there is a god and in the other cornour sience with the assumption that god doesn't exist. Neither has any real proof that they are right but at the moment religion is in the "lead" partly beacuse it's older but mainly because it has material stating it's case that science hasn't been able to disprove. And though not all of it has been proven correct by other sources it is till more than what science has been able to produce.
Btw just to clarify things a bit. I'm not religious, I wouldn't mind beliving since I like the message but I don't. I have studied the old testament at univeristy and it's from there I draw most of my knowledge from.
Oh and Nadagast, I have trouble understanding why you picked such a bad example as the one from King and Chronicle since the exact numbers doesn't matter (in my opinion). The work of god isn't dependent on the number of officers Salamo had. No, if you want a better example of a contradiction you could simply have read the first three (or so) pages of Genesis.
<!--QuoteBegin-Okabore+Oct 26 2004, 07:05 AM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Okabore @ Oct 26 2004, 07:05 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> Actually isn't it the new theory that has to prove that it is valid? People seems to have allways belived in some kind of god(ess) so isn't it up to science to prove that those who belive are wrong? New idéas has never trully been accepted by scince before they have and evidence that they are right. Every scientific "fact" has started out as an assumption and untill a better assumption or facts that proves or disproves has come along the assumption will stand. After that it will either fall or become a fact untill a new assumption comes along. So what we have at the moment is in one cornour the religious assumption that there is a god and in the other cornour sience with the assumption that god doesn't exist. Neither has any real proof that they are right but at the moment religion is in the "lead" partly beacuse it's older but mainly because it has material stating it's case that science hasn't been able to disprove. And though not all of it has been proven correct by other sources it is till more than what science has been able to produce. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> No, no, no, no, no, no. If I may make a rather ironic statement: Jesus, how did you come to these conclusions?
I'll go sequentially through this muddle of poor reasoning.
"Actually isn't it the new theory that has to prove that it is valid?"
When arguing over the existance of something disputed (that this guy was hacking, that a man committed a murder, that a god exists) the burden of proof is <b>always</b> on those who are saying it did exist. To wit, it's required to prove that god does exist, not to prove that he doesn't.
"People seems to have allways belived in some kind of god(ess)"
People have not always believed in a god. I will grant you that religion has been around for pretty much all of history, but that not everyone believes there is some kind of god. I'm not just speaking about athiests either; Buddhism and Shinto, both major and ancient world religions, do not include the notion of gods.
"so isn't it up to science to prove that those who belive are wrong? New idéas has never trully been accepted by scince before they have and evidence that they are right."
It is not up to science to prove that belief in god is wrong. Ask any Christian poster on this board about why they believe what they do and I guarantee somewhere in what they say they will mention the word <b>faith</b>. Of course, now that I've said that, some of them won't do it, to prove me wrong. <!--emo&;)--><img src='http://www.natural-selection.org/forums/html//emoticons/wink-fix.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='wink-fix.gif' /><!--endemo--> What is faith? Faith is holding to a belief despite lack of evidence or evidence to the contrary for that belief. Having faith in something has nothing to do with whether or not that something is real or true.
"Every scientific "fact" has started out as an assumption and untill a better assumption or facts that proves or disproves has come along the assumption will stand. After that it will either fall or become a fact untill a new assumption comes along."
Most scientific postulates and theories (there are very few facts, though many theories are now accepted as fact) do not begin as assumptions, they begin as research, or noticing signifigant correlations between certain things.
"So what we have at the moment is in one cornour the religious assumption that there is a god and in the other cornour sience with the assumption that god doesn't exist."
Science does not assume that there is no god. Neither does religion assume that science must be totally wrong. Science and western religion clash only in certain key areas; for example, how the universe began.
"Neither has any real proof that they are right but at the moment religion is in the "lead" partly beacuse it's older but mainly because it has material stating it's case that science hasn't been able to disprove."
Finally, a correct statement. You cannot prove that god exists, neither can you prove that god doesn't exist. However, my momentary praise must be quickly retracted. Your "argument" that religion is "in the lead" is the classic argument from ignorance, as posted earlier in the thread. In short, it's a big logical fallacy. Back in the 1400s people believed that the earth was flat. By your "reasoning" that was the correct conclusion simply because people had believed that for longer and you couldn't disprove it. If you were to apply this kind of thinking consistently, we'd still be in the middle ages at best, coping with such charming things as dysentary and the black plague. We certainly wouldn't be talking on an internet forum using illogical arguments to make confused points.
"And though not all of it has been proven correct by other sources it is till more than what science has been able to produce."
This is a baseless, illogical statement. The sciences and western religion really only clash on a few points, as I've said before. They aren't in competition and neither are they mutally exclusive. For example, if you're a Christian, that doens't mean you have to disbelieve atomic theory. The Bible doesn't say anything about what comprises the structure of physical things. There's no reason that Christianity can't be completely correct and have things made up of atoms that act the ways science has postulated.
I would like to say kudos to Edwards. Probably one of the better rebuttals I have read in this entire thread, even if it wasn't meant as such. <!--emo&:D--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html//emoticons/biggrin-fix.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='biggrin-fix.gif' /><!--endemo-->
<!--QuoteBegin-Edward.r2+Oct 26 2004, 11:30 AM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Edward.r2 @ Oct 26 2004, 11:30 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> <!--QuoteBegin-Okabore+Oct 26 2004, 07:05 AM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Okabore @ Oct 26 2004, 07:05 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> Actually isn't it the new theory that has to prove that it is valid? People seems to have allways belived in some kind of god(ess) so isn't it up to science to prove that those who belive are wrong? New idéas has never trully been accepted by scince before they have and evidence that they are right. Every scientific "fact" has started out as an assumption and untill a better assumption or facts that proves or disproves has come along the assumption will stand. After that it will either fall or become a fact untill a new assumption comes along. So what we have at the moment is in one cornour the religious assumption that there is a god and in the other cornour sience with the assumption that god doesn't exist. Neither has any real proof that they are right but at the moment religion is in the "lead" partly beacuse it's older but mainly because it has material stating it's case that science hasn't been able to disprove. And though not all of it has been proven correct by other sources it is till more than what science has been able to produce. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> No, no, no, no, no, no. If I may make a rather ironic statement: Jesus, how did you come to these conclusions?
I'll go sequentially through this muddle of poor reasoning.
"Actually isn't it the new theory that has to prove that it is valid?"
When arguing over the existance of something disputed (that this guy was hacking, that a man committed a murder, that a god exists) the burden of proof is <b>always</b> on those who are saying it did exist. To wit, it's required to prove that god does exist, not to prove that he doesn't.
"People seems to have allways belived in some kind of god(ess)"
People have not always believed in a god. I will grant you that religion has been around for pretty much all of history, but that not everyone believes there is some kind of god. I'm not just speaking about athiests either; Buddhism and Shinto, both major and ancient world religions, do not include the notion of gods.
"so isn't it up to science to prove that those who belive are wrong? New idéas has never trully been accepted by scince before they have and evidence that they are right."
It is not up to science to prove that belief in god is wrong. Ask any Christian poster on this board about why they believe what they do and I guarantee somewhere in what they say they will mention the word <b>faith</b>. Of course, now that I've said that, some of them won't do it, to prove me wrong. <!--emo&;)--><img src='http://www.natural-selection.org/forums/html//emoticons/wink-fix.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='wink-fix.gif' /><!--endemo--> What is faith? Faith is holding to a belief despite lack of evidence or evidence to the contrary for that belief. Having faith in something has nothing to do with whether or not that something is real or true.
"Every scientific "fact" has started out as an assumption and untill a better assumption or facts that proves or disproves has come along the assumption will stand. After that it will either fall or become a fact untill a new assumption comes along."
Most scientific postulates and theories (there are very few facts, though many theories are now accepted as fact) do not begin as assumptions, they begin as research, or noticing signifigant correlations between certain things.
"So what we have at the moment is in one cornour the religious assumption that there is a god and in the other cornour sience with the assumption that god doesn't exist."
Science does not assume that there is no god. Neither does religion assume that science must be totally wrong. Science and western religion clash only in certain key areas; for example, how the universe began.
"Neither has any real proof that they are right but at the moment religion is in the "lead" partly beacuse it's older but mainly because it has material stating it's case that science hasn't been able to disprove."
Finally, a correct statement. You cannot prove that god exists, neither can you prove that god doesn't exist. However, my momentary praise must be quickly retracted. Your "argument" that religion is "in the lead" is the classic argument from ignorance, as posted earlier in the thread. In short, it's a big logical fallacy. Back in the 1400s people believed that the earth was flat. By your "reasoning" that was the correct conclusion simply because people had believed that for longer and you couldn't disprove it. If you were to apply this kind of thinking consistently, we'd still be in the middle ages at best, coping with such charming things as dysentary and the black plague. We certainly wouldn't be talking on an internet forum using illogical arguments to make confused points.
"And though not all of it has been proven correct by other sources it is till more than what science has been able to produce."
This is a baseless, illogical statement. The sciences and western religion really only clash on a few points, as I've said before. They aren't in competition and neither are they mutally exclusive. For example, if you're a Christian, that doens't mean you have to disbelieve atomic theory. The Bible doesn't say anything about what comprises the structure of physical things. There's no reason that Christianity can't be completely correct and have things made up of atoms that act the ways science has postulated.
Logic people, logic. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd--> I have seen vastly more evidence that God does exist then I have seen evidence that God does not exist, therefore I must logically postulate that God does exist until someone can prove otherwize, correct?
<!--QuoteBegin-Swiftspear+Oct 26 2004, 04:30 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Swiftspear @ Oct 26 2004, 04:30 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> I have seen vastly more evidence that God does exist then I have seen evidence that God does not exist, therefore I must logically postulate that God does exist until someone can prove otherwize, correct? <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> To get technical here, by Occham's razor, you must believe that god does not exist until someone can prove that he does, because the simpler and more rational one is logically the better theory. You can only proove that god exists if you must present a piece of evidence which is true, and is such that god must necessarily exist if this evidence is true.
<!--QuoteBegin-Edward.r2+Oct 27 2004, 03:08 AM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Edward.r2 @ Oct 27 2004, 03:08 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> <!--QuoteBegin-Swiftspear+Oct 26 2004, 04:30 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Swiftspear @ Oct 26 2004, 04:30 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> I have seen vastly more evidence that God does exist then I have seen evidence that God does not exist, therefore I must logically postulate that God does exist until someone can prove otherwize, correct? <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> To get technical here, by Occham's razor, you must believe that god does not exist until someone can prove that he does, because the simpler and more rational one is logically the better theory. You can only proove that god exists if you must present a piece of evidence which is true, and is such that god must necessarily exist if this evidence is true. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd--> Evolution is a complicated process, and it hasn't acctually been proven, same goes for Einstines reletivity... So to logically follow, I must belive that niether of these exist until it can be proven otherwize?
<!--QuoteBegin-Swiftspear+Oct 27 2004, 03:17 AM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Swiftspear @ Oct 27 2004, 03:17 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> Evolution is a complicated process, and it hasn't acctually been proven, same goes for Einstines reletivity... So to logically follow, I must belive that niether of these exist until it can be proven otherwize? <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> No, that's not what it means at all.
What it says is that when there is more than one explination for some phenomenon, you should believe the explination that offers the 'simplest' answer. ('Simplest' here is being used in a technical sense.) The answer which contains the least number of newly posited unknowns and is the most verifiable is the best answer. God is a posited unknown, and so a theory that doesn't require a god is a better theory.
Those theories are considered good theories because they don't put forth any new unknown entities and they are verifiable. They are accepted as the best ones for their respective subject because of that. However, we do not know that they are correct, so it's prefectly possible that a better theory will surface and replace them at some point. What Occham's razor says is that you should believe them now, because they are the best explinations we have, but you don't necessarily know them to be true.
<!--QuoteBegin-Swiftspear+Oct 26 2004, 02:30 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Swiftspear @ Oct 26 2004, 02:30 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> I have seen vastly more evidence that God does exist then I have seen evidence that God does not exist, therefore I must logically postulate that God does exist until someone can prove otherwize, correct? <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd--> You're wrong on 2 points. Atheism is the default: You have to prove that God exists. Period. Stop trying to make it otherwise.
Second, you think that there is 'proof of God' that actually stands up to real scientific critisism? Get real, or show me some. I'd love to see your 'proof' <!--emo&:)--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html//emoticons/smile-fix.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='smile-fix.gif' /><!--endemo-->
<!--QuoteBegin-Swiftspear+Oct 27 2004, 01:17 AM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Swiftspear @ Oct 27 2004, 01:17 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> Evolution is a complicated process, and it hasn't acctually been proven, same goes for Einstines reletivity... So to logically follow, I must belive that niether of these exist until it can be proven otherwize? <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd--> They aren't proven, but they fit the evidence as we see it. People have done tests verifying Einstein's Relativity and evolution fits the vast amount of knowledge we have at this time. If we find an exception to these rules, they will be changed to incorporate our new understanding of the world. That's the difference between science and religion.
By the way, both theories have vast amount of both evidence and scientific community support for them, so don't try to knock them. Don't compare their support to God either, religion's evidence is based on 'faith', scientific support is based in fact and reality.
<b>Edward.r2</b>: Good job, man. And don't tire yourself out, there's plenty more of these threads where this comes from <!--emo&???--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html//emoticons/confused-fix.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='confused-fix.gif' /><!--endemo-->
<b>Swiftspear</b>, <b>Wheeee</b>: Speaking as an athiest, I admire your respect for the scientific viewpoint while keeping your faith firmly rooted in $DEITY. <!--emo&:)--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html//emoticons/smile-fix.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='smile-fix.gif' /><!--endemo-->
<!--QuoteBegin-Edward.r2+Oct 27 2004, 01:46 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Edward.r2 @ Oct 27 2004, 01:46 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> Those theories are considered good theories because they don't put forth any new unknown entities and they are verifiable. They are accepted as the best ones for their respective subject because of that. However, we do not know that they are correct, so it's prefectly possible that a better theory will surface and replace them at some point. What Occham's razor says is that you should believe them now, because they are the best explinations we have, but you don't necessarily know them to be true. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd--> Since we're mucking about with Occham's Razor, I'm going to throw out Pascal's Wager. Since the existance of God, or lack thereof can't be scientifically proven, we are left with an article of faith either way we choose. We either say that the objections to God that science draws are insignificant and on some level wrong, or we bank on the fact that God doesn't exist, and carry out our lives as we see fit.
Since we have an article of faith either way, why not take the route that gives us the chance of the most possible happiness in the end?
<!--QuoteBegin-Legionnaired+Oct 28 2004, 10:25 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Legionnaired @ Oct 28 2004, 10:25 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> Since we're mucking about with Occham's Razor, I'm going to throw out Pascal's Wager. Since the existance of God, or lack thereof can't be scientifically proven, we are left with an article of faith either way we choose. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> Unless you admit that the existance of god is unprovable, and therefore unknowable. No faith required for that, its just fact.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->We either say that the objections to God that science draws are insignificant and on some level wrong, or we bank on the fact that God doesn't exist, and carry out our lives as we see fit.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> Or admit that you don't know, and live your life in anyway you see fit.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> Since we have an article of faith either way, why not take the route that gives us the chance of the most possible happiness in the end?<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Happiness!? HAPPINESS!? Religion is slavery (at least christianity is)! You give up many enjoyable things in life to serve a deity for eternity because if you don't you suffer for eternity. Oh yeah, thats sooo the happiest way to go.
<!--QuoteBegin-SkulkBait+Oct 28 2004, 11:19 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (SkulkBait @ Oct 28 2004, 11:19 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> <!--QuoteBegin-Legionnaired+Oct 28 2004, 10:25 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Legionnaired @ Oct 28 2004, 10:25 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> Since we're mucking about with Occham's Razor, I'm going to throw out Pascal's Wager. Since the existance of God, or lack thereof can't be scientifically proven, we are left with an article of faith either way we choose. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> Unless you admit that the existance of god is unprovable, and therefore unknowable. No faith required for that, its just fact.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->We either say that the objections to God that science draws are insignificant and on some level wrong, or we bank on the fact that God doesn't exist, and carry out our lives as we see fit.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> Or admit that you don't know, and live your life in anyway you see fit.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> Since we have an article of faith either way, why not take the route that gives us the chance of the most possible happiness in the end?<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Happiness!? HAPPINESS!? Religion is slavery (at least christianity is)! You give up many enjoyable things in life to serve a deity for eternity because if you don't you suffer for eternity. Oh yeah, thats sooo the happiest way to go. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd--> Good God, nothing is 'provable' everything that you take for a basis of existance is littered with literally hundreds of thousands of assumptions that are not mathimatically tied down. The existance of God is no less provable then the fact that other people besides yourself exist, or the fact that the world is round. In my life I have seen literally tonnes and tonnes of evidence of the existance of God, in fact I can honestly tell you that the sum of the unlikely and miraculous things I have seen has an impossible probablility based on the current understanding of science we have. I can therefore conculde one of 3 things: 1. science is right and the proverbial dice just so happend to roll 6 five hundred times in a row. 2. Science is wrong, but it is due to the fact that we just don't have a good enough scientific understanding or reality to explain many many events. 3. God exists, and he is acting on reality alongside the inputs we have already scientifically defined.
All of those are assumptions, none of them is generically default because all of them are either increadibly complex or increadibly unlikely.
I am not a gambler, I go with the likelyhoods as I see them, God has proved to me that he exists as good as he needed to, and as long as I walk with him he continues to do so.
The way I see it, your postulation that religion is slavery is as far from the truth as possible. As a Christain I am not held accountable to any laws, and I am free to do whatever I please. I have not, and will not, give up any of the most enjoyable things in life, I simply regect the pennies at the side of the rode in favor of the greater treasures along the way.
<!--QuoteBegin-Swiftspear+Oct 29 2004, 02:48 AM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Swiftspear @ Oct 29 2004, 02:48 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> As a Christain I am not held accountable to any laws, and I am free to do whatever I please. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd--> The ten commandments?
21But now a righteousness from God, apart from law, has been made known, to which the Law and the Prophets testify. 22This righteousness from God comes through faith in Jesus Christ to all who believe. There is no difference, 23for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God, 24and are justified freely by his grace through the redemption that came by Christ Jesus. 25God presented him as a sacrifice of atonement,[9] through faith in his blood. He did this to demonstrate his justice, because in his forbearance he had left the sins committed beforehand unpunished-- 26he did it to demonstrate his justice at the present time, so as to be just and the one who justifies those who have faith in Jesus. 27Where, then, is boasting? It is excluded. On what principle? On that of observing the law? No, but on that of faith. 28For we maintain that a man is justified by faith apart from observing the law. 29Is God the God of Jews only? Is he not the God of Gentiles too? Yes, of Gentiles too, 30since there is only one God, who will justify the circumcised by faith and the uncircumcised through that same faith. 31Do we, then, nullify the law by this faith? Not at all! Rather, we uphold the law. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Law is there to show sin, but it is not something that rules our lives through fear. God's grace is sufficient for us.
Skulk, I'm not going to try and prove to you that your view of Christianity is unfounded, you'll just throw it back into my face, because you've already decided for yourself what you'll believe.
All I can tell you is that I've traded temporary, superfical pleasure for joy, not only eternal, but also in this life. I get stressed, but that stress doesn't rule me. I do get sad, but sadness is swallowed up in joy, and perspective. Sure, I abstain from sex and stuff for a few years, but so what?
21But now a righteousness from God, apart from law, has been made known, to which the Law and the Prophets testify. 22This righteousness from God comes through faith in Jesus Christ to all who believe. There is no difference, 23for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God, 24and are justified freely by his grace through the redemption that came by Christ Jesus. 25God presented him as a sacrifice of atonement,[9] through faith in his blood. He did this to demonstrate his justice, because in his forbearance he had left the sins committed beforehand unpunished-- 26he did it to demonstrate his justice at the present time, so as to be just and the one who justifies those who have faith in Jesus. 27Where, then, is boasting? It is excluded. On what principle? On that of observing the law? No, but on that of faith. 28For we maintain that a man is justified by faith apart from observing the law. 29Is God the God of Jews only? Is he not the God of Gentiles too? Yes, of Gentiles too, 30since there is only one God, who will justify the circumcised by faith and the uncircumcised through that same faith. 31Do we, then, nullify the law by this faith? Not at all! Rather, we uphold the law. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Law is there to show sin, but it is not something that rules our lives through fear. God's grace is sufficient for us.
Skulk, I'm not going to try and prove to you that your view of Christianity is unfounded, you'll just throw it back into my face, because you've already decided for yourself what you'll believe.
All I can tell you is that I've traded temporary, superfical pleasure for joy, not only eternal, but also in this life. I get stressed, but that stress doesn't rule me. I do get sad, but sadness is swallowed up in joy, and perspective. Sure, I abstain from sex and stuff for a few years, but so what? <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd--> Tonnes of athiests abstain too, its just a wizer way to live your life, with more control over your emotions and actions.
<!--QuoteBegin-Swiftspear+Oct 29 2004, 02:48 AM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Swiftspear @ Oct 29 2004, 02:48 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> <!--QuoteBegin-SkulkBait+Oct 28 2004, 11:19 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (SkulkBait @ Oct 28 2004, 11:19 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> <!--QuoteBegin-Legionnaired+Oct 28 2004, 10:25 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Legionnaired @ Oct 28 2004, 10:25 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> Since we're mucking about with Occham's Razor, I'm going to throw out Pascal's Wager. Since the existance of God, or lack thereof can't be scientifically proven, we are left with an article of faith either way we choose. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> Unless you admit that the existance of god is unprovable, and therefore unknowable. No faith required for that, its just fact.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->We either say that the objections to God that science draws are insignificant and on some level wrong, or we bank on the fact that God doesn't exist, and carry out our lives as we see fit.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> Or admit that you don't know, and live your life in anyway you see fit.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> Since we have an article of faith either way, why not take the route that gives us the chance of the most possible happiness in the end?<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Happiness!? HAPPINESS!? Religion is slavery (at least christianity is)! You give up many enjoyable things in life to serve a deity for eternity because if you don't you suffer for eternity. Oh yeah, thats sooo the happiest way to go. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
The existance of God is no less provable then the fact that other people besides yourself exist, or the fact that the world is round. In my life I have seen literally tonnes and tonnes of evidence of the existance of God, in fact I can honestly tell you that the sum of the unlikely and miraculous things I have seen has an impossible probablility based on the current understanding of science we have. I can therefore conculde one of 3 things: 1. science is right and the proverbial dice just so happend to roll 6 five hundred times in a row. 2. Science is wrong, but it is due to the fact that we just don't have a good enough scientific understanding or reality to explain many many events. 3. God exists, and he is acting on reality alongside the inputs we have already scientifically defined. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> On the otherhand, I have never seen nor heard of anything but useless anecdotal evidence for the existance of any kind of deity, and and I have seen NO evidence that would require a diety to exist.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> The way I see it, your postulation that religion is slavery is as far from the truth as possible. As a Christain I am not held accountable to any laws, and I am free to do whatever I please.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Sure, so long as you either repent later, or accept the consequences of your actions. This is true of regualr everyday slaves as well, they can choose to disobey, but then they are punnished.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> I have not, and will not, give up any of the most enjoyable things in life, I simply regect the pennies at the side of the rode in favor of the greater treasures along the way.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
What greater treasures exactly? You get to spend all of eternity with the **** detiy who created you for no other reason than to have worshipers? Doing what? Worshiping him? No thanks, I'll take hell over that anyday.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Law is there to show sin, but it is not something that rules our lives through fear.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> Then why is there a hell? Why did god smite so many people? Why did god flood the world and kill off uncountable numbers of humans and animals? "The wages of sin is death" and eternal suffering in hell. Tell me, what part of that doesn't involve fear?
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Skulk, I'm not going to try and prove to you that your view of Christianity is unfounded, you'll just throw it back into my face, because you've already decided for yourself what you'll believe.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Just like everybody else posting in here. Thats why discussions of this nature were banned. Swiftspear had a nice little discussion going that didn't need the Science vs Religion flaming but certain forumites took it in that direction anyway.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->All I can tell you is that I've traded temporary, superfical pleasure for joy, not only eternal, but also in this life.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> So tell me, what is so enjoyable about heaven anyway? Certainly you can't do anything you want there, because that would mean commiting sin, so surely you must keep up your "good christianess" after death, making it rather unappealing if you ask me. I'd rather not have a deity telling me whats ok and whats not, I believe I am capable of defining that for myself.
<!--QuoteBegin-SkulkBait+Oct 29 2004, 02:22 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (SkulkBait @ Oct 29 2004, 02:22 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> <!--QuoteBegin-Swiftspear+Oct 29 2004, 02:48 AM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Swiftspear @ Oct 29 2004, 02:48 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> <!--QuoteBegin-SkulkBait+Oct 28 2004, 11:19 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (SkulkBait @ Oct 28 2004, 11:19 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> <!--QuoteBegin-Legionnaired+Oct 28 2004, 10:25 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Legionnaired @ Oct 28 2004, 10:25 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> Since we're mucking about with Occham's Razor, I'm going to throw out Pascal's Wager. Since the existance of God, or lack thereof can't be scientifically proven, we are left with an article of faith either way we choose. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> Unless you admit that the existance of god is unprovable, and therefore unknowable. No faith required for that, its just fact.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->We either say that the objections to God that science draws are insignificant and on some level wrong, or we bank on the fact that God doesn't exist, and carry out our lives as we see fit.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> Or admit that you don't know, and live your life in anyway you see fit.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> Since we have an article of faith either way, why not take the route that gives us the chance of the most possible happiness in the end?<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Happiness!? HAPPINESS!? Religion is slavery (at least christianity is)! You give up many enjoyable things in life to serve a deity for eternity because if you don't you suffer for eternity. Oh yeah, thats sooo the happiest way to go. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
The existance of God is no less provable then the fact that other people besides yourself exist, or the fact that the world is round. In my life I have seen literally tonnes and tonnes of evidence of the existance of God, in fact I can honestly tell you that the sum of the unlikely and miraculous things I have seen has an impossible probablility based on the current understanding of science we have. I can therefore conculde one of 3 things: 1. science is right and the proverbial dice just so happend to roll 6 five hundred times in a row. 2. Science is wrong, but it is due to the fact that we just don't have a good enough scientific understanding or reality to explain many many events. 3. God exists, and he is acting on reality alongside the inputs we have already scientifically defined. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> On the otherhand, I have never seen nor heard of anything but useless anecdotal evidence for the existance of any kind of deity, and and I have seen NO evidence that would require a diety to exist.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> The way I see it, your postulation that religion is slavery is as far from the truth as possible. As a Christain I am not held accountable to any laws, and I am free to do whatever I please.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Sure, so long as you either repent later, or accept the consequences of your actions. This is true of regualr everyday slaves as well, they can choose to disobey, but then they are punnished.
<!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd--> <!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> I have not, and will not, give up any of the most enjoyable things in life, I simply regect the pennies at the side of the rode in favor of the greater treasures along the way.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
What greater treasures exactly? You get to spend all of eternity with the **** detiy who created you for no other reason than to have worshipers? Doing what? Worshiping him? No thanks, I'll take hell over that anyday.
Why do Americans consider themselfs free? As a chrisian I am free because I am literally not tied by the bonds of sin, all that is forgiven. In a physical sence I am just as free as anyone else; anyone who disobeys a law, be it a law of God or a law of man, will recive a consequence, causality guarentees that, but I will not have to pay for anything I do in any way after I have recieved its causal effect. I choose to follow the laws that are around me because they outline a wize and effective way to live your life with little reletive suffering, and much achiveable joy. You can say the same of any law abiding American citizen. <!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--><!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Law is there to show sin, but it is not something that rules our lives through fear.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> Then why is there a hell? Why did god smite so many people? Why did god flood the world and kill off uncountable numbers of humans and animals? "The wages of sin is death" and eternal suffering in hell. Tell me, what part of that doesn't involve fear?<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->The wages of Sin is death, so all humanty can fear its consequences, I am free from the consequences of sin, because Jesus Christ has taken all my sins as his own, and he has already died for them, thus the dept is paid. Your pulling on a division that you see between Christians and Non-christians, thinking that by avoiding the religion, you are avoiding the consequences of the religious belifes that its followers are bound by, when in practice, it is exactly the opposite, the masses are bound by the wages of sin, and are unsaveable by that accord, where as forgiven christians, members of the kingdom of God, are already freed from thier consequences.
Don't worry though, you can't do anything to be any more free of sin so I'm not going to try to preach the wages of sin to you, they are honestly irrelevent unless you belive you are saved from them in the first place.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--><!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Skulk, I'm not going to try and prove to you that your view of Christianity is unfounded, you'll just throw it back into my face, because you've already decided for yourself what you'll believe.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Just like everybody else posting in here. Thats why discussions of this nature were banned. Swiftspear had a nice little discussion going that didn't need the Science vs Religion flaming but certain forumites took it in that direction anyway.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->All I can tell you is that I've traded temporary, superfical pleasure for joy, not only eternal, but also in this life.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> So tell me, what is so enjoyable about heaven anyway? Certainly you can't do anything you want there, because that would mean commiting sin, so surely you must keep up your "good christianess" after death, making it rather unappealing if you ask me. I'd rather not have a deity telling me whats ok and whats not, I believe I am capable of defining that for myself.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->I really don't see the need for the kind of language Legionnaired is using there. We can claim the pleasures of the afterlife all we want, but honestly, christianity is not about getting into heaven, its about making the best of your time on earth. I belive that life will be more worth living if I abstain from the little things like abuse of drugs and rampant sex, I belive that I will honestly find more value in loving relationships and intellectual clarity. I belive thrills can be achived just as effectively whizzing down a mountain on a finely shaped plank or jumping off a bridge with a giant elastic tied to your feet, as they can be from funny looking little pills. I belive that what goes around comes around, and when I am nice to people around me, they will in turn, more often then not, look for ways they can be nice to me. And I belive that God is thrilled when I do my best in his service, and in turn he will reciprocate by putting me in places where I can get more of all of the above. I wouldn't accept a belive that would trade uncomprimizing pain or sacrifice in this world for bliss in the afterlife. The afterlife is a confirmation, there is no reason you can't enjoy your time here just as much, if not more than anyone else.
jesus was a person who taught and made people believe in stuff. i believe he was one of the most charismatic persons in human history.
everything the bible tells has been written tens or hundreds of years after jesus's death. it's obvious that there are exaggerations.
has anyone read the da vinci code? i know it's a funny book, and i dont take it seriously but i hardly see it any more or less of a trustworthy source as, say, the bible <!--emo&;)--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html//emoticons/wink-fix.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='wink-fix.gif' /><!--endemo-->
<!--QuoteBegin-TOmekki+Oct 29 2004, 05:29 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (TOmekki @ Oct 29 2004, 05:29 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> jesus was a person who taught and made people believe in stuff. i believe he was one of the most charismatic persons in human history.
everything the bible tells has been written tens or hundreds of years after jesus's death. it's obvious that there are exaggerations.
has anyone read the da vinci code? i know it's a funny book, and i dont take it seriously but i hardly see it any more or less of a trustworthy source as, say, the bible <!--emo&;)--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html//emoticons/wink-fix.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='wink-fix.gif' /><!--endemo--> <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd--> There is Primary sourse documentation of Jesus' life in the gospels, as well as historical clarical style writing. And even after that most of the new testimate is primary sourse documentiation from some of the most educated scolars of thier time translating and interpreting the meanings of the things Jesus said.
on a tangent, why do people buy into crap like the davinci code? its authors even acknowledged that their whole book was pure speculation, based on circumstantial evidence, and ultimately unprovable (in fact it's been debunked by several authors iirc).
<!--QuoteBegin-Swiftspear+Oct 29 2004, 04:48 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Swiftspear @ Oct 29 2004, 04:48 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> Why do Americans consider themselfs free? As a chrisian I am free because I am literally not tied by the bonds of sin, all that is forgiven. In a physical sence I am just as free as anyone else; anyone who disobeys a law, be it a law of God or a law of man, will recive a consequence, causality guarentees that, but I will not have to pay for anything I do in any way after I have recieved its causal effect. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> The laws of man are put in place to protect freedoms (at least there supposed to be... and at least here in the US). The laws of God, for the most part, serve only to resrict freedoms. "Thous shalt not kill (humans)" makes sense, but "Thou shalt honor thy mother and thy father"? How is that any of God's business?
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--><!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--><!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Law is there to show sin, but it is not something that rules our lives through fear.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> Then why is there a hell? Why did god smite so many people? Why did god flood the world and kill off uncountable numbers of humans and animals? "The wages of sin is death" and eternal suffering in hell. Tell me, what part of that doesn't involve fear?<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->The wages of Sin is death, so all humanty can fear its consequences, I am free from the consequences of sin, because Jesus Christ has taken all my sins as his own, and he has already died for them, thus the dept is paid. Your pulling on a division that you see between Christians and Non-christians, thinking that by avoiding the religion, you are avoiding the consequences of the religious belifes that its followers are bound by, when in practice, it is exactly the opposite, the masses are bound by the wages of sin, and are unsaveable by that accord, where as forgiven christians, members of the kingdom of God, are already freed from thier consequences.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Not really. The consequence of following the laws of God is payed on earth AND in the afterlife. Being saved means going to heaven and doing what? Serving God most likely right? So the consequence for not following God's laws is being cast into the firey pit, and the consequence for following them is slavery.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> <!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> <!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->All I can tell you is that I've traded temporary, superfical pleasure for joy, not only eternal, but also in this life.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> So tell me, what is so enjoyable about heaven anyway? Certainly you can't do anything you want there, because that would mean commiting sin, so surely you must keep up your "good christianess" after death, making it rather unappealing if you ask me. I'd rather not have a deity telling me whats ok and whats not, I believe I am capable of defining that for myself.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> I really don't see the need for the kind of language Legionnaired is using there. We can claim the pleasures of the afterlife all we want, but honestly, christianity is not about getting into heaven, its about making the best of your time on earth. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> By forgoing some of its most pleasurable offerings? By spending so many hours worshiping the guy your going to be serving for all eternity anyway?
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->And I belive that God is thrilled when I do my best in his service, and in turn he will reciprocate by putting me in places where I can get more of all of the above. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> So you admit, that your entire life AND afterlife is in the service of ONE being. How is this not slavery again? Because you get rewarded for being a good slave?
TalesinOur own little well of hateJoin Date: 2002-11-08Member: 7710NS1 Playtester, Forum Moderators
edited October 2004
I'd say that Jesus was Habib's D&D character. And when we find one of those guys frozen in a sand dune and bring him back, he's going to laugh at everyone for actually falling for the backstory.
Alternately, he was a guy with a good idea, who then had a whole lot of morons muck it up by making a religion out of it, each new generation of squalling womb-spawn slathering on another layer of mythology to the story, until we're left with the bible.
PS- For those getting into the science versus religion aspect of the discussion Swiftspear, I'd recommend quite heavily that you read through the discussion forum rules.
<!--QuoteBegin-Talesin+Oct 30 2004, 09:46 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Talesin @ Oct 30 2004, 09:46 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> Alternately, he was a guy with a good idea, who then had a whole lot of morons muck it up by making a religion out of it, each new generation of squalling womb-spawn slathering on another layer of mythology to the story, until we're left with the bible. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> In other words, everything in there that I like is obviously Jesus juice magic 100% gold, and anything in there I dont is garbage laid on by his followers, because there is no way that Jesus would be stupid enough to disagree with me.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> Not really. The consequence of following the laws of God is payed on earth AND in the afterlife. Being saved means going to heaven and doing what? Serving God most likely right? So the consequence for not following God's laws is being cast into the firey pit, and the consequence for following them is slavery.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
You talk about freedom as if it was automatically good and wholesome in and of itself. Why? Would you advise a preteen to gain freedom from their parents? They're controlling what you do remember, they make you do chores - shame on them. Why is it so abhorent that man could actually need God? Freedom to make a decision is good - because when you sod it up you have no one else to blame. You made the decision, you made the mistake. You cant blame God for only giving you two choices - its like me offering you two bars, one red hot, the other merely cool, and asking you to pick one up. Its entirely up to you, but its insanity to pick up the burning hot one. Have I forced your hand, have I removed your free will - no.
God is giving you two stark options. You can either fullfil your purpose in serving him, or you can choose not to. The closest analogy I can think of is a man offering his dog two options, hang around and help me out on the farm, living an active, fulfilling life, with plenty of affection, food, veterinary care and shelter at night - or go your own way, live on the street, be miserable, alone and aimless. If God exists, then there doesnt seem to be a third option.
<!--QuoteBegin-Marine01+Oct 30 2004, 05:08 AM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Marine01 @ Oct 30 2004, 05:08 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--><!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> Not really. The consequence of following the laws of God is payed on earth AND in the afterlife. Being saved means going to heaven and doing what? Serving God most likely right? So the consequence for not following God's laws is being cast into the firey pit, and the consequence for following them is slavery.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
You talk about freedom as if it was automatically good and wholesome in and of itself. Why?<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> If it weren't, there would be any purpose to living.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Would you advise a preteen to gain freedom from their parents?<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> Yes, and they can do so at age 18 in the US. With god, you are a slave forever.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> They're controlling what you do remember, they make you do chores - shame on them. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> Ah, but if said preteen doesn't do their chores then what is the worst that could happen? Spanking probably. A few light hits to the rear. And eventually they get to grow up and move out and be free. What is god's version of a little spanking? Eternal suffering I guess...
Unlike God, parent's don't expect you to do their bidding for your entire existance.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Why is it so abhorent that man could actually need God?<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> It isn't so much abhorent as it is unevidenced. Man exists on earth without any evidence for God's interference. Still, I find the idea that I need God distastefull. Why should I need him? He has caused nothing but suffering as far as I can see. He has given me nothing except this miserable existance, which I did not ask for. He has then offered me the choice of being his slave, or suffering forever. I would choose the latter out of spite for this alone if I hadn't already choosen it becuase it is the only choice where I am not a slave.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Freedom to make a decision is good - because when you sod it up you have no one else to blame. You made the decision, you made the mistake. You cant blame God for only giving you two choices<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> Why not? If I gave you the choice of death by beheading, or death by hanging, couldn't you blame me for not giving you any options that don't suck? Especially if I created you for the purpose of making this decision?
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> - its like me offering you two bars, one red hot, the other merely cool, and asking you to pick one up. Its entirely up to you, but its insanity to pick up the burning hot one. Have I forced your hand, have I removed your free will - no.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> First of all your analogy is flawed. A 'cool' rod suggests that one of the options is completely harmless, this is not the case. In reality it is either "be god's slave for eternity" or "suffer for eternity". So your analogy would be better if one rod was burning and the other was covered in poisoned spikes. I'd rather we just look at it the way it really is: Choose either A) Follow the rules and massa' will let you pick cotton in his fields for all eternity, or B) **** massa' off, and face torture for all eternity. Second of all I'm not arguing that you are a slave because you are only given two (bad) options, but rahter that by choosing God you are choosing to give up your free will, forever. <!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> God is giving you two stark options. You can either fullfil your purpose in serving him, or you can choose not to. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> Ah ha! See? You admit it: Your purpose is to be God's slave and he created you for this purpose. In that respect I guess we're really more like appliances then eh? Too bad god gave his oven the choice to run away.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->The closest analogy I can think of is a man offering his dog two options, hang around and help me out on the farm, living an active, fulfilling life, with plenty of affection, food, veterinary care and shelter at night - or go your own way, live on the street, be miserable, alone and aimless. If God exists, then there doesnt seem to be a third option.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> Just because the dog chooses to be without a master doesn't mean that it will nessesarily be miserable. Unlike with god where the choice is more like: A) live with the farmer, be a slave B) Farmer shoots you.
In all these cases the second choice is obviously worse, but also the only one where you are really free.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->You talk about freedom as if it was automatically good and wholesome in and of itself. Why?<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> If it weren't, there would be any purpose to living.
I still dont understand, I need to know why its intrinsically valuable. And why, if its instrinsically good, does it need to be limited? Real freedom makes for anarchy. All the intrinsically good things I know come in unlimited amounts, the more the merrier - Peace and Love to name two things.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Ah, but if said preteen doesn't do their chores then what is the worst that could happen? Spanking probably. A few light hits to the rear. And eventually they get to grow up and move out and be free. What is god's version of a little spanking? Eternal suffering I guess...
Unlike God, parent's don't expect you to do their bidding for your entire existance.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
The child, at that stage of its life, is entirely reliant upon its parents. Eventually it will get to a stage where it has grown and matured and is no longer reliant upon its parents - but to seek freedom before this stage arrives is not a good idea. People, being created to be reliant upon God, never ever reach a stage like that - but if a child never grows up, it would still be a bad idea to reject the parents it needs.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->It isn't so much abhorent as it is unevidenced. Man exists on earth without any evidence for God's interference. Still, I find the idea that I need God distastefull. Why should I need him? He has caused nothing but suffering as far as I can see. He has given me nothing except this miserable existance, which I did not ask for. He has then offered me the choice of being his slave, or suffering forever. I would choose the latter out of spite for this alone if I hadn't already choosen it becuase it is the only choice where I am not a slave.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Well.... damn. I guess if that's the way you feel, then there isnt much I can say.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Why not? If I gave you the choice of death by beheading, or death by hanging, couldn't you blame me for not giving you any options that don't suck? Especially if I created you for the purpose of making this decision?<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Well, I see your point. You already hate God, so both options are poison. You reject the notion that everything Good is attributed and sourced directly from God, so God cant win in your mind.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Ah ha! See? You admit it: Your purpose is to be God's slave and he created you for this purpose. In that respect I guess we're really more like appliances then eh? Too bad god gave his oven the choice to run away.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> My purpose is to serve God, yes, and to do what he says. Like my dog analogy. But I believe that's what I was created for, that's what gives me satisfaction and that's what gives my life meaning. But you value freedom, for its own sake, above that. Not that you believe it exists at all, but you get my meaning.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Just because the dog chooses to be without a master doesn't mean that it will nessesarily be miserable. Unlike with god where the choice is more like: A) live with the farmer, be a slave B) Farmer shoots you.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
In the God analogy, it does - there is no third option. He is the source of Good, either you're with him and you have it, or you are without him and you have nothing. Shoot implies killing. God doesnt kill you, he just puts you in a place where he is not. A place where nothing is Good is a very, very miserable place - but hey, look on the brightside, you'll have your freedom. You'll have made your choice, no God forced you to do what he really wanted you to, heck he'll even give you what you want, freedom from him.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->In all these cases the second choice is obviously worse, but also the only one where you are really free.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I like freedom, but only because I associate freedom with good - which doesnt exist apart from God.
<!--QuoteBegin-Marine01+Oct 30 2004, 06:36 AM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Marine01 @ Oct 30 2004, 06:36 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--><!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--><!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->You talk about freedom as if it was automatically good and wholesome in and of itself. Why?<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> If it weren't, there would be any purpose to living.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I still dont understand, I need to know why its intrinsically valuable. And why, if its instrinsically good, does it need to be limited? Real freedom makes for anarchy. All the intrinsically good things I know come in unlimited amounts, the more the merrier - Peace and Love to name two things.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> Oh really? Doesn't god forbid homosexual love? He certainly forbids the expression of it. So I guess that "intrisic good" can't be unlimited can it? Also, evidentally, peace exists in very limited quantities and always has.
Freedom needs to be limited, only ever so slightly, to avoid the vast majority of freedoms being forcefully taken away. If everyone was allowed to kill people who didn't want to be killed, then those being killed are having the vast majority of their freedoms stripped from them. It is all about maximizing freedom.
Freedom is the most valuable thing I can think of, because without it I only exist for someone elses purposes. To wash their dishes, to mop their floor, whatever. And my own desires are completely meaningless, sacrificed for the desires of someone else. I just don't see any point in living if you can't at least have some hope of fullfilling your desires.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> <!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Ah, but if said preteen doesn't do their chores then what is the worst that could happen? Spanking probably. A few light hits to the rear. And eventually they get to grow up and move out and be free. What is god's version of a little spanking? Eternal suffering I guess...
Unlike God, parent's don't expect you to do their bidding for your entire existance.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
The child, at that stage of its life, is entirely reliant upon its parents. Eventually it will get to a stage where it has grown and matured and is no longer reliant upon its parents - but to seek freedom before this stage arrives is not a good idea. People, being created to be reliant upon God, never ever reach a stage like that - but if a child never grows up, it would still be a bad idea to reject the parents it needs. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> At that point the child may as well kill itself, it has nothing to look forward to except continued servatude. But that begs the question, why doesn't God allow us to "grow up"? Hes god, so he could if he wanted to right? Is he afraid of something?
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--><!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Why not? If I gave you the choice of death by beheading, or death by hanging, couldn't you blame me for not giving you any options that don't suck? Especially if I created you for the purpose of making this decision?<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Well, I see your point. You already hate God, so both options are poison. You reject the notion that everything Good is attributed and sourced directly from God, so God cant win in your mind. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Sure he could. All he has to do is offer me something besides eternal servitude or guarenteed eternal suffering. What this would be I don't know, I'm not God. The least he could offer me is non-existance I suppose, but no, its slavery or suffering.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--><!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Ah ha! See? You admit it: Your purpose is to be God's slave and he created you for this purpose. In that respect I guess we're really more like appliances then eh? Too bad god gave his oven the choice to run away.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> My purpose is to serve God, yes, and to do what he says. Like my dog analogy. But I believe that's what I was created for, that's what gives me satisfaction and that's what gives my life meaning. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> If that is the case then I grant you the title "Slave Marine01", and you should accept it gladly. Hell, why not prove your loyalty by branding youself with an "I'm God's ****" iron?
Seriously, why does this give you meaning? Because you concede that your only value is to be a pawn for some "greater" (and I use the term loosely here) being? And your reward for being a pawn is getting to be a pawn for all eternity?
Since nobody has answered this (at least that I've seen):
Why is Christianity right when all the other religions are wrong? What seperates Christianity from any of the other 5000+ religions in the world? PLEASE don't say popularity or the bible. <!--emo&:)--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html//emoticons/smile-fix.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='smile-fix.gif' /><!--endemo-->
I want real evidence.
Oh and a question: If God is all powerful/omnimax/omnipotent why doesn't he just destroy Satan?
This isn't meant as a knock on religion, I really wanna find out <!--emo&:)--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html//emoticons/smile-fix.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='smile-fix.gif' /><!--endemo-->
Comments
merely doing it to prove a point <!--emo&:)--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html//emoticons/smile-fix.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='smile-fix.gif' /><!--endemo-->
I wouldnt call myself an extremist either lol
The problem is that no one reads literary style. Alot of christians claim that the whole thing is history, but it just isn't. On the other side alot of athiests claim the whole thing is myth, but much of the writing is clearly an attemt at accurate history. There is quite a gap in style and writing when the genre's change.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Connected to this problem is that not all books are as realieable as others. When it comes to the books Kings and Chronicles I would bet on that Kings is the most acurate since it doesn't seem to have been edited as much as Chronicles. In some of the cases where they say different things other historical facts have been on kings "side".
<!--QuoteBegin-Nadagast+Oct 25 2004, 01:55 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Nadagast @ Oct 25 2004, 01:55 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--><!--QuoteBegin-Okabore+Oct 25 2004, 07:21 AM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Okabore @ Oct 25 2004, 07:21 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> Got a question for you. What prof do you have that god doesn't exist? Seems strange question but do you got any? It's like saying that there isn't any green ravens. Untill you have found them all you can't say for certain that there isn't any. And as far as I know no sicentist have every found proof that god doesn't exist. Even the most knowledgable ateist have been forced to back on that question. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Umm, you're making the claim. The burden of proof lies upon you. I don't need to do anything. Are you born believing in God? No. Atheism is the default.
Show a shred of credible evidence that god exists, please?<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Actually isn't it the new theory that has to prove that it is valid? People seems to have allways belived in some kind of god(ess) so isn't it up to science to prove that those who belive are wrong? New idéas has never trully been accepted by scince before they have and evidence that they are right. Every scientific "fact" has started out as an assumption and untill a better assumption or facts that proves or disproves has come along the assumption will stand. After that it will either fall or become a fact untill a new assumption comes along. So what we have at the moment is in one cornour the religious assumption that there is a god and in the other cornour sience with the assumption that god doesn't exist. Neither has any real proof that they are right but at the moment religion is in the "lead" partly beacuse it's older but mainly because it has material stating it's case that science hasn't been able to disprove. And though not all of it has been proven correct by other sources it is till more than what science has been able to produce.
Btw just to clarify things a bit. I'm not religious, I wouldn't mind beliving since I like the message but I don't. I have studied the old testament at univeristy and it's from there I draw most of my knowledge from.
Oh and Nadagast, I have trouble understanding why you picked such a bad example as the one from King and Chronicle since the exact numbers doesn't matter (in my opinion). The work of god isn't dependent on the number of officers Salamo had.
No, if you want a better example of a contradiction you could simply have read the first three (or so) pages of Genesis.
Is the book of Daniel prophecy (written before the fact) or History (written during / after the fact) ?
No, no, no, no, no, no. If I may make a rather ironic statement: Jesus, how did you come to these conclusions?
I'll go sequentially through this muddle of poor reasoning.
"Actually isn't it the new theory that has to prove that it is valid?"
When arguing over the existance of something disputed (that this guy was hacking, that a man committed a murder, that a god exists) the burden of proof is <b>always</b> on those who are saying it did exist. To wit, it's required to prove that god does exist, not to prove that he doesn't.
"People seems to have allways belived in some kind of god(ess)"
People have not always believed in a god. I will grant you that religion has been around for pretty much all of history, but that not everyone believes there is some kind of god. I'm not just speaking about athiests either; Buddhism and Shinto, both major and ancient world religions, do not include the notion of gods.
"so isn't it up to science to prove that those who belive are wrong? New idéas has never trully been accepted by scince before they have and evidence that they are right."
It is not up to science to prove that belief in god is wrong. Ask any Christian poster on this board about why they believe what they do and I guarantee somewhere in what they say they will mention the word <b>faith</b>. Of course, now that I've said that, some of them won't do it, to prove me wrong. <!--emo&;)--><img src='http://www.natural-selection.org/forums/html//emoticons/wink-fix.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='wink-fix.gif' /><!--endemo--> What is faith? Faith is holding to a belief despite lack of evidence or evidence to the contrary for that belief. Having faith in something has nothing to do with whether or not that something is real or true.
"Every scientific "fact" has started out as an assumption and untill a better assumption or facts that proves or disproves has come along the assumption will stand. After that it will either fall or become a fact untill a new assumption comes along."
Most scientific postulates and theories (there are very few facts, though many theories are now accepted as fact) do not begin as assumptions, they begin as research, or noticing signifigant correlations between certain things.
"So what we have at the moment is in one cornour the religious assumption that there is a god and in the other cornour sience with the assumption that god doesn't exist."
Science does not assume that there is no god. Neither does religion assume that science must be totally wrong. Science and western religion clash only in certain key areas; for example, how the universe began.
"Neither has any real proof that they are right but at the moment religion is in the "lead" partly beacuse it's older but mainly because it has material stating it's case that science hasn't been able to disprove."
Finally, a correct statement. You cannot prove that god exists, neither can you prove that god doesn't exist. However, my momentary praise must be quickly retracted. Your "argument" that religion is "in the lead" is the classic argument from ignorance, as posted earlier in the thread. In short, it's a big logical fallacy. Back in the 1400s people believed that the earth was flat. By your "reasoning" that was the correct conclusion simply because people had believed that for longer and you couldn't disprove it. If you were to apply this kind of thinking consistently, we'd still be in the middle ages at best, coping with such charming things as dysentary and the black plague. We certainly wouldn't be talking on an internet forum using illogical arguments to make confused points.
"And though not all of it has been proven correct by other sources it is till more than what science has been able to produce."
This is a baseless, illogical statement. The sciences and western religion really only clash on a few points, as I've said before. They aren't in competition and neither are they mutally exclusive. For example, if you're a Christian, that doens't mean you have to disbelieve atomic theory. The Bible doesn't say anything about what comprises the structure of physical things. There's no reason that Christianity can't be completely correct and have things made up of atoms that act the ways science has postulated.
Logic people, logic.
No, no, no, no, no, no. If I may make a rather ironic statement: Jesus, how did you come to these conclusions?
I'll go sequentially through this muddle of poor reasoning.
"Actually isn't it the new theory that has to prove that it is valid?"
When arguing over the existance of something disputed (that this guy was hacking, that a man committed a murder, that a god exists) the burden of proof is <b>always</b> on those who are saying it did exist. To wit, it's required to prove that god does exist, not to prove that he doesn't.
"People seems to have allways belived in some kind of god(ess)"
People have not always believed in a god. I will grant you that religion has been around for pretty much all of history, but that not everyone believes there is some kind of god. I'm not just speaking about athiests either; Buddhism and Shinto, both major and ancient world religions, do not include the notion of gods.
"so isn't it up to science to prove that those who belive are wrong? New idéas has never trully been accepted by scince before they have and evidence that they are right."
It is not up to science to prove that belief in god is wrong. Ask any Christian poster on this board about why they believe what they do and I guarantee somewhere in what they say they will mention the word <b>faith</b>. Of course, now that I've said that, some of them won't do it, to prove me wrong. <!--emo&;)--><img src='http://www.natural-selection.org/forums/html//emoticons/wink-fix.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='wink-fix.gif' /><!--endemo--> What is faith? Faith is holding to a belief despite lack of evidence or evidence to the contrary for that belief. Having faith in something has nothing to do with whether or not that something is real or true.
"Every scientific "fact" has started out as an assumption and untill a better assumption or facts that proves or disproves has come along the assumption will stand. After that it will either fall or become a fact untill a new assumption comes along."
Most scientific postulates and theories (there are very few facts, though many theories are now accepted as fact) do not begin as assumptions, they begin as research, or noticing signifigant correlations between certain things.
"So what we have at the moment is in one cornour the religious assumption that there is a god and in the other cornour sience with the assumption that god doesn't exist."
Science does not assume that there is no god. Neither does religion assume that science must be totally wrong. Science and western religion clash only in certain key areas; for example, how the universe began.
"Neither has any real proof that they are right but at the moment religion is in the "lead" partly beacuse it's older but mainly because it has material stating it's case that science hasn't been able to disprove."
Finally, a correct statement. You cannot prove that god exists, neither can you prove that god doesn't exist. However, my momentary praise must be quickly retracted. Your "argument" that religion is "in the lead" is the classic argument from ignorance, as posted earlier in the thread. In short, it's a big logical fallacy. Back in the 1400s people believed that the earth was flat. By your "reasoning" that was the correct conclusion simply because people had believed that for longer and you couldn't disprove it. If you were to apply this kind of thinking consistently, we'd still be in the middle ages at best, coping with such charming things as dysentary and the black plague. We certainly wouldn't be talking on an internet forum using illogical arguments to make confused points.
"And though not all of it has been proven correct by other sources it is till more than what science has been able to produce."
This is a baseless, illogical statement. The sciences and western religion really only clash on a few points, as I've said before. They aren't in competition and neither are they mutally exclusive. For example, if you're a Christian, that doens't mean you have to disbelieve atomic theory. The Bible doesn't say anything about what comprises the structure of physical things. There's no reason that Christianity can't be completely correct and have things made up of atoms that act the ways science has postulated.
Logic people, logic. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
I have seen vastly more evidence that God does exist then I have seen evidence that God does not exist, therefore I must logically postulate that God does exist until someone can prove otherwize, correct?
To get technical here, by Occham's razor, you must believe that god does not exist until someone can prove that he does, because the simpler and more rational one is logically the better theory. You can only proove that god exists if you must present a piece of evidence which is true, and is such that god must necessarily exist if this evidence is true.
To get technical here, by Occham's razor, you must believe that god does not exist until someone can prove that he does, because the simpler and more rational one is logically the better theory. You can only proove that god exists if you must present a piece of evidence which is true, and is such that god must necessarily exist if this evidence is true. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
Evolution is a complicated process, and it hasn't acctually been proven, same goes for Einstines reletivity... So to logically follow, I must belive that niether of these exist until it can be proven otherwize?
No, that's not what it means at all.
What it says is that when there is more than one explination for some phenomenon, you should believe the explination that offers the 'simplest' answer. ('Simplest' here is being used in a technical sense.) The answer which contains the least number of newly posited unknowns and is the most verifiable is the best answer. God is a posited unknown, and so a theory that doesn't require a god is a better theory.
Those theories are considered good theories because they don't put forth any new unknown entities and they are verifiable. They are accepted as the best ones for their respective subject because of that. However, we do not know that they are correct, so it's prefectly possible that a better theory will surface and replace them at some point. What Occham's razor says is that you should believe them now, because they are the best explinations we have, but you don't necessarily know them to be true.
You're wrong on 2 points. Atheism is the default: You have to prove that God exists. Period. Stop trying to make it otherwise.
Second, you think that there is 'proof of God' that actually stands up to real scientific critisism? Get real, or show me some. I'd love to see your 'proof' <!--emo&:)--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html//emoticons/smile-fix.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='smile-fix.gif' /><!--endemo-->
They aren't proven, but they fit the evidence as we see it. People have done tests verifying Einstein's Relativity and evolution fits the vast amount of knowledge we have at this time. If we find an exception to these rules, they will be changed to incorporate our new understanding of the world. That's the difference between science and religion.
By the way, both theories have vast amount of both evidence and scientific community support for them, so don't try to knock them. Don't compare their support to God either, religion's evidence is based on 'faith', scientific support is based in fact and reality.
<b>Swiftspear</b>, <b>Wheeee</b>: Speaking as an athiest, I admire your respect for the scientific viewpoint while keeping your faith firmly rooted in $DEITY. <!--emo&:)--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html//emoticons/smile-fix.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='smile-fix.gif' /><!--endemo-->
Since we're mucking about with Occham's Razor, I'm going to throw out Pascal's Wager. Since the existance of God, or lack thereof can't be scientifically proven, we are left with an article of faith either way we choose. We either say that the objections to God that science draws are insignificant and on some level wrong, or we bank on the fact that God doesn't exist, and carry out our lives as we see fit.
Since we have an article of faith either way, why not take the route that gives us the chance of the most possible happiness in the end?
Unless you admit that the existance of god is unprovable, and therefore unknowable. No faith required for that, its just fact.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->We either say that the objections to God that science draws are insignificant and on some level wrong, or we bank on the fact that God doesn't exist, and carry out our lives as we see fit.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Or admit that you don't know, and live your life in anyway you see fit.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->
Since we have an article of faith either way, why not take the route that gives us the chance of the most possible happiness in the end?<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Happiness!? HAPPINESS!? Religion is slavery (at least christianity is)! You give up many enjoyable things in life to serve a deity for eternity because if you don't you suffer for eternity. Oh yeah, thats sooo the happiest way to go.
Unless you admit that the existance of god is unprovable, and therefore unknowable. No faith required for that, its just fact.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->We either say that the objections to God that science draws are insignificant and on some level wrong, or we bank on the fact that God doesn't exist, and carry out our lives as we see fit.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Or admit that you don't know, and live your life in anyway you see fit.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->
Since we have an article of faith either way, why not take the route that gives us the chance of the most possible happiness in the end?<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Happiness!? HAPPINESS!? Religion is slavery (at least christianity is)! You give up many enjoyable things in life to serve a deity for eternity because if you don't you suffer for eternity. Oh yeah, thats sooo the happiest way to go. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
Good God, nothing is 'provable' everything that you take for a basis of existance is littered with literally hundreds of thousands of assumptions that are not mathimatically tied down. The existance of God is no less provable then the fact that other people besides yourself exist, or the fact that the world is round. In my life I have seen literally tonnes and tonnes of evidence of the existance of God, in fact I can honestly tell you that the sum of the unlikely and miraculous things I have seen has an impossible probablility based on the current understanding of science we have. I can therefore conculde one of 3 things:
1. science is right and the proverbial dice just so happend to roll 6 five hundred times in a row.
2. Science is wrong, but it is due to the fact that we just don't have a good enough scientific understanding or reality to explain many many events.
3. God exists, and he is acting on reality alongside the inputs we have already scientifically defined.
All of those are assumptions, none of them is generically default because all of them are either increadibly complex or increadibly unlikely.
I am not a gambler, I go with the likelyhoods as I see them, God has proved to me that he exists as good as he needed to, and as long as I walk with him he continues to do so.
The way I see it, your postulation that religion is slavery is as far from the truth as possible. As a Christain I am not held accountable to any laws, and I am free to do whatever I please. I have not, and will not, give up any of the most enjoyable things in life, I simply regect the pennies at the side of the rode in favor of the greater treasures along the way.
The ten commandments?
Righteousness Through Faith
21But now a righteousness from God, apart from law, has been made known, to which the Law and the Prophets testify. 22This righteousness from God comes through faith in Jesus Christ to all who believe. There is no difference, 23for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God, 24and are justified freely by his grace through the redemption that came by Christ Jesus. 25God presented him as a sacrifice of atonement,[9] through faith in his blood. He did this to demonstrate his justice, because in his forbearance he had left the sins committed beforehand unpunished-- 26he did it to demonstrate his justice at the present time, so as to be just and the one who justifies those who have faith in Jesus.
27Where, then, is boasting? It is excluded. On what principle? On that of observing the law? No, but on that of faith. 28For we maintain that a man is justified by faith apart from observing the law. 29Is God the God of Jews only? Is he not the God of Gentiles too? Yes, of Gentiles too, 30since there is only one God, who will justify the circumcised by faith and the uncircumcised through that same faith. 31Do we, then, nullify the law by this faith? Not at all! Rather, we uphold the law.
<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Law is there to show sin, but it is not something that rules our lives through fear. God's grace is sufficient for us.
Skulk, I'm not going to try and prove to you that your view of Christianity is unfounded, you'll just throw it back into my face, because you've already decided for yourself what you'll believe.
All I can tell you is that I've traded temporary, superfical pleasure for joy, not only eternal, but also in this life. I get stressed, but that stress doesn't rule me. I do get sad, but sadness is swallowed up in joy, and perspective. Sure, I abstain from sex and stuff for a few years, but so what?
Righteousness Through Faith
21But now a righteousness from God, apart from law, has been made known, to which the Law and the Prophets testify. 22This righteousness from God comes through faith in Jesus Christ to all who believe. There is no difference, 23for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God, 24and are justified freely by his grace through the redemption that came by Christ Jesus. 25God presented him as a sacrifice of atonement,[9] through faith in his blood. He did this to demonstrate his justice, because in his forbearance he had left the sins committed beforehand unpunished-- 26he did it to demonstrate his justice at the present time, so as to be just and the one who justifies those who have faith in Jesus.
27Where, then, is boasting? It is excluded. On what principle? On that of observing the law? No, but on that of faith. 28For we maintain that a man is justified by faith apart from observing the law. 29Is God the God of Jews only? Is he not the God of Gentiles too? Yes, of Gentiles too, 30since there is only one God, who will justify the circumcised by faith and the uncircumcised through that same faith. 31Do we, then, nullify the law by this faith? Not at all! Rather, we uphold the law.
<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Law is there to show sin, but it is not something that rules our lives through fear. God's grace is sufficient for us.
Skulk, I'm not going to try and prove to you that your view of Christianity is unfounded, you'll just throw it back into my face, because you've already decided for yourself what you'll believe.
All I can tell you is that I've traded temporary, superfical pleasure for joy, not only eternal, but also in this life. I get stressed, but that stress doesn't rule me. I do get sad, but sadness is swallowed up in joy, and perspective. Sure, I abstain from sex and stuff for a few years, but so what? <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
Tonnes of athiests abstain too, its just a wizer way to live your life, with more control over your emotions and actions.
Unless you admit that the existance of god is unprovable, and therefore unknowable. No faith required for that, its just fact.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->We either say that the objections to God that science draws are insignificant and on some level wrong, or we bank on the fact that God doesn't exist, and carry out our lives as we see fit.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Or admit that you don't know, and live your life in anyway you see fit.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->
Since we have an article of faith either way, why not take the route that gives us the chance of the most possible happiness in the end?<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Happiness!? HAPPINESS!? Religion is slavery (at least christianity is)! You give up many enjoyable things in life to serve a deity for eternity because if you don't you suffer for eternity. Oh yeah, thats sooo the happiest way to go. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
The existance of God is no less provable then the fact that other people besides yourself exist, or the fact that the world is round. In my life I have seen literally tonnes and tonnes of evidence of the existance of God, in fact I can honestly tell you that the sum of the unlikely and miraculous things I have seen has an impossible probablility based on the current understanding of science we have. I can therefore conculde one of 3 things:
1. science is right and the proverbial dice just so happend to roll 6 five hundred times in a row.
2. Science is wrong, but it is due to the fact that we just don't have a good enough scientific understanding or reality to explain many many events.
3. God exists, and he is acting on reality alongside the inputs we have already scientifically defined.
<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
On the otherhand, I have never seen nor heard of anything but useless anecdotal evidence for the existance of any kind of deity, and and I have seen NO evidence that would require a diety to exist.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->
The way I see it, your postulation that religion is slavery is as far from the truth as possible. As a Christain I am not held accountable to any laws, and I am free to do whatever I please.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Sure, so long as you either repent later, or accept the consequences of your actions. This is true of regualr everyday slaves as well, they can choose to disobey, but then they are punnished.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> I have not, and will not, give up any of the most enjoyable things in life, I simply regect the pennies at the side of the rode in favor of the greater treasures along the way.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
What greater treasures exactly? You get to spend all of eternity with the **** detiy who created you for no other reason than to have worshipers? Doing what? Worshiping him? No thanks, I'll take hell over that anyday.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Law is there to show sin, but it is not something that rules our lives through fear.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Then why is there a hell? Why did god smite so many people? Why did god flood the world and kill off uncountable numbers of humans and animals? "The wages of sin is death" and eternal suffering in hell. Tell me, what part of that doesn't involve fear?
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Skulk, I'm not going to try and prove to you that your view of Christianity is unfounded, you'll just throw it back into my face, because you've already decided for yourself what you'll believe.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Just like everybody else posting in here. Thats why discussions of this nature were banned. Swiftspear had a nice little discussion going that didn't need the Science vs Religion flaming but certain forumites took it in that direction anyway.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->All I can tell you is that I've traded temporary, superfical pleasure for joy, not only eternal, but also in this life.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
So tell me, what is so enjoyable about heaven anyway? Certainly you can't do anything you want there, because that would mean commiting sin, so surely you must keep up your "good christianess" after death, making it rather unappealing if you ask me. I'd rather not have a deity telling me whats ok and whats not, I believe I am capable of defining that for myself.
Unless you admit that the existance of god is unprovable, and therefore unknowable. No faith required for that, its just fact.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->We either say that the objections to God that science draws are insignificant and on some level wrong, or we bank on the fact that God doesn't exist, and carry out our lives as we see fit.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Or admit that you don't know, and live your life in anyway you see fit.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->
Since we have an article of faith either way, why not take the route that gives us the chance of the most possible happiness in the end?<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Happiness!? HAPPINESS!? Religion is slavery (at least christianity is)! You give up many enjoyable things in life to serve a deity for eternity because if you don't you suffer for eternity. Oh yeah, thats sooo the happiest way to go. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
The existance of God is no less provable then the fact that other people besides yourself exist, or the fact that the world is round. In my life I have seen literally tonnes and tonnes of evidence of the existance of God, in fact I can honestly tell you that the sum of the unlikely and miraculous things I have seen has an impossible probablility based on the current understanding of science we have. I can therefore conculde one of 3 things:
1. science is right and the proverbial dice just so happend to roll 6 five hundred times in a row.
2. Science is wrong, but it is due to the fact that we just don't have a good enough scientific understanding or reality to explain many many events.
3. God exists, and he is acting on reality alongside the inputs we have already scientifically defined.
<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
On the otherhand, I have never seen nor heard of anything but useless anecdotal evidence for the existance of any kind of deity, and and I have seen NO evidence that would require a diety to exist.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->
The way I see it, your postulation that religion is slavery is as far from the truth as possible. As a Christain I am not held accountable to any laws, and I am free to do whatever I please.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Sure, so long as you either repent later, or accept the consequences of your actions. This is true of regualr everyday slaves as well, they can choose to disobey, but then they are punnished.
<!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> I have not, and will not, give up any of the most enjoyable things in life, I simply regect the pennies at the side of the rode in favor of the greater treasures along the way.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
What greater treasures exactly? You get to spend all of eternity with the **** detiy who created you for no other reason than to have worshipers? Doing what? Worshiping him? No thanks, I'll take hell over that anyday.
Why do Americans consider themselfs free? As a chrisian I am free because I am literally not tied by the bonds of sin, all that is forgiven. In a physical sence I am just as free as anyone else; anyone who disobeys a law, be it a law of God or a law of man, will recive a consequence, causality guarentees that, but I will not have to pay for anything I do in any way after I have recieved its causal effect. I choose to follow the laws that are around me because they outline a wize and effective way to live your life with little reletive suffering, and much achiveable joy. You can say the same of any law abiding American citizen.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--><!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Law is there to show sin, but it is not something that rules our lives through fear.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Then why is there a hell? Why did god smite so many people? Why did god flood the world and kill off uncountable numbers of humans and animals? "The wages of sin is death" and eternal suffering in hell. Tell me, what part of that doesn't involve fear?<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->The wages of Sin is death, so all humanty can fear its consequences, I am free from the consequences of sin, because Jesus Christ has taken all my sins as his own, and he has already died for them, thus the dept is paid. Your pulling on a division that you see between Christians and Non-christians, thinking that by avoiding the religion, you are avoiding the consequences of the religious belifes that its followers are bound by, when in practice, it is exactly the opposite, the masses are bound by the wages of sin, and are unsaveable by that accord, where as forgiven christians, members of the kingdom of God, are already freed from thier consequences.
Don't worry though, you can't do anything to be any more free of sin so I'm not going to try to preach the wages of sin to you, they are honestly irrelevent unless you belive you are saved from them in the first place.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--><!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Skulk, I'm not going to try and prove to you that your view of Christianity is unfounded, you'll just throw it back into my face, because you've already decided for yourself what you'll believe.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Just like everybody else posting in here. Thats why discussions of this nature were banned. Swiftspear had a nice little discussion going that didn't need the Science vs Religion flaming but certain forumites took it in that direction anyway.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->All I can tell you is that I've traded temporary, superfical pleasure for joy, not only eternal, but also in this life.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
So tell me, what is so enjoyable about heaven anyway? Certainly you can't do anything you want there, because that would mean commiting sin, so surely you must keep up your "good christianess" after death, making it rather unappealing if you ask me. I'd rather not have a deity telling me whats ok and whats not, I believe I am capable of defining that for myself.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->I really don't see the need for the kind of language Legionnaired is using there. We can claim the pleasures of the afterlife all we want, but honestly, christianity is not about getting into heaven, its about making the best of your time on earth. I belive that life will be more worth living if I abstain from the little things like abuse of drugs and rampant sex, I belive that I will honestly find more value in loving relationships and intellectual clarity. I belive thrills can be achived just as effectively whizzing down a mountain on a finely shaped plank or jumping off a bridge with a giant elastic tied to your feet, as they can be from funny looking little pills. I belive that what goes around comes around, and when I am nice to people around me, they will in turn, more often then not, look for ways they can be nice to me. And I belive that God is thrilled when I do my best in his service, and in turn he will reciprocate by putting me in places where I can get more of all of the above. I wouldn't accept a belive that would trade uncomprimizing pain or sacrifice in this world for bliss in the afterlife. The afterlife is a confirmation, there is no reason you can't enjoy your time here just as much, if not more than anyone else.
everything the bible tells has been written tens or hundreds of years after jesus's death. it's obvious that there are exaggerations.
has anyone read the da vinci code? i know it's a funny book, and i dont take it seriously but i hardly see it any more or less of a trustworthy source as, say, the bible <!--emo&;)--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html//emoticons/wink-fix.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='wink-fix.gif' /><!--endemo-->
everything the bible tells has been written tens or hundreds of years after jesus's death. it's obvious that there are exaggerations.
has anyone read the da vinci code? i know it's a funny book, and i dont take it seriously but i hardly see it any more or less of a trustworthy source as, say, the bible <!--emo&;)--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html//emoticons/wink-fix.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='wink-fix.gif' /><!--endemo--> <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
There is Primary sourse documentation of Jesus' life in the gospels, as well as historical clarical style writing. And even after that most of the new testimate is primary sourse documentiation from some of the most educated scolars of thier time translating and interpreting the meanings of the things Jesus said.
The laws of man are put in place to protect freedoms (at least there supposed to be... and at least here in the US). The laws of God, for the most part, serve only to resrict freedoms. "Thous shalt not kill (humans)" makes sense, but "Thou shalt honor thy mother and thy father"? How is that any of God's business?
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--><!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--><!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Law is there to show sin, but it is not something that rules our lives through fear.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Then why is there a hell? Why did god smite so many people? Why did god flood the world and kill off uncountable numbers of humans and animals? "The wages of sin is death" and eternal suffering in hell. Tell me, what part of that doesn't involve fear?<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->The wages of Sin is death, so all humanty can fear its consequences, I am free from the consequences of sin, because Jesus Christ has taken all my sins as his own, and he has already died for them, thus the dept is paid. Your pulling on a division that you see between Christians and Non-christians, thinking that by avoiding the religion, you are avoiding the consequences of the religious belifes that its followers are bound by, when in practice, it is exactly the opposite, the masses are bound by the wages of sin, and are unsaveable by that accord, where as forgiven christians, members of the kingdom of God, are already freed from thier consequences.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Not really. The consequence of following the laws of God is payed on earth AND in the afterlife. Being saved means going to heaven and doing what? Serving God most likely right? So the consequence for not following God's laws is being cast into the firey pit, and the consequence for following them is slavery.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->All I can tell you is that I've traded temporary, superfical pleasure for joy, not only eternal, but also in this life.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
So tell me, what is so enjoyable about heaven anyway? Certainly you can't do anything you want there, because that would mean commiting sin, so surely you must keep up your "good christianess" after death, making it rather unappealing if you ask me. I'd rather not have a deity telling me whats ok and whats not, I believe I am capable of defining that for myself.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I really don't see the need for the kind of language Legionnaired is using there. We can claim the pleasures of the afterlife all we want, but honestly, christianity is not about getting into heaven, its about making the best of your time on earth. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
By forgoing some of its most pleasurable offerings? By spending so many hours worshiping the guy your going to be serving for all eternity anyway?
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->And I belive that God is thrilled when I do my best in his service, and in turn he will reciprocate by putting me in places where I can get more of all of the above. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
So you admit, that your entire life AND afterlife is in the service of ONE being. How is this not slavery again? Because you get rewarded for being a good slave?
Alternately, he was a guy with a good idea, who then had a whole lot of morons muck it up by making a religion out of it, each new generation of squalling womb-spawn slathering on another layer of mythology to the story, until we're left with the bible.
PS- For those getting into the science versus religion aspect of the discussion Swiftspear, I'd recommend quite heavily that you read through the discussion forum rules.
In other words, everything in there that I like is obviously Jesus juice magic 100% gold, and anything in there I dont is garbage laid on by his followers, because there is no way that Jesus would be stupid enough to disagree with me.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->
Not really. The consequence of following the laws of God is payed on earth AND in the afterlife. Being saved means going to heaven and doing what? Serving God most likely right? So the consequence for not following God's laws is being cast into the firey pit, and the consequence for following them is slavery.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
You talk about freedom as if it was automatically good and wholesome in and of itself. Why? Would you advise a preteen to gain freedom from their parents? They're controlling what you do remember, they make you do chores - shame on them. Why is it so abhorent that man could actually need God? Freedom to make a decision is good - because when you sod it up you have no one else to blame. You made the decision, you made the mistake. You cant blame God for only giving you two choices - its like me offering you two bars, one red hot, the other merely cool, and asking you to pick one up. Its entirely up to you, but its insanity to pick up the burning hot one. Have I forced your hand, have I removed your free will - no.
God is giving you two stark options. You can either fullfil your purpose in serving him, or you can choose not to. The closest analogy I can think of is a man offering his dog two options, hang around and help me out on the farm, living an active, fulfilling life, with plenty of affection, food, veterinary care and shelter at night - or go your own way, live on the street, be miserable, alone and aimless. If God exists, then there doesnt seem to be a third option.
Not really. The consequence of following the laws of God is payed on earth AND in the afterlife. Being saved means going to heaven and doing what? Serving God most likely right? So the consequence for not following God's laws is being cast into the firey pit, and the consequence for following them is slavery.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
You talk about freedom as if it was automatically good and wholesome in and of itself. Why?<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
If it weren't, there would be any purpose to living.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Would you advise a preteen to gain freedom from their parents?<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Yes, and they can do so at age 18 in the US. With god, you are a slave forever.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> They're controlling what you do remember, they make you do chores - shame on them. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Ah, but if said preteen doesn't do their chores then what is the worst that could happen? Spanking probably. A few light hits to the rear. And eventually they get to grow up and move out and be free. What is god's version of a little spanking? Eternal suffering I guess...
Unlike God, parent's don't expect you to do their bidding for your entire existance.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Why is it so abhorent that man could actually need God?<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
It isn't so much abhorent as it is unevidenced. Man exists on earth without any evidence for God's interference.
Still, I find the idea that I need God distastefull. Why should I need him? He has caused nothing but suffering as far as I can see. He has given me nothing except this miserable existance, which I did not ask for. He has then offered me the choice of being his slave, or suffering forever. I would choose the latter out of spite for this alone if I hadn't already choosen it becuase it is the only choice where I am not a slave.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Freedom to make a decision is good - because when you sod it up you have no one else to blame. You made the decision, you made the mistake. You cant blame God for only giving you two choices<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Why not? If I gave you the choice of death by beheading, or death by hanging, couldn't you blame me for not giving you any options that don't suck? Especially if I created you for the purpose of making this decision?
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> - its like me offering you two bars, one red hot, the other merely cool, and asking you to pick one up. Its entirely up to you, but its insanity to pick up the burning hot one. Have I forced your hand, have I removed your free will - no.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
First of all your analogy is flawed. A 'cool' rod suggests that one of the options is completely harmless, this is not the case. In reality it is either "be god's slave for eternity" or "suffer for eternity". So your analogy would be better if one rod was burning and the other was covered in poisoned spikes. I'd rather we just look at it the way it really is: Choose either A) Follow the rules and massa' will let you pick cotton in his fields for all eternity, or B) **** massa' off, and face torture for all eternity. Second of all I'm not arguing that you are a slave because you are only given two (bad) options, but rahter that by choosing God you are choosing to give up your free will, forever.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->
God is giving you two stark options. You can either fullfil your purpose in serving him, or you can choose not to. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Ah ha! See? You admit it: Your purpose is to be God's slave and he created you for this purpose. In that respect I guess we're really more like appliances then eh? Too bad god gave his oven the choice to run away.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->The closest analogy I can think of is a man offering his dog two options, hang around and help me out on the farm, living an active, fulfilling life, with plenty of affection, food, veterinary care and shelter at night - or go your own way, live on the street, be miserable, alone and aimless. If God exists, then there doesnt seem to be a third option.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Just because the dog chooses to be without a master doesn't mean that it will nessesarily be miserable. Unlike with god where the choice is more like: A) live with the farmer, be a slave B) Farmer shoots you.
In all these cases the second choice is obviously worse, but also the only one where you are really free.
If it weren't, there would be any purpose to living.
I still dont understand, I need to know why its intrinsically valuable. And why, if its instrinsically good, does it need to be limited? Real freedom makes for anarchy. All the intrinsically good things I know come in unlimited amounts, the more the merrier - Peace and Love to name two things.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Ah, but if said preteen doesn't do their chores then what is the worst that could happen? Spanking probably. A few light hits to the rear. And eventually they get to grow up and move out and be free. What is god's version of a little spanking? Eternal suffering I guess...
Unlike God, parent's don't expect you to do their bidding for your entire existance.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
The child, at that stage of its life, is entirely reliant upon its parents. Eventually it will get to a stage where it has grown and matured and is no longer reliant upon its parents - but to seek freedom before this stage arrives is not a good idea. People, being created to be reliant upon God, never ever reach a stage like that - but if a child never grows up, it would still be a bad idea to reject the parents it needs.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->It isn't so much abhorent as it is unevidenced. Man exists on earth without any evidence for God's interference.
Still, I find the idea that I need God distastefull. Why should I need him? He has caused nothing but suffering as far as I can see. He has given me nothing except this miserable existance, which I did not ask for. He has then offered me the choice of being his slave, or suffering forever. I would choose the latter out of spite for this alone if I hadn't already choosen it becuase it is the only choice where I am not a slave.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Well.... damn. I guess if that's the way you feel, then there isnt much I can say.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Why not? If I gave you the choice of death by beheading, or death by hanging, couldn't you blame me for not giving you any options that don't suck? Especially if I created you for the purpose of making this decision?<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Well, I see your point. You already hate God, so both options are poison. You reject the notion that everything Good is attributed and sourced directly from God, so God cant win in your mind.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Ah ha! See? You admit it: Your purpose is to be God's slave and he created you for this purpose. In that respect I guess we're really more like appliances then eh? Too bad god gave his oven the choice to run away.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
My purpose is to serve God, yes, and to do what he says. Like my dog analogy. But I believe that's what I was created for, that's what gives me satisfaction and that's what gives my life meaning. But you value freedom, for its own sake, above that. Not that you believe it exists at all, but you get my meaning.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Just because the dog chooses to be without a master doesn't mean that it will nessesarily be miserable. Unlike with god where the choice is more like: A) live with the farmer, be a slave B) Farmer shoots you.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
In the God analogy, it does - there is no third option. He is the source of Good, either you're with him and you have it, or you are without him and you have nothing. Shoot implies killing. God doesnt kill you, he just puts you in a place where he is not. A place where nothing is Good is a very, very miserable place - but hey, look on the brightside, you'll have your freedom. You'll have made your choice, no God forced you to do what he really wanted you to, heck he'll even give you what you want, freedom from him.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->In all these cases the second choice is obviously worse, but also the only one where you are really free.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I like freedom, but only because I associate freedom with good - which doesnt exist apart from God.
If it weren't, there would be any purpose to living.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I still dont understand, I need to know why its intrinsically valuable. And why, if its instrinsically good, does it need to be limited? Real freedom makes for anarchy. All the intrinsically good things I know come in unlimited amounts, the more the merrier - Peace and Love to name two things.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Oh really? Doesn't god forbid homosexual love? He certainly forbids the expression of it. So I guess that "intrisic good" can't be unlimited can it? Also, evidentally, peace exists in very limited quantities and always has.
Freedom needs to be limited, only ever so slightly, to avoid the vast majority of freedoms being forcefully taken away. If everyone was allowed to kill people who didn't want to be killed, then those being killed are having the vast majority of their freedoms stripped from them. It is all about maximizing freedom.
Freedom is the most valuable thing I can think of, because without it I only exist for someone elses purposes. To wash their dishes, to mop their floor, whatever. And my own desires are completely meaningless, sacrificed for the desires of someone else. I just don't see any point in living if you can't at least have some hope of fullfilling your desires.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Ah, but if said preteen doesn't do their chores then what is the worst that could happen? Spanking probably. A few light hits to the rear. And eventually they get to grow up and move out and be free. What is god's version of a little spanking? Eternal suffering I guess...
Unlike God, parent's don't expect you to do their bidding for your entire existance.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
The child, at that stage of its life, is entirely reliant upon its parents. Eventually it will get to a stage where it has grown and matured and is no longer reliant upon its parents - but to seek freedom before this stage arrives is not a good idea. People, being created to be reliant upon God, never ever reach a stage like that - but if a child never grows up, it would still be a bad idea to reject the parents it needs.
<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
At that point the child may as well kill itself, it has nothing to look forward to except continued servatude. But that begs the question, why doesn't God allow us to "grow up"? Hes god, so he could if he wanted to right? Is he afraid of something?
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--><!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Why not? If I gave you the choice of death by beheading, or death by hanging, couldn't you blame me for not giving you any options that don't suck? Especially if I created you for the purpose of making this decision?<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Well, I see your point. You already hate God, so both options are poison. You reject the notion that everything Good is attributed and sourced directly from God, so God cant win in your mind. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Sure he could. All he has to do is offer me something besides eternal servitude or guarenteed eternal suffering. What this would be I don't know, I'm not God. The least he could offer me is non-existance I suppose, but no, its slavery or suffering.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--><!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Ah ha! See? You admit it: Your purpose is to be God's slave and he created you for this purpose. In that respect I guess we're really more like appliances then eh? Too bad god gave his oven the choice to run away.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
My purpose is to serve God, yes, and to do what he says. Like my dog analogy. But I believe that's what I was created for, that's what gives me satisfaction and that's what gives my life meaning. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
If that is the case then I grant you the title "Slave Marine01", and you should accept it gladly. Hell, why not prove your loyalty by branding youself with an "I'm God's ****" iron?
Seriously, why does this give you meaning? Because you concede that your only value is to be a pawn for some "greater" (and I use the term loosely here) being? And your reward for being a pawn is getting to be a pawn for all eternity?
Why is Christianity right when all the other religions are wrong? What seperates Christianity from any of the other 5000+ religions in the world? PLEASE don't say popularity or the bible. <!--emo&:)--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html//emoticons/smile-fix.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='smile-fix.gif' /><!--endemo-->
I want real evidence.
Oh and a question:
If God is all powerful/omnimax/omnipotent why doesn't he just destroy Satan?
This isn't meant as a knock on religion, I really wanna find out <!--emo&:)--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html//emoticons/smile-fix.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='smile-fix.gif' /><!--endemo-->