Unscientific survey of 'poly religious beliefs

[Brent]

The Garden of Eden was in Missouri. Noah probably lived nearby before the flood.

[Spiffor]

Wow, Adam and Eve sure did travel far before settling down

[Brent]

Ethiopia, Assyria, and the Euphrates were names reapplied in the "old" world after the flood. The geography of Genesis chapter 2 does not match the "old" world.

[Nostromo]

[Sava]

Brent's vision is quite complex. I mean, most paranoid dillusions are complex, but this one is really good.

[Spiffor]

Originally posted by Brent
Ethiopia, Assyria, and the Euphrates were names reapplied in the "old" world after the flood. The geography of Genesis chapter 2 does not match the "old" world.

Wouldn't that be because the Bibl is no Geography treatise, and shouldn't be taken literally?

[Bill3000]

I kind of trust geology more than I trust the bible with regards to the history of geography.

[Whaleboy]

Are you familiar with the logic of infinity?

Suppose we had an infinite hotel, we could evict all the customers in even rooms, and still have the same number of guests in the hotel.

The same applies to an infinite mass. What sense does such an object have?

You realise the logic of infinity renders an omnipotent/omnicient God knowable to humans a contradiction in terms?

To speak of the law written on everyone's heart is different from the doctrines required to be accepted by all members of the Catholic church.

Assume for the moment a fault line between individual faith and collective/organised religion... would the differences you say run along that fault line?

What is the point of light if it cannot be percieved?

Matter does not require a point. Asides from the problems you're having with relative dualism (they do need to be opposed at a 180degree angle, hence "triplism" for want of a better word, you are assuming some prescriptive essence for your examples, there is none... empiricism is descriptive, morality is prescriptive.

Language does not simply evolve. aspects can improve, aspects can deevolve, on the whole it can remain at an equivalent level. Adam and Eve spoke a perfect language, the language of God.

But you say it is meaningless, language evolves in anthropological/cultural contexts, relative to those contexts, as a self-contained holism "better" or "worse" cannot apply. Does not the same thing exist with morality, except in the context of the individual or the society? That does not require some kind of "anti-morality" in order to work, and I would be intrigued to see how such a concept would work.

I am addressing each point I come across that I have anything to say about in order.

As am I and many others but weave the points together into a relevent argument. You're not obliged to answer each point leveed against you, pick and choose the ones that are pertinent (and be honest when doing so) and counter them with reference to your argument structure.

God is governed by logic but it is true that He has progressed beyond the need for the scientific method.

That's a little opaque, and can work in one of two ways. Scientific method is just a logical conclusion of empiricism, you advance beyond the need for that and you become either a solipsist or Diogenes. That directly contradicts the idea that God is omniscient does it not? Second option is that God is not subject to scientific method and thus empiricism; thus does not exist in logical/empiricist terms.

That leaves the rationalist argument, meaning you would need to provide an ontological argument for God, I can think of no-one who has successfully and irrefutably done so. The old "knowledge of angels" problem.

There are continuums where both extremes are evil.

Thus there are situations where God = evil?

Absolute luminosity is much more meaningful than apparent luminisity.

But apparenly luminosity does not relate to distance or ambient brightness

Good and light are meaningless if they have no opposite.

And God too, relative to Satan? Are you saying that the Jewish God is meaningless

If a person accepts Christ and repents of his sins, then sure. Else, no.

So if you have someone who kills in hot blood when, say, 16 and goes to jail for 20 years, during which time he becomes a hard-working, talented, creative individual who helps and educates other prisoners, saves lives, prevents suicides and spends his following four decades of freedom doing charity work and works his fingers to the bone to help people and the family of his victim for no material reward to himself, but never once accepts God or Christ, then he is still not free of the evil of his sin.

On the other hand, if I kill many people in cold blood, do absolutely **** all except accept Christ and am absolved of that sin? It seems to me, the only consistent sin you're showing is the sin of not accepting Christ, since sins (and relative to that, good deeds) are insignificant compared to the act of accepting Christ, so why live a life of virtue when you can just worship the big cheese?

Christians teach that God has already sought retribution, and that Christ has atoned for our sins on the cross. As such, no further retribution for our sins will be taken, and we shall be judged based on whether we accept Christ or not.

Ah as I said above.

Invariably, our conscience will bear witness to the sins that we have committed.

Nevermind the problems with that I showed above, should one stop feeling guilty for ones sins if one accepts Christ?

Unsure of where you are going here.

However, do you recall the passage about how consecration cannot be passed from one object to another, and that defilement works the opposite way?

I meant that you have Satan as a kind of antithesis to God so a great cosmological personification of evil, and little quanta of evil called human sin, so is Satan supposed to be representative of bad karma or something? I don't recall the passage, but it seems to me that while both concepts are apparently groundless, consecretion as a kind of cleansing shield(?) against defilement as some kind of predatory penetration(?) are not dualistic. Correct me if my analogy is flawed, but wouldn't that be rather like washing mud from a wall?

I think part of the answer, is that he gives us free will, to reject him, or to follow him, and even as he invites us to be with him, he also permits us to fall into sin, if this is what we choose.

Why would God give us free will, when free will would cause us so much suffering? To separate the wheat from the chaff, but then, the act of free will is creating wheat and chaff in the first place, it seems an odd inference.

God is more concerned, with the righteousness of those who believe in him, than their number. Surely, just a cursory glance at Israel's history would confirm this.

But I thought God was more concerned with who accepted Christ?

Which is why it is impossible for God to prove his omnipotence given the constraints of the universe.

Or demonstrate his existence, or essense for that matter. God = 0.

It doesn't make God any less real, it just illustrates the limitations of our own world.

But *real* is a concept that is a function of our own world/universe. It's a logical term, not an absolute, trans-infinite prescription... Buddha had that one down 3000 years ago .

Only Odin and alike atheists do...

How so?

No, that's not true. Not always the simpler version is the better, not always people believe it is, and not always if they see sence in both faith and lack of it, they choose the latter.

No, the simpler version is ALWAYS better if they both do the same job. Guess who said that?

I practically am one. There can be God, and there's a possibility there's no God. Still, I'm far from describing myself as atheist.

You're tying yourself in knots. Atheism is a position that God = -1 (false), agnosticism is a position that God = 0 (which in effect is the same as atheism but only as far as a believer is concerned). If you rationally believe that God = 0, but have faith, then you are a fideist. If you believe that God = 1 (true), faith and reason doing the same thing, then you are a theist. If you think it's more likely that there is a God but accept that it cannot be proved, then you are caught between agnosticism and theism.

Though signs and miracles like he did before?

Then it all rests on the authenticity of documents?

I do not think complexity is possible without a creator.

Complexity theory proves you wrong. Like I said earlier, that you have a consequence does not necessarily denote a cause, but if you have a cause it necessarily denotes a consequence. That takes care of both aspects of the cosmological argument (asides from the absurdity in the cosmological argument of course).

1) Any proof? Video tapes?

I could ask the same for you, Heresson

Ethiopia, Assyria, and the Euphrates were names reapplied in the "old" world after the flood. The geography of Genesis chapter 2 does not match the "old" world.

I suppose it must have rained ultra-corrosive holy water for 40 days and 40 nights then?

I dread to think of how many toilets God gets through in a year

[Brent]

All things are for a reason. I do not claim to have all answers. Do you? Is there an earthlike planet orbiting Alpha Centauri? Epsilon Eridani? 40 Eridani? Does Alpha Centauri or 40 Eridani have any planets? How many Kuiper Belt objects larger than 100 kilimeters are in our solar system? What is the Hebrew word for "yes"? On a continuum where both extremes are evil, good is in the middle. God is meaningless if there is no Satan. In your first example, the individual has in a sense accepted Christ. What you do is more important than what you believe, but what you believe helps. In your second example, the individual has shown by his actions that he has lied about accepting Christ. The best way to worship God is serving your fellowbeings. You cannot do good if you dwell on sins that have been forgiven. If you consider yourself unsalvagable, you will continue to sin, as Satan wants. Look around you for miracles but do not ask for signs. Theory is more than hypothesis but less than absolute truth. You may ask God to give you a certain knowledge if you accept a possibility. Sorry for being unorganized, I choose what I believe is relevant that I can answer and I avoid using quotes, and I do not wish to categorize things if it means making more posts than necessary. I do not want to leave things out that I consider relevant.

[Sava]

God is meaningless

QFT

[beingofone]

Shawnmaac,
I just read your post, may you find comfort and harmony in your life. Taoist teachings are very interesting and show a high level of understanding, Lao Tzo must have been an incredible man.
I, like you, have suffered in my life, God bless you.
What I found that helped me was purpose in my experience of suffering. It made me more compassionate, less judgmental, I learned the power of forgivness, and I realize the precious gift of the lives that I love.
Take care of that beautiful little soul that you have charge of.


Good and evil are concepts, they are not things or a force. They are ideas about how one should live ones life.

When we take an animals life for food, it might seem evil to the animal but good to us. A construction contractor might view rain as bad and to a farmer it is very good.

The Hebrew word for evil means basically - to destroy or break something without purpose. If the purpose behind the experience can be seen, it is no longer evil. In the scripture Pharaoh is looked at as bad in comparison to Moses. There could never have been a Moses without a Pharaoh.

In Christianity - the worst crime ever commited by humanity was the crucifixion of a flawless being, Jesus. Out of the worst evil comes the greatest triumph of good - salvation.

It is like looking at a parade from the ground level, you can only see what is directly in front of you. If you look at the same parade from say 30 stories up, you can see the beginning and the end of the parade. Everything becomes more clear and comparisons of perception of reality has less impact on our sense of well being.

I am a Christian because the teachings are flawless for the state of well being. I am not a member of any organized religion however and do believe that if Jesus were alive right now, he probably would not be a member of any church.


I was in and out of an ashram for two years and learned a great deal from the Buddhist`s - extreemly meek and holy people.
I have learned a great deal from all the teachings of religions of the world and learned very little from organized religion.

[Q Classic]

Humanity is the central creation of the universe.

For the central creation of the universe, we're awfully insignificant and wholly ignored now, aren't we?

There cannot be stars or light without relatively empty space or darkness. Good does not exist if it has no opposite.

Darkness is merely the absence of light. Empty space is merely space without anything in it... such as a star.
Can it be said then that the opposite of good is merely the absence of it, rather than evil?
It's hard to see God as good when he is so notably absent from helping other people's lives. That wouldn't make him evil, just... not good.

There is only one God for us to worship. God is perfect. If there is more than one God they are all one in purpose.

If God is perfect, why does he not try to make the world perfect?

Life is a test.

Which is why, in this life, some people are given a two-question multiple choice exam with no wrong answers, and others are given sixty four-page essay questions and an hour to do them in.

Parents require their children to trust them without understanding why.

And all parents, one day, realize that they must trust their children. And children one day learn they can't always trust their parents.

Every being that can exist does exist.

I could have had a son by now. That son can exist; that doesn't mean he does exist.

Nonbelievers serve as tools of God to test believers.

Who tests them? Are they untouched by God, to suffer eternally because they're meant to be unbelievers?

Everyone needs to be taught by a greater being.

And all teachers enjoy knowing that their students might eventually surpass them in greatness.

I communicate, therefore I have a brain.

Modems, routers, switches, computers all communicate, but do not have a brain. Sure, they have one with silicon, but then:
Having a brain does not necessarily engender sentience or consciousness. Re: Terry Schiavo, spiders, lizards.

It is impossible to do right without knowing what is right.

Many people have been duped into doing right without knowing that it was right.

The Garden of Eden was in Missouri. Noah probably lived nearby before the flood.

[Brent]

We are ignored if we ignore Him? Nothing is the opposite of something. Making the world perfect is a process that has not been completed. Where much is given, much is required. Where little is given, little is required. Anyone can be used as God's tool to test anyone else. There are people who believe but have not always believed. I am capable of spontaneity, therefore I have a brain.

[Q Classic]

We are ignored if we ignore Him?

All the multitudes don't ignore him, and most of them are, well, ignored.

Nothing is the opposite of something.

Not necessarily. Darkness is not the opposite of light; Darkness is the lack of light. Similarily, Hell is not Satan's domain; it's the lack of God's presence.

Amusingly enough, that certainly seems like Earth today. We've already been damned, and we don't even know it.

Where much is given, much is required. Where little is given, little is required.

Stop playing the mystic. Seriously.
Where little is given, little is required? Explain to me. Little is given to those who died under the tsunami. Nothing was given to them but death and misery.

Little is required?

I am capable of spontaneity, therefore I have a brain.

Static and white noise are both spontaneous. Do they have a brain?

And you still haven't explained why good people have to suffer for years; indeed, their whole lives... whereas some rotten people and televangelists don't.

[Nostromo]

Clearly, you're talking past each other. Why do you even bother?