God as the ultimate child abuser

[Lorizael]

Originally posted by Kidicious
Yes, well, compared to herding farm animals, all of those things require you to use logic more often.

Honestly, I doubt this. I think it's just a different skillset. You can prove me wrong, of course, by giving up your job and trying to herd animals for a living. How do you think you'd fare at that?

[Dracon II]

A bit different from an entertaining story like the Iliad.

Evidently, you don't understand the status of Homer in ancient Greece.

[Kidlicious]

Originally posted by Lorizael
Honestly, I doubt this. I think it's just a different skillset. You can prove me wrong, of course, by giving up your job and trying to herd animals for a living. How do you think you'd fare at that?

Trying to herd animals?

I suppose there's something that you need to know first, but I don't see how you have to really try to herd animals. You mostley sit on a rock all day long I suppose.

[Lorizael]

Christ, I hope you're trolling me.

[Kidlicious]

huh? I was starting to think you were trolling me.

[Kidlicious]

Ok, forget work. What about games? Maybe they played games while they were siting on rocks. What games? Did they require logic like many or our games?

[Lorizael]

Yeah, but they were limited to hopscotch and bingo because they were too dumb to play more complicated games.

[Lorizael]

Unlike today, where young geniuses daily apply their brilliance to such riddle-filled challenges as Grand Theft Auto and Guitar Hero.

[Kidlicious]

I was trying to have a serious conversation, and you've wasted my morning.

[Lorizael]

I think your positition is ridiculous. Please provide evidence that (1) most people today have a firm grasp on logic and (2) most people then didn't.

Don't use examples like animal herding, which you clearly know nothing about.

[Agathon]

Originally posted by Elok

Agathon, of course there were conflicting accounts. We called them heresies, and quite notoriously moved to stamp them out based on our understanding of the correct story.

But we don't know which was the correct story. This was not a matter for discovery, but a matter for decision. Christianity is based on the decisions of people like Paul, and of the later church fathers as to what was to count. None of these people had the original Jesus around. People will adapt ideas to their own purposes. That is just human nature, and is why religions are very malleable in their early stages, when there is not yet any real orthodoxy (in particular when the founder dies, because what orthodoxy there was, was determined by his will).

This process may not meet with your approval, but it is hardly arbitrary or made up out of thin air, as you imply. Remember that we are not just talking about a pleasant story, but a fairly recent event of earth-shattering importance, an event around which a whole community was built.

You take a serious look at the origin of whackjob cults like the Seventh Day Adventists, Jehovah's Witnesses or the LDS and try to maintain that position. People will make it up as they go along, and will at the same time treat it as being of earth shattering importance. This process is not arbitrary and it isn't made up from nothing, but I never claimed either in the strict sense. It is guided by the emotional needs of the individuals involved and the "natural selection of ideas". But neither of these has anything to do with correspondence to the facts. The Seventh Day Adventists, in particular, built a community based on complete insanity, but it survives nonetheless (and we have much to be grateful for, since they invented the modern use of cereals IIRC).

A bit different from an entertaining story like the Iliad. You shouldn't assume people are so stupid as to treat the two identically.

The other poster is correct. The Iliad is much more than a story. It is the unifying myth of the Hellenic peoples, and their attempt to understand and be critical of their ancestors.

[Jon Miller]

SDA's are also involved in a lot of health and releif ministries.

Most/all SDAs would agree that there was some [i]wrong[\i] ideas in the beginning. Some think that some of these wrong ideas have propagated to this day... although the ideas that some (and I agree) think are wrong have been gradually falling out of favor since the '50s.

My take on it:
1845: Some 'insanity' as you put it.
~1860: Most unreasonable of the wrongness moved away from.
~1890: Strong steps towards the proper direction.
1911: Headed in the wrong direction.
~1950: Strong statement against the major wrongness, movement away from it.
1980: A step or two back, but no direction change.

I agree that there is still some issues in the SDA church (and they trace their way to the beginning), mostly dealing with EGW and legalism, but I think we are right about some things (Saturady is the Sabbath!) and do some good work.

Jonathan Miller
(SDA member, although I have considered leaving once or twice)

[Shrapnel12]

It is impossible to prove or disprove the existence of God.

Do you agree or disagree with this statement? If you answer this question, I'd appreciate if you also let us know your religious affiliation. If you disagree with this statement, I'd love to see your proof.

[Jon Miller]

I agree that it is impossible to prove or disprove the existence of God (currently). As I said a couple posts above, I am a Christian (SDA).

JM

[Agathon]

Originally posted by Shrapnel12
It is impossible to prove or disprove the existence of God.

It's not clear that this is the case. Here is one argument.

1. If God exists, then God must be both omnipotent and supremely benevolent.
2. A supremely benevolent being would never allow evil to occur if it could prevent it.
3. An omnipotent being could prevent any evil from happening.
4. But evil does occur in the world.
C: Therefore, if God exists, then God cannot be both omnipotent and supremely benevolent.

Since religion traditionally assumes both omnipotence and benevolence, the existence of evil rules out the existence of such a God by logic.

On the other hand, we have no conclusive proof that fairies do not exist, but it is irrational to believe in fairies.