I'm not sure one should dismiss God anymore

[curtis290]

In response to the OP:

I'm not going to get into a debate on the existence of God. What I will say is that our modern, liberal lifestyle in our highly financialized, consumeristic society is completely meaningless. Maximize your profits and consume as much as possible in the pursuit of your own happiness. And then you die. Why do we have this undying faith in 'progress' and rationality? There is a reason that in Scandinavia, with the highest 'quality of life' by many standards, the suicide rate is the highest in the world. This does not make sense under liberal theory. Since our quality of life has exponentially improved over the past couple centuries, why aren't we exponentially happier? If we've gained all of these rights and freedoms, why aren't we that much happier?

For many reasons. It's because for one thing, humans are accustomed to what they're brought up under, and that includes material comforts and freedoms. That is one of many reasons that material comforts don't give us happiness, and there is a lot of empirical evidence behind this within the field of psychology. I won't get into it any further, but let's just assume for nowthe axiom that material well-being is not necessarily correlated with happiness. If you disagree with me we can discuss it later.

Another reason is that although we dogmatically worship freedom under liberalism, we don't realize that freedom doesn't necessarily give us happiness. Often times it just gives us the freedom to be unhappy, which we will take because we're reacting against the way our society used to be set up. We also don't understand the implications of ensuring the freedom to do whatever we please, mainly how society and its individuals will react to gaining such freedom. Often times it just means reacting against all traditional societal structures and any type of rules. This is unhealthy, and something we don't understand, because liberal theory offers little in terms of properly understanding society.

Human beings need rules set up by society. We need civil laws and we need societal norms as well. We need communities, and we need systems of meaning with which to understand and interpret the world around us and our own lives and their actions. This is a fundamental truth, one of common sense (that now is being proven by psychological research) that our undying faith in rationality, "progress," and liberal theory blinded us from.

Liberalism, since it worships individual freedom, has done everything possible to destroy traditional social structures and norms. It was born out of a reaction to the Church, and we only need to look at the French Revolution to begin to see its true nature. It is a reaction against society and rules by those who didn't want to follow them (and of course there were political, economic, and social factors as well), and it is atheist at its core. This is something Americans need to realize. We are a Christian nation that insists on accepting this atheistic philosophy as doctrine. We give the Constitution, a document that doesn't mention God, the same reverence as we do for the Bible.

What you atheists need to ask yourselves (since most of you are liberals it seems like) is why do you criticize the religious for being dogmatic and accepting beliefs without questioning them when you are even worse? You pride yourselves in your skepticism and your lack of adherence to dogma, but you have your own dogma. You have an unquestioned faith in rationality, and in what you define as 'progress' (material comforts and individual freedoms).

Have you ever stopped to think that maybe this is inconsistent with your own skepticism? Why don't you ever question your own beliefs? Even your own system of logic? Why do you think the best answer is aways found most immediately through rationality? The most basic of human truths can be found in common sense, even when rationality finds them to be untrue. Usually, much later, rationality finds these old adadges to have much more credibility than it first thought. A great example is this:

Race is not the primary determinant of human traits. Sex is stronger for starters.

Also racial differences do not in my opinion produce an inherent superiority of a particular race.

Common sense always told us that there were difference between men and women. Eventually, liberal theory (since it inherently views society and individuals as a bunch of rational economic actors making contracts with each other) held that women and men were equal. They were both individuals and deserved the same individual rights. Then they took it a step further. This must mean that men and women are fundamentally the same.

So you have this movement in psychology and sociology where the feminists claimed that any differences between men and women were culturally and sociologically conditioned. That we were a tabula rasa, and that men and women were the same. They rejected nature and said it was all nurture. Following rationality instead of common sense, people that they were right. But eventually biology got to the point where we could prove this wrong. The feminists tried to cover up the test results, but as it turned out, men and women are inherently different, and in the case of those experiments, you can't raise a boy to be a girl or vice-versa without causing that person serious emotional problems.

[Kidlicious]

Does this mean that your previous rejection of God was emotional/psychological/spiritual rather than intellectual?

If not, then why is it helpful to turn to a being you honestly believe doesn't exist?

God is in the business of changing the way you believe.

[Kidlicious]

We seem to have different concepts of fear, and I never said that I don't discipline my kids. I just don't discipline them in anger, or in a way that makes them afraid of me. And you'll have to expand on what you mean by the UB being "I think we can do better things" because that makes no sense to me.

Having fear is a part of being humble. The Bibles tells us of people who became pridefull and stopped fearing God. They also stopped believing in justice. God is just. That means that injustices are punished. That's the way God disciplines us. He keeps us humble.

The good news is that you can repent and humble yourself and God will forget your sins without punishment.

[Kidlicious]

Yes, but parents don't discipline their kids by throwing them in a fiery pit for eternity. That isn't love, either - the punishment has to be proportionate, relevant, and finite if there is any love involved.

Parents do leave their children to face the consequences of their actions though when the children do not listen to their parents.

[Heraclitus]

What you say about yourself and what you say do not coincide.

Elaborate on your position. Preferably with quotes of me that argue in your favour.

[DaShi]

I'm not wasting time wading through the intellectual wasteland that is your posts. The point is that you often come here saying, "I'm this and I'm that." We all laugh at you because you ain't. And you act incredulous about it because you're not smart enough to know how stupid you are.

[Heraclitus]

Common sense always told us that there were difference between men and women. Eventually, liberal theory (since it inherently views society and individuals as a bunch of rational economic actors making contracts with each other) held that women and men were equal. They were both individuals and deserved the same individual rights. Then they took it a step further. This must mean that men and women are fundamentally the same.

So you have this movement in psychology and sociology where the feminists claimed that any differences between men and women were culturally and sociologically conditioned. That we were a tabula rasa, and that men and women were the same. They rejected nature and said it was all nurture. Following rationality instead of common sense, people that they were right. But eventually biology got to the point where we could prove this wrong. The feminists tried to cover up the test results, but as it turned out, men and women are inherently different, and in the case of those experiments, you can't raise a boy to be a girl or vice-versa without causing that person serious emotional problems.

The sheer madness of the blank slate position on sex makes it that much more incredible that something like this could ever have been credible. Completely identical behaviour in males and females raised in identical circumstances and stimuli is something I'm not sure has been ever demonstrated in any mammal.

[Heraclitus]

I'm not wasting time wading through the intellectual wasteland that is your posts. The point is that you often come here saying, "I'm this and I'm that." We all laugh at you because you ain't. And you act incredulous about it because you're not smart enough to know how stupid you are.

Ok, don't. But just from your memory of me, and I'm sure you do have lots of opinions on me since you follow me around like a fly follows a rotting stake:

Can you honestly say I've ever said that any kind of humans are objectively superior in every single way to all other groups?


I can perhaps recall saying Askenazi Jews probably have higher IQ's than any other group (possible exceptions might include some inbreed Chinese groups, Indian casts in some regions or perhaps some segments of European aristocracy). However they pay this with being more prone to some kinds of neurosis and possibly several congenial medical conditions. They also don't excel as athletes compared to other Caucasoid and like all other Caucasoid subtypes (White+Middle Eastern+Indian) they could never match East Africans in long distance running. They are more likely to underestimate or undervalue themselves than African Americans who are more confident in their own abilities as individuals than most peoples. They also have a higher rate of lactose intolerance compared to the Danish, they are more prone to alcoholism than East Asians, they carry few of the disease resistances of Africans or South Asians and they have a lower rate of twinning than say Namibians.

And I'm very certain I did not claim that my own racial group (indigenous Europeans) particularly excel at anything, except for some nations in Europe perhaps having the highest rates of lactose tolerance in the world. And I am certain beyond a doubt that I ever devoted ample praise for East Asians for anything except their record low crime rate, good educational achievement and higher average IQs (again they aren't the top dogs in the last two, don't know about the first). I also never claimed universal superiority of any of the African genetic types or Native Americans or Australian Aboriginals.


So how am I racist by the definition you gave? Perhaps thinking that some group while not best in every single field is the best adapted to survival overall?

Ridiculous since I've clearly stated in the past I am certain we are going to see complete human extinction either due to collapse or transhuman takeover in a geologically very short time scale. The genus Homo will die out well short of any of the really long lived types. And I have a feeling the time scales will be too short to see the total extinction (but perhaps a complete marginalization) of any of the currently existing racial types.

[DaShi]

Are you illiterate (also, it's steak)?

"a belief that race is the primary determinant of human traits and capacities and that racial differences produce an inherent superiority of a particular race."

[David Floyd]

Parents do leave their children to face the consequences of their actions though when the children do not listen to their parents.

Not life altering consequences. What parent would watch their kid die after getting hit by a car because they were playing in the street? Even though the kid was suffering the consequences of not listening to his parents, the parents still love their child and would certainly call an ambulance.

[DaShi]

Ok, don't. But just from your memory of me, and I'm sure you do have lots of opinions on me since you follow me around like a fly follows a rotting stake:

Can you honestly say I've ever said that any kind of humans are objectively superior in every single way to all other groups?


I can perhaps recall saying Askenazi Jews probably have higher IQ's than any other group (possible exceptions might include some inbreed Chinese groups, Indian casts in some regions or perhaps some segments of European aristocracy). However they pay this with being more prone to some kinds of neurosis and possibly several congenial medical conditions. They also don't excel as athletes compared to other Caucasoid and like all other Caucasoid subtypes (White+Middle Eastern+Indian) they could never match East Africans in long distance running. They are more likely to underestimate or undervalue themselves than African Americans who are more confident in their own abilities as individuals than most peoples. They also have a higher rate of lactose intolerance compared to the Danish, they are more prone to alcoholism than East Asians, they carry few of the disease resistances of Africans or South Asians and they have a lower rate of twinning than say Namibians.

And I'm very certain I did not claim that my own racial group (indigenous Europeans) particularly excel at anything, except for some nations in Europe perhaps having the highest rates of lactose tolerance in the world. And I am certain beyond a doubt that I ever devoted ample praise for East Asians for anything except their record low crime rate, good educational achievement and higher average IQs (again they aren't the top dogs in the last two, don't know about the first). I also never claimed universal superiority of any of the African genetic types or Native Americans or Australian Aboriginals.


So how am I racist by the definition you gave? Perhaps thinking that some group while not best in every single field is the best adapted to survival overall?

Ridiculous since I've clearly stated in the past I am certain we are going to see complete human extinction either due to collapse or transhuman takeover in a geologically very short time scale. The genus Homo will die out well short of any of the really long lived types. And I have a feeling the time scales will be too short to see the total extinction (but perhaps a complete marginalization) of any of the currently existing racial types.

Yeah, I didn't read all this because you've demonstrated that you're not worth reading more than one line. Again, look at how other people see you, not what you think you are. There's a disconnect and it's embarrassing.

[Elok]

Having fear is a part of being humble. The Bibles tells us of people who became pridefull and stopped fearing God. They also stopped believing in justice. God is just. That means that injustices are punished. That's the way God disciplines us. He keeps us humble.

I always took fear to mean the entirely sensible fear one feels in the face of something enormous, powerful and incomprehensible. Even if you don't think it will hurt you in any way, it's natural to feel fear when confronting the unfamiliar and uncontrollable.

[Ben Kenobi]

So do you think people go to hell if they can't believe such a thing

Romans 2 talks about where those who are without the Law who act according to the Law are a law unto themselves.

We all have a conscience and this is how we know right from wrong. If we follow this conscience, God will judge us in the end based on those actions.

However, this only applies to anyone who hasn't heard of Christ. If you have heard of him, and choose to reject him for whatever reason than yeah, I believe that you will go to hell. Now that's not the same thing as saying that only Christians will be saved. You have to reject him. It's not a matter of indifference. It's a matter of making a decision for yourself.

Fr'instance the patriarchs and those who are Jews will still go to heaven because they believe in Him. They will be blessed, and recieved as children of God, their God if they accept his Son.

That's the weird thing about that statement, "Christian God" is a misnomer. Like Jumbo Shrimp. He's not ours, he never made a covenant with us. He has chosen in his grace and mercy to accept anyone who declares him to be lord and saviour. But he's not ours. We don't own him. He owns us. The radical thing is that the Jews are his children, and he has signed a covenant saying that they will be his people, and he will be their God. This hasn't changed! This is why he sent his only begotten son down to talk to y'all.

I mean he could have sent him anywhere else, but he sent him to Israel. As a Jew. As the son of Mary, a Jew. Who preached in the Jewish temples. Who ministered to the Jews as his job in the short time that he was here on earth!

So he is the Jewish God, YHWH, He Who Is, my name is I AM. You really should be calling us Yeshuans...

[Ben Kenobi]

Certainly I'm not, as it would probably provoke a long discussion with BK about the Catholic vs. Orthodox understandings of the idea.

Always looking into more of what you folks believe. Don't let anyone say otherwise but you have a damn cool church. But you're the Red Sox to the Yankees.

[Ben Kenobi]

In what way is the authorship of the Bible or any non-canonical works any more verifiable that the UB? None are verifiable, and in spiritual matters we can only rely on our own wisdom or "spiritual sense" or whatever you want to call it.

Attestations by near witnesses is a pretty good indicator. Only one nt canonical book isn't really known, and that's Hebrews which was probably written by Peter which is why no one really bothered to say so.