REAL debate thread for RELIGION

[Twista]

Originally posted by brownjenkins
all too true... i think many more people hold beliefs than actually act in accordance with those beliefs

Then whats the point may i ask? Are they just doing it for the sake of it? You belive in something as radical ( in many peoples eyes ) as dying, and paradise awaiting for you, why dont stick to those beliefs like glue? Surely a little hard times in this life can be taken if absolute paradise awaits?

[brownjenkins]

some people truely do believe, and do there best to follow those beliefs

a larger majority are just "going with the flow"... i don't think they really think about the larger implications of their belief systems at all

[Twista]

Okay, then we come to question again, Why?

Whats the point in putting a half - hearted effort in something like belief?

[Rían]

Originally posted by brownjenkins
i don't have any problems with squashing a mosquito... but you rarely see a mosquito squash another mosquito... lifeforms rarely kill their own kind without good reason (with one big exception), because it is detrimental to there own existance

OK, you stinker - I'll pull it back a level then -

Do you have exactly the same moral feelings when you see a mosquito killed, by whatever means, as when you see a human killed, by whatever means?

(really, I don't know why you're being so difficult! . Do you really place the same value on a mosquito and a human? If not, why is it difficult to admit?)

[brownjenkins]

Originally posted by RÃ*an
OK, you stinker - I'll pull it back a level then -

Do you have exactly the same moral feelings when you see a mosquito killed, by whatever means, as when you see a human killed, by whatever means?

(really, I don't know why you're being so difficult! . Do you really place the same value on a mosquito and a human? If not, why is it difficult to admit?)

i thought i was pretty clear... obviously i could care less about squashing a mosquito... but that doesn't necessarily mean that in god's eye (if there is one ) that i am any more special of a creation

my guess is that the mosquito wouldn't have much of an issue with squashing me either, if he was in the position to do so

on the half-hearted effort twist... i guess many "believers" think that it's the thought that counts... it's much easier to spout principles than live by them, and some people think that just having principles counts for something

here's a question for you rÃ*an... who, in god's eye, would be more deserving of heaven:

a devoute believer who sinned many times throughout his life but eventually repented or a life-long atheist who lived a perfectly moral life?

or would they both be just about the same?

[Valandil]

Originally posted by brownjenkins
here's a question for you rÃ*an... who, in god's eye, would be more deserving of heaven:

a devoute believer who sinned many times throughout his life but eventually repented or a life-long atheist who lived a perfectly moral life?

or would they both be just about the same?

If I can sneak one in... the SECOND would be more deserving of it, but the FIRST would get it!

No matter how good the second one was, he wasn't good enough for it - though on a relative scale, one might claim he was closer to it than the first.

The first realizes his short-comings, and approached God the only way we can... in humility, accepting what He has done for us.

[Rían]

Originally posted by brownjenkins
here's a question for you rÃ*an... who, in god's eye, would be more deserving of heaven:

a devoute believer who sinned many times throughout his life but eventually repented or a life-long atheist who lived a perfectly moral life?

or would they both be just about the same?

*wonders if she can EVER give a short answer! *

*decides she doesn't care because the important thing is communication, and if it takes her a few more words to communicate than it takes others, tough cookies! Her friends will have to put up with it*

I have several answers to the question : "who, in god's eye, would be more deserving of heaven:" (and I hope you believe I'm not trying to be difficult or deceptive, because I'm not - I'm just trying to answer honestly)

1) I think the most correct answer is : neither. It's like saying "who's closer to getting to the moon? The guy at the top of Mt. Everest, or the guy standing on a box at the top of Mt. Everest?" It's a moot question - the important point is that there is no way that either one will EVER make it to the moon on their own power - they need outside help.

2) The question is invalid, because there is no such thing as a "life-long atheist who lived a perfectly moral life" - heck, there's no such thing as ANYONE that has lived a perfectly moral life, except Jesus. So I cannot choose between those two options, because only 1 option is real. I can't choose a non-existent option.


Anyway, that reminds me of a book I just finished reading - "What's so Amazing About Grace?" (For those who aren't familiar with hymns, it's a reference to the hymn "Amazing Grace" - the first line is "Amazing grace! How sweet the sound, that saved a wretch like me!"). Great book! It talks about how radical Christianity is in the sense that it's really the only worldview/religion that has the concept of grace - IOW, we are ALL guilty of sin to some degree, and we are ALL offered God's forgiveness (altho we chose to reject it) because of His great love for ALL of us. I'm in the same boat as a pedophile (the easy example of a scumbag) - we will both never "reach the moon" on our own steam.

And most of my apparent "goodness" is not even my own merit, anyway - I'm fortunate enough to have been raised in a stable family and have always had food and shelter and have never been abused physically. When I look at the "scum of the earth", I think "that's me, but for God's grace - how can I help them?", and I think "How hurt they must be, and how much God loves them!" And God offers to BOTH of us His Son, because neither one of us can pay the price of our sins.

Have you ever noticed how Jesus often hung out with the scumbags of the earth? He found them a lot more "real" than many of the religious leaders, apparently. The good thing about hurting is that you know you have a problem, and these people were hurting. And Jesus had the answer.

[brownjenkins]

Originally posted by Valandil
If I can sneak one in... the SECOND would be more deserving of it, but the FIRST would get it!

No matter how good the second one was, he wasn't good enough for it - though on a relative scale, one might claim he was closer to it than the first.

The first realizes his short-comings, and approached God the only way we can... in humility, accepting what He has done for us.

a better example would be two athiests who both lived mostly moral lives... yet only one acknowledged god in the end

i personally have a hard time with putting too much weight on the "humility factor", or any weight for that matter... it strikes me as somewhat vain... a good person is a good person in my eyes, and deserves all the credit for being one

i guess i know where i'm headed

[Ithilgalad]

Meet you there then, brownjenkins !

[Last Child of Ungoliant]

Originally posted by brownjenkins

i guess i know where i'm headed

i guess i'll meet you there, then

[Lalaith_Elf]

Originally posted by Last Child of Ungoliant
i guess i'll meet you there, then

Got room for one more?

[Ithilgalad]

Sounds like we´ll have a party, lots of fun, perhaps some beer or tequila... Rock´n´Roll !!! And a bunch of intelligent, yet cool people to talk to !!!

[Rían]

Originally posted by brownjenkins
i personally have a hard time with putting too much weight on the "humility factor", or any weight for that matter... it strikes me as somewhat vain... a good person is a good person in my eyes, and deserves all the credit for being one

Please remember that "humility" is one of those words whose meaning is a bit misunderstood these days - many people think it means something like being a doormat (like the 'umble Uriah Heep in Dicken's "David Copperfield") - the correct meaning is more along the lines of "a correct and accurate evaluation of one's self." And part of that correct evaluation is that we are not God, and that we have chosen to sin in some areas.

And a "good person" WILL get credit for his truly good actions by God - but he will also get credit for his bad actions, which is only fair. And the penalty for the bad actions is death, but God offers to have Jesus pay the penalty for the bad actions.

[Rían]

Any comment on my longish answer, brownie?

Also, since you said "a good person is a good person in my eyes, and deserves all the credit for being one", do you agree that a person deserves all the credit for his/her bad actions?

[brownjenkins]

Originally posted by RÃ*an
Any comment on my longish answer, brownie?]

i don't agree with the idea of original sin at all, so it's hard to comment... though i did modify my question... i do agree that it is impossible to live a perfect life

i like the song amazing grace too

Also, since you said "a good person is a good person in my eyes, and deserves all the credit for being one", do you agree that a person deserves all the credit for his/her bad actions?

sure... or maybe better said, humanity deserves all the credit

upbringing, friends, experiences, etc... deserve credit for the good and blame for the bad also

but everyone starts the same when they are born, barring physical ailments, with the potential for both good and bad

[Insidious Rex]

You can only say it's insignificant from a human, nonbeliever perspective. Therefore this point has little real use as an argument.

Well I say its insignificant from the perspective of someone who has looked at the numbers. Numbers don’t lie. The logical conclusion would be that it is very unlikely that WE are super special because statistically we are virtually meaningless. But I can see how your logic works for you as well on this point. Perfectly and wonderfully circular.

First of all, you can look in the New Testament too, and you'll see the same God. Look in the Book of Revelation, and you'll see God with a sword coming from his mouth. The End Times predict the righteous annihilation of probably billions of people.

sure but the feeling I get from the god of the old testament and the feeling I get from the god of the new testament are very different feelings. Like two different personalities. Two different dispositions. How can you just brush me off and say well yer feelings are wrong sorry. There must be something to my perceptions on this (and the perceptions of many I have come to find out).

Jesus Christ speaks many, many times about hell in the gospels.

That reminds me I meant to ask people if there are many references to either hell or heaven in the old testament? Theres simply hundreds and hundreds in the new testament. Is there a lot in the old testament? And if so is the view of hell the same across the board?

[Rían]

Originally posted by Insidious Rex
Well I say its insignificant from the perspective of someone who has looked at the numbers. Numbers don’t lie. The logical conclusion would be that it is very unlikely that WE are super special because statistically we are virtually meaningless.

Numbers don't lie, but neither do they have opinions on non-numeric issues. The only valid conclusion that can be drawn, IMO, from the numbers that state we are statistically insignificant (in terms of percentage of molecules in the universe, I think you mean) is that ... we are statistically insignificant ((in terms of percentage of molecules in the universe). I don't see how these numbers can comment on whether or not we're important to God (if He exists).

(And a virus is statistically insignificant when introduced into a human population that is not resistant to it. but look at the damage it can do )

sure but the feeling I get from the god of the old testament and the feeling I get from the god of the new testament are very different feelings. Like two different personalities. Two different dispositions. How can you just brush me off and say well yer feelings are wrong sorry. There must be something to my perceptions on this (and the perceptions of many I have come to find out).

I doubt if Lief was trying to brush you off. I think he was just trying to support his statement. I get different feelings from the OT and NT, too, and I would imagine most people do, but as I examine them more closely, I see they represent a consistent picture, IMO. The OT focuses more on justice and the fact that there must be a price paid for sins; the NT focuses more on God's mercy by His solving the problem stated in the OT by providing Jesus as a price for our sins. But as you look thru both OT and NT, you see lots of verses about how much God loves us and longs to bless us, and in the NT you see lots of verses about justice and having a penalty for sin.

[Rían]

Originally posted by brownjenkins
i don't agree with the idea of original sin at all, so it's hard to comment...

I don't think I referenced "original sin", so I don't quite understand, but the main point (which you agree with) is that "it is impossible to live a perfect life".

i like the song amazing grace too

sure... or maybe better said, humanity deserves all the credit

well, I wouldn't say "all", would you? If so, you're saying there's no personal choice or responsibility, either for good or bad, and I doubt you think that.

upbringing, friends, experiences, etc... deserve credit for the good and blame for the bad also

They certainly have some influence, often a lot, but I doubt if anyone would say "all".

but everyone starts the same when they are born, barring physical ailments, with the potential for both good and bad

I agree.

[Rían]

Originally posted by Insidious Rex
to be accused by a creationist of being close minded and short thinking? And simply for believing that we don’t know everything yet? Id say its pretty self explanatory.

Are you saying ALL creationists, IYO, are close-minded? How in the world do you support that? I could just as easily say all evolutionists are close-minded! Sheesh! Let's reel it into specifics - do you say I'm close-minded SOLELY based upon the fact that after examining the evidence for both sides and thinking alot about it that I think creationism is more supported by the evidence? If you do, then I'm speechless at your close-mindedness. I hope you don't think that.

And I agree that we don't know everything yet - I don't see a problem there, and I never said it was any type of a problem to realize that we don't know everything yet.

funny theres just blood in mine. All my god concepts are in my head. For this is where the cognitive deduction of how we perceive and explain our reality plays out. This has been true since the very first fertility cults jetting back into the nearly untraceable past. And continues into today in its present form.

heart, head, whatever ... it was an expression. I'm talking about where the real person is - the part that thinks and loves and laughs and cries.

How can you say that god in the whole bible never changes? It seems like night and day to me. The god of Abraham and the god of Moses and the god of Elijah etc., etc. is translated with the exact same language and personality as the god of jesus?

I commented on this a coupla posts up

oh no this was just a simple accurate straight forward restatement. Evolution would have taken your comments in a fundamentally different direction all together. But despite your insistences to the contrary they would still be related to their original ancestor.

however you define it, please don't "evolve" what I say I appreciate your quoting me more accurately in your subseuent posts - thanks

you love to try to wrestle agnosticism down to your level of “its my way or its the wrong way!� when in fact agnosticism is simply about what we know. Nothing more. Nothing less. There is simply no need to ridicule it because it doesn’t jump up and shout out one particular fundamental microscopic belief system that is the RIGHT one! And then competes rabidly with all other belief systems for power. Its simply about what we know, what we can know and what is possible. If something falls beyond that then it certainly doesn’t make it a weak approach to viewing things. that’s just ridiculous.

I try to share why I think my viewpoint is right. I try to share the problems I see with other viewpoints. And you do this, too. I don't see why you got so upset. You've used plenty of derogatory terms about Christianity, esp. on the homosexuality thread. And if that's your opinion, then go ahead and let's discuss it. And one of my opinions is that some (not all) agnostics will cop out of things by falling back on "well, we'll never know" and use this to prevent making a decision or taking an action when they SHOULD be doing this, IMO. Go ahead and say that IYO, I'm wrong, if you disagree.

In the homosexuality thread, you said (and I'm paraphrasing here) basically that Christians mindlessly think that homosexuality is wrong only because it happens to be described as wrong in the Bible. Well, you're wrong, at least in my case, and I tried to show you that.

I can jump up and down and declare that the secret of the universe is that a giant blue pig made the earth when he was driving his motorcycle through the heavens but that doesn’t suddenly make my point of view more legitimate simply because I DECLARE it boldly and loudly and LIVE it thoroughly. Spare me.

I wasn't commenting on the legitimate-ness of the view, just that IMO, I thought it was often a cop-out position, and I think it is a more courageous and good thing to pick a worldview (after much thought) and live it out. You may disagree

Not knowing everything fits in quite well with our connection with the universe if you ask me. Having it all figured out should be suspect as a rule. And Christianity thinks it has everything covered. Agnosticism acknowledges that there are certainly gaps and we need not pretend the gaps either aren’t there or attempt to fill them in ourselves when our current knowledge doesn’t allow it. Extrapolate what you can but don’t convince yourself that what you make out of whole cloth is the Truth.

I don't think Christianity says it knows everything. However, it DOES claim to know the most important things . And it claims that God knows everything.

assuming it fits in ok to your version of the universe of course. If it doesn’t then you simply consider how to reject it.

No, that's simply not true. I'm sorry you believe that all I do is consider how to reject differing views. I doubt if you'll believe me , but it's not true.

When you bring up points, my typical method is to ASSUME your points are TRUE! Then I think about them AS IF THEY WERE TRUE, and then I start to make logical inferences, ASSUMING THEY ARE TRUE, and then I usually start to see problems from the logical inferences I can make when I ASSUME THEY ARE TRUE, and then I bring up these issues. I am quite open-minded, altho I doubt you believe it

And I think that you are often NOT open-minded, because you can't seem to get outside of your viewpoint, like I do. IOW, I don't see you ASSUMING what I say is TRUE, then thinking it through.

no Im saying the TRUTH is that which we can observe and study. And one of the things we can observe and study is that humans have a propencity toward delusion on a mass scale. They can be swallowed by their delusions and then all that is left is for each group to argue about the merits of each given delusion. That’s all im saying.

Well, what do you want to DO with what you're saying about delusions? To be fair, either don't bring it up at all, or bring it up equally - IOW, don't bring it up to squash a differing view unless you're willing to bring it up to squash YOUR view. And if you do that, it's pretty useless to talk, isn't it? Yes, there are delusions - so shall we just not talk, or should we talk anyway and just not pull out the delusion thing? I think the second option is the best.

again my opinion is NEVER “well never know� but in fact is we DON’T know. So heres what we DO know so far. See the difference? And when you are constantly striving to find out more (and you haven’t decided that everything has been predetermined and there is no more knowledge to gain) then progress is possible.

But I see you say "we'll never know", so I don't understand your objection. I do see the difference in what you're saying, tho, and I disagree with the subset of things that you think we know. And I think it's good to try to learn more - I certainly don't think there's "no more knowledge to gain"!

And opinions become relevant.

Unless, of course, they're delusional ...

because it leaves room for learning?

I don't see any problem with being able to learn without being an agnostic. I do it all the time.

[brownjenkins]

Originally posted by RÃ*an
They certainly have some influence, often a lot, but I doubt if anyone would say "all".

i was adding to what i had said earlier... yourself and those around you... that's more than enough influences for me