Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 64 (9046 total)
138 online now:
nwr, Tanypteryx (2 members, 136 visitors)
Newest Member: Dade
Post Volume: Total: 887,289 Year: 4,935/14,102 Month: 533/707 Week: 88/176 Day: 17/34 Hour: 0/1


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Charismatic Chaos
Perdition
Member (Idle past 2229 days)
Posts: 1593
From: Wisconsin
Joined: 05-15-2003


Message 87 of 531 (514660)
07-10-2009 10:51 AM
Reply to: Message 85 by Phat
07-10-2009 3:04 AM


Re: Irrational Yet Hopeful
What about the simple belief that God exists? Is this so wrong to say? (Nobody can prove He doesn't, anyway)

But where did this belief come from? Someone told that person that it was true. That person, unless they went out of their way to admit they had no proof and just believed because it made them feel good (very few to none of the faithful I know were taught in this way), were either lying or had been duped by someone further back.

I agree that the key to global enlightenment begins with education.

This is true. I couldn't agree with you more. People should be educated about what science has shown, should be exposed to as many religions as is feasible, and at a suitable age, the chiuld should be allowed to make up his or her own mind as far as religion goes. It will never work that way though, and that's sad.

People have an innate right to believe however they so choose as long as it does not harm others, and as for our children, they will pick up the beliefs of their parents.

This is only true as long as the parent is indoctrinating their child. If the parent is up front and honest and says, this is what I believe, this is why, but here are opposing views, the child will have a much better time of it.

I believe that indoctrinating a child with atheism can be as potentially harmful as indoctrinating them with religion, but that's just me.

This is true. Indoctrination, no matter who it comes from is wrong. But, I would be interested in what you consider to be indoctrinating a child with atheism. Is teaching them that the earth is 4.5 billion years old indoctrinating atheism or just teaching science?

Edited by Perdition, : No reason given.

Edited by Perdition, : Wow, dB coding is hard...err something...yeah


This message is a reply to:
 Message 85 by Phat, posted 07-10-2009 3:04 AM Phat has not yet responded

  
Perdition
Member (Idle past 2229 days)
Posts: 1593
From: Wisconsin
Joined: 05-15-2003


Message 90 of 531 (514663)
07-10-2009 11:20 AM
Reply to: Message 88 by Phat
07-10-2009 11:16 AM


Re: The Real McCoy Could Actualize
a majority of unbelievers, that is, those who even give it a second thought, probably would just as soon that God did not exist..and are comforted that logic and reason seem to support the idea of no God.

I can't speak for Brian, but I would love it if there were a God. Someone who was watching over us and who could give us an afterlife, a way for us not to just stop. Death scares the hell out of me.

All that being said, I'm not going to believe it because I want it. I want there to be elves and fairies and a million dollars in my bank account, too, but I won't believe in them until I see some sort of evidence for their existence.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 88 by Phat, posted 07-10-2009 11:16 AM Phat has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 91 by Phat, posted 07-10-2009 11:35 AM Perdition has responded

  
Perdition
Member (Idle past 2229 days)
Posts: 1593
From: Wisconsin
Joined: 05-15-2003


Message 93 of 531 (514669)
07-10-2009 12:33 PM
Reply to: Message 91 by Phat
07-10-2009 11:35 AM


Re: The Real McCoy Could Actualize
Where did we conclude that everything under the Sun had to be supported by evidence? Is there no room for cultural mythos, allegory, and parable?

There's absolutely nothing wrong with mythos, allegory and parable. On the contrary, I think they are a large part of what makes being a human so interesting, and being an aspiring writer myself, I find them invaluable as a tool. However, I don't believe them. I love the stories of Paul Bunyan and Calamity Jane and Pecos Bill, etc. They're part of American mythos and are very fun to read, but I don't think there really was giant with a large blue ox who chopped down trees in my neck of the woods.

I love going to the movies and getting lost in the worlds of Tolkien, ROddenberry, or Spielberg, but again, I don't leave the theater thinking they're true. That's the difference. In religion, people left the show believing the allegory rather than just appreciating it for what it is.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 91 by Phat, posted 07-10-2009 11:35 AM Phat has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 94 by Phat, posted 07-10-2009 2:19 PM Perdition has not yet responded
 Message 99 by Bailey, posted 07-11-2009 8:31 AM Perdition has not yet responded

  
Perdition
Member (Idle past 2229 days)
Posts: 1593
From: Wisconsin
Joined: 05-15-2003


Message 163 of 531 (534155)
11-05-2009 11:48 AM
Reply to: Message 160 by iano
11-05-2009 4:54 AM


Free Will?
The ability to chose evil isn't a defect. It's intrinsic to what God created man to be: free willed.

But there are two issues. We live in a world with limitations on what our will is able to actualize, and we live in a world where our will itself is limited.

I can decide to fly, but no amount of trying can make that decision bear any fruit. An all-powerful god could have put the same limitations on decisions to harm another, innocent person. If god wants to punish people who choose to do wrong, does he have to wait until they actually do so? Can't he punish them for making the decision in the first place?

To the other point, there are a whole multitude of things I can't conceive of, and therefore, can't will myself to do, whether they're possible or not. My will is therefore limited already. God could have given us free will, but made it impossible for us to conceive of doing wrong. We would still be able to make decisions on what to do, our options would just be a little more limited than they are now.

I don't see how the fact that we can, and do, commit wrongs means they are necessary for free will. Any being with unlimited power and imagination could have come up with an infinitude of scenarios where we would still have "free" will (as we do now) but where innocent people would not have to be harmed for his own sick desire to punish people who, as you've said, merely follow through on their in born addiction.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 160 by iano, posted 11-05-2009 4:54 AM iano has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 165 by iano, posted 11-05-2009 1:23 PM Perdition has responded

  
Perdition
Member (Idle past 2229 days)
Posts: 1593
From: Wisconsin
Joined: 05-15-2003


Message 166 of 531 (534177)
11-05-2009 2:19 PM
Reply to: Message 165 by iano
11-05-2009 1:23 PM


Re: Free Will?
Once sin entered man, man's will was skewed by an addiction. An addiction and tendency towards Sin.

The imbalance caused by our natures addiction to sin is countered by conscience which gives our choice an balance as if we had an Adamic style free will.

But why were we tainted by our forebearers? That makes no sense, especially from a just god. If he were truly just, he would allow each person to freely choose sin or not, rather than giving them an addiction because their gret-great-great-...-great grandparents made a bad choice.

Secondly, if we're truly addicted, we can't be held to blame as much as someone not so addicted. Besides, say what you will about yourself, but I'm not addicted to sin at all.

What matters is that you have a range of things to choose for in order that your choice wrt to your eternal destination can be established. There is no need to give you the possibility to do simply anything in order to give you sufficient for the purposes intended.

But the purposes intended was fopr a free people to worship god and exist in a paradise. Even assuming we all get burdened with original sin, he could allow all of us to live freely and not have us have the option of being unfit. And, if we allow the choice to be unfit, for some reason, there is still no reason to allow the person making the wrong choice to be able to carry it out and hurt an innocent. The fact that god allows people to not only make the choice, but to carry it out, means he has no problems with people getting murdered, raped, or robbed, as long as he knows who to erase from the book of life. It's like he sees us as bugs for his own amusement, not concerned one whit for how our lives go. And that's not moral or just, it's at best amoral and indifferent.

Free will as I understand it, involves the ability to chose equally either way; without predisposition or undue influence pushing you in a particular direction. It might simply involve eating a particular fruit or no. It is not diminished by the inability to choose to fly.

But we have predispositions and influence. Gravity, physics, and human brain chemsitry are all limiting factors. We're surrounded by them, and yet God says "This is where the line must be, you must be allowed to make other people suffer, otherwise, my whole experiment fails." Frankly, that says a whole lot more about the experimenter than it does about the experiment, and it doesn't say anything nice.

What matters is that you have a range of things to choose for in order that your choice wrt to your eternal destination can be established. There is no need to give you the possibility to do simply anything in order to give you sufficient for the purposes intended.

But he could determine people's wills and hearts by giving them a smaller range as well. Why does he have to allow people the choice of murder, rape and torture, couldn't blasphemy and pride be enough? Even if he does have to allow us the choice to do wrong such that someone else will suffer, he doesn't have to let us carry it out. Once he sees our decision, he could cause a chain of events that leads to the person not being able to carry it out, he can do anything, but he seems to limit himself in this particular place for no discernable reason.

Desiring to hurt someone doesn't involve the same degree of wickedness as actually pulling out their fingernails. Given that our evil brings consequences which can be utilised by the mechanism of salvation, we shouldn't object to our evil be left to run riot. It might very well be the saving of us - and the person on whom we inflict suffering.

I don't see it. The desire to pull someone's fingernaisl out is wicked enough without making it possible for them to do so. And using wickedness as a means of salvation is a serious flaw for a being that could have picked any means as a mechanism for slavation. It screams of sadism that he would pick this one. And trying to say that by suffering rape, torture, murder, etc makes someone more receptive to god's statement of salvation is just ignorant of the facts. There are no marked differences in religious belief before or after something such as this, and if anything, it's a step away from religion as people are left to understand that a giod that allows this to happen merely for his own omniscience to have clear and unadulterated evil to punish is not a good god.

It sounds as if God is either sadistic, or just wants to punish people, so he stacks the deck such that he will have people to punish.

Gods ultimate purpose for all of us is that we have opportunity to say yes/no to his desire to form an eternal loving relationship with us. Because we are all fallen, our natural tendency, whether we're the ones pulling someones fingernails out or whether we're the one whose fingernails are being pulled out; is to resist God's advances.

That's fine, couldn't he send me a questionaire? Couldn't he test me without putting other people's lives, sanity, and bodies on the line? It's way to Draconic and drastic for someone as powerful as god is supposed to be. It smacks of post hoc reasoning and attempting to cover over cognitive dissonance. "This is horrible, but it must be for a good purpose, thus..."

He want's us saved and went to extraordinary personal suffering to enable that.

I don't see it. All the suffereing seems to be one sided, and it's definitely not his.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 165 by iano, posted 11-05-2009 1:23 PM iano has not yet responded

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2018 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2021