Religions

[Typhoid]

So first of all, I'm not making this to bash religion. I myself am not anti-religion, but I want to see if people can have a civilized discussion on their honest views on religion/religions without it getting out of hand. Let's try to expand some minds, here.

So I'm just going to do a whole lot of typing. Address what I say, bring up your own points - whatever, man.



First I'll put the disclaimer in that I belong to no religion. I was raised by a mother who has a large Catholic family, and a father who loves science/history. So I try to stay impartial.


I can see the good of religion. Stripped down to the balsa wood frame, it's a guideline to be a good person. Hell, go back far enough and it's essentially all one religion anyways.

What I don't like about religion is how easy it is for psychopathic people to abuse their power. Religion is just another avenue to fame, wealth and power. It's really no different (in the end, except maybe the wealth part) than a CEO. CEOs tend to fondle employees and steal from the till much in the same way. They're also typically very shady characters. Obviously there are good citizens who are CEO's, and who are high-ranking religious members in their various religions, and I'm sure some people are both.

I don't believe the problem is religion, the problem is people. People are opportunists. We'll all make a little white lie if it's easier than telling the truth. We all might have different reasons for doing it, but we'll most likely all do it. Some people just don't have the switch that tells them "Baaaaaad moral ideeeea",and those people tend to worm their way into positions of power. Most likely because they lack morals and will just fuck other people over for their own gain.

Knowing that religion is a good blanket for shady activity, already-shady individuals flock to it (like sheep?) because it's the easiest way to cover up illegal activity. You have the almighty God-shield covering your tracks.

That's a very western-religion based rant I had there.

What bugs me more and more is the rose-coloured glasses of tolerance. I don't like all of the negativity that goes against Islam. Islam isn't a bad religion. It's made from the same structural material western religions are. The "only" difference is that when the medieval ages ended, western religions tended to stop the whole "crusade" thing. I assume some Islamists (way back when) were a little upset that the Catholics and Christians decided to stroll into their land, so they just never removed the whole 'jihad' thing from their teachings. I believe technology is the great equalizer, though. Western influence is an inevitability, and I think that will lessen a lot of the cross-religion hate. Definitely won't end racism, though.

AND ANOTHER THING, wasn't Jesus a Jew? Correct me if I'm wrong, but the Jews born at the time of Jesus were short, hairy middle eastern men, right? So why is Jesus a 6 foot tall white guy with a groomed beard and flowing brown hair? The guy probably looked more like Saddam.

Secondly, being that Jesus was a Jew, and the son of God, this would make Judaism the one true religion, would it not? Because why would God send Jesus down to help people under the guise of a false religion? It stands to logical reason (I...guess) that the son of God would be whatever religion God approves of. God's not partying it up Buddhist-style but creates a Jewish son. If the guy can create anything and everything, why create a son that follows an improper religion.


I'd like to believe that if there IS a God, be it whatever gender, race, size, colour, animal, or religion he is, he wouldn't care what I do. He wouldn't care what I think. He'd just care if I'm happy with who I am, and if I'm nice to other people. If nothing else - and if there is a heaven - I'd like to assume that's the only prerequisite; how good of a person you are. Not what 2000 year old book you like to read.

Edit: I do have to put in one jab that pisses me off, though. In North America after nearly every political speech the leader of Canada/USA usually ends with the fashionable "God Bless my country". I've always wondered; who's God is blessing the country? Your God? My God? Why even mention it. Are you that hard-up for votes that if you don't say "God Bless this bowl of pudding", the religious part of the country will suddenly hate you? Why is saying "In God we trust" (in the USA) and ending every speech with "God Bless this mess" (NA-wide) any different than the Middle Eastern nations which are essentially still governed by religion.


Edit 2: AND ANOTHER (totally tangent) THING. I've never understood the bible in the court. There's some solid separation of church and state, for ya. "Before we get to your logical, evidence-driven trial, put your hand on this dusty book and promise the man in the sky you won't fib." The funny thing is that swearing on the bible (swearing to God) is legally binding if it's in a court, I believe.

Why make it a bible, though? I mean, those people are criminals, right? They're obviously not moral. "Place your hand in this bowl of rice, do you swear to tell the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth so help you Uncle Ben?" I bet you'd get the exact same result from those people. Hell, I bet if you removed the bible aspect altogether those people would lie the exact same amount. The world would still turn.

I'm fairly sure that only applies to the US, though. To be totally honest I'm not sure if they do that in Canada. I've never been to court, and we don't televise our trials.

[Angrist]

The funny thing is that I agree with a lot of that stuff. As someone with what's considered a pretty strict religion.

Fortunately everybody has to make his own decision, but what the decision is based on is a tough subject.

[Professor S]

I don't think viewing Jesus through the prism of your own image is a "bad moral idea". It makes sense. You have to think that many of the people who first began creating images of Jesus in Europe had never seen Middle Eastern people, and there is no physical description of Jesus in the Bible for them to go on. Therefore when people painted Jesus, they went with what they knew, and everything snowballed from there. In essence, his image is more cultural than religious.

The only possible thing we could surmise is that Jesus did not have long hair, because Apostle John wrote that any man with long hair was a disgrace, and I doubt he would have thought that if Jesus rocked a 80's metal `do.

As for swearing on the Bible in court, it is not a requirement. You have to affirm you will tell the truth, but swearing on a Bible is pretty much only done in movies and TV anymore.

For me, I believe in God but I'm not religious nor do I belong to any religion because no other religion I've found views Christianity the way I do. I believe Jesus was a son of God just as we are all children of God. He just happens to be a chosen son, meaning he is a prophet and a man, not God walking the earth. In believing that, I find my interpretation offends most devout American Christians more than if I were an atheist.

[Bond]

What I don't like about religion is how easy it is for psychopathic people to abuse their power. Religion is just another avenue to fame, wealth and power. It's really no different (in the end, except maybe the wealth part) than a CEO. CEOs tend to fondle employees and steal from the till much in the same way. They're also typically very shady characters. Obviously there are good citizens who are CEO's, and who are high-ranking religious members in their various religions, and I'm sure some people are both.
Okay, here's the problem with what you're saying. You seem to start off with the observation that religion is unique in that it is easy to abuse power, but then you draw a parallel to CEOs. I could draw the same parallel to politics. I'm sure other parallels could be drawn. I don't think religion is unique in that it is susceptible to corruption, indeed, I think many religions would readily admit this.

I don't believe the problem is religion, the problem is people. People are opportunists. We'll all make a little white lie if it's easier than telling the truth. We all might have different reasons for doing it, but we'll most likely all do it. Some people just don't have the switch that tells them "Baaaaaad moral ideeeea",and those people tend to worm their way into positions of power. Most likely because they lack morals and will just fuck other people over for their own gain.
This is the epitome of original sin -- that we are a fallen people, no?

What bugs me more and more is the rose-coloured glasses of tolerance. I don't like all of the negativity that goes against Islam. Islam isn't a bad religion. It's made from the same structural material western religions are. The "only" difference is that when the medieval ages ended, western religions tended to stop the whole "crusade" thing. I assume some Islamists (way back when) were a little upset that the Catholics and Christians decided to stroll into their land, so they just never removed the whole 'jihad' thing from their teachings. I believe technology is the great equalizer, though. Western influence is an inevitability, and I think that will lessen a lot of the cross-religion hate. Definitely won't end racism, though.
I would tend to disagree here. I think, in modern times, what most separates Christianity from Islam is the ability to integrate with democratic ideals. Christianity was able to do this, Islam, to date, has not. Catholics in particular have made major concessions in living under democracies (i.e. the Pope should dogmatically be the political and spiritual leader of the Catholic people). That is a significant hurdle for Islam to pass, and until it does, the Middle East will continue to lag behind America and Europe.

AND ANOTHER THING, wasn't Jesus a Jew? Correct me if I'm wrong, but the Jews born at the time of Jesus were short, hairy middle eastern men, right? So why is Jesus a 6 foot tall white guy with a groomed beard and flowing brown hair? The guy probably looked more like Saddam.
Jesus looks like a Westerner in Western cultures. Jesus looks different in other cultures. There's nothing wrong with that. C'mon now.

Secondly, being that Jesus was a Jew, and the son of God, this would make Judaism the one true religion, would it not? Because why would God send Jesus down to help people under the guise of a false religion? It stands to logical reason (I...guess) that the son of God would be whatever religion God approves of. God's not partying it up Buddhist-style but creates a Jewish son. If the guy can create anything and everything, why create a son that follows an improper religion.
Could you rephrase this? I'm not sure what you're getting at.

I'd like to believe that if there IS a God, be it whatever gender, race, size, colour, animal, or religion he is, he wouldn't care what I do. He wouldn't care what I think. He'd just care if I'm happy with who I am, and if I'm nice to other people. If nothing else - and if there is a heaven - I'd like to assume that's the only prerequisite; how good of a person you are. Not what 2000 year old book you like to read.
Then you're a Deist -- that's legit.

[Typhoid]

I could draw the same parallel to politics. I'm sure other parallels could be drawn. I don't think religion is unique in that it is susceptible to corruption, indeed, I think many religions would readily admit this.


We're agreeing with each other, I believe. I wasn't saying religion is different than anything else, I was saying it's just as easily corruptible as everything and isn't exempt because of 'God', because corrupt people will always seek easy ways to prey on others. I only felt like drawing one comparison because it's what came to mind.


, in modern times, what most separates Christianity from Islam is the ability to integrate with democratic ideals.

That's why I believe technology is the great equalizer. North Americans don't need to "spread" Democracy anywhere. We just need to continue properly using Democracy, and let the rest of the world observe via the internet. Cultural Integration through technology. Then you get the Middle Eastern uprising.


Could you rephrase this? I'm not sure what you're getting at.

I was poking fun at the whole "What is the one true religion?" thing. If you think about it, every religion created after Jesus came to Earth is moot - from a western religion point of view. Now, Jesus wasn't a Christian, nor a Catholic (Nor a Taoist, Buddhist or Hindu). So we can rule those five out of Heaven's Religion. Being that Jesus was Jewish, and the son of God (or not the son of God, but still a jew), we can deduce that since he came from heaven, he should be a member of the "true" religion; which would apparently be Judaism. Mystery solved. ;)

[Angrist]

Now that I read your post a bit more Typhoid, a lot of your assumptions are just based on not enough knowledge. For example why Jesus was following another religion than he ended up preaching. Before him, judaism was the true religion. They had a lot of prophecies about a messiah, so they knew something was going to change. That messiah turned out to be Jesus. Many jews accepted that, most did not.
If you knew a bit more about the bible, you would probably understand it better.

[KillerGremlin]

Jesus wasn't really a Jew. At least not in the traditional sense. See:
http://www.biblebelievers.org.au/jesusjew.htm

Secondly, being that Jesus was a Jew, and the son of God, this would make Judaism the one true religion, would it not? Because why would God send Jesus down to help people under the guise of a false religion? It stands to logical reason (I...guess) that the son of God would be whatever religion God approves of. God's not partying it up Buddhist-style but creates a Jewish son. If the guy can create anything and everything, why create a son that follows an improper religion.

I'm not well educated on Judaism. I'm not even that well educated on Catholicism, despite years of CCD and Sunday school. But the Torah is basically the Old Testament.

So the Mythology is: we have the Torah, it tells of God and Creation and gives us all these rules. It speaks of a Prophecy as well. Jesus is the Prophecy. His existence (now documented in the New Testament) was the "second step" in the Abraham-based religion mythology.

I'm not sure of the entire history of Judaism, but the manifestation of Christianity wasn't till well after Christ's death (if such an event actually occurred).

As stated by Wikipedia:
Although Christianity and Judaism share historical roots in the Second Temple period, these two religions diverged profoundly in the first centuries CE. Christendom places emphasis on correct belief (or orthodoxy), focusing primarily on response to the New Covenant that the Christian Triune God made through Jesus. Judaism primarily places emphasis on the right conduct (or orthopraxy), focusing primarily on how to respond to the Mosaic Covenant that the One God of Israel, the God of Abraham, and of Isaac, and of Jacob, made with the Israelites, as recorded in the Torah and Talmud.[1] In other words, Christians obtain individual salvation from original sin through repentance of sin and receiving Jesus Christ as their God and Savior through faith, rituals and sacraments, that express their New Covenant with God. Jews individually conduct in accordance with holy scripture and collectively participate in an eternal dialogue with the living God of Israel through tradition, rituals, prayers and ethical actions, that express their nation's covenant with God. Mainstream Christianity worships a Triune God who also is human. Judaism emphasizes - since almost some 4000 years until now - the Oneness of God and strictly rejects - since almost some 1800 years until now - the Christian concept of God in human form.

In fact, sounds like the Professor's beliefs are more in line with Judaism or even Islam.

Islam is the middle ground between Judaism and Christianity. Islam believes that Jesus was just a prophet and not the Son of God.


What bugs me more and more is the rose-coloured glasses of tolerance. I don't like all of the negativity that goes against Islam. Islam isn't a bad religion. It's made from the same structural material western religions are. The "only" difference is that when the medieval ages ended, western religions tended to stop the whole "crusade" thing. I assume some Islamists (way back when) were a little upset that the Catholics and Christians decided to stroll into their land, so they just never removed the whole 'jihad' thing from their teachings. I believe technology is the great equalizer, though. Western influence is an inevitability, and I think that will lessen a lot of the cross-religion hate. Definitely won't end racism, though.

Hmmm...this is such a loaded paragraph, ripe for the picking. I don't know where to start! So can you elaborate on some of these fine points, lol.

[Professor S]

In fact, sounds like the Professor's beliefs are more in line with Judaism or even Islam.

I've always felt a very close relation to Judaism, but I just can't down with all of the ritual and hurdles to joining. Belief doesn't need to be located in a building or organization.

[Bond]

I agree with Angrist in that a lot of these issues have more to do with a lack of knowledge of the historical underpinnings of Christianity than any kind of philosophical disagreement. Jesus fulfilled the original covenant with the Jews and started a new covenant after his death for Christians, for Jews, they are still waiting for the fulfillment of that initial covenant.

In regard to Juadism, it's a very interesting religion in that the spectrum of its sects is so broad: Orthodox, to Conservative, to Reformed / Liberal. In many ways each sect is an entirely different (and often opposite) way to practice the same religion.

[Typhoid]

The "Wasn't Jesus a Jew" stuff was much more joke than not. (I actually have read the Bible. Catholic mother and all, pulling the whole "You don't have to read it, but it'd make me happy if you did". :\ )

Like I said, I'm not actually against any religion. I'm all for something that gives people piece of mind and helps them be better people.


Hmmm...this is such a loaded paragraph, ripe for the picking. I don't know where to start! So can you elaborate on some of these fine points, lol.


Again, not 100% serious. When I get stoned and start to type, I wind up doing it as if I'm actually talking - I forget tone, and subtlty are entirely lost in text alone.

The frame of that paragraph I wrote was that I just think people who follow "Middle Eastern" religions tend to get a bad wrap just because of a select few people, and I don't find that fair at all. I think that'd be about as fair as only looking at the KKK then saying all Christians are like that, you know what I mean - I'm not a fan of things like that.

--
But it's not like I was trying to make this thread for only my opinions and whatnot. I actually want people to have a discussion about their real feelings on religion, however specific or non-specific. I just want to see if it's something people who believe in different things can calmly talk about without it turning into an insult-fest, or a closed-mind-off. (I'm not saying anyone here is like that, I'm just seeing if it can be done). I want to mediate the expansion of minds, and thoughts.

You know, maybe someone who is/isn't religious won't turn a switch and say "I now think the other side is correct!", that's not my goal. My goal is to see if people - whoever they are - are able to be open to the ideas of others, and not shoot them down immediately. I believe knowledge and conversation are the most important things we've got - and I think religion is something that not enough people calmly talk about (in general) without trying to either pump themselves up or knock another down. I think it should be as freely talked about (In a positive way) as anything else.

[Angrist]

Ehm sorry, but not being 100% serious in a serious thread like this doesn't really help. :)

[Typhoid]

Ehm sorry, but not being 100% serious in a serious thread like this doesn't really help. :)

I'm aware of my mistake. That's why I tried to correct it with my last post.

[KillerGremlin]

Well I had a hunch it was a smoke-induced, think-out-loud type post. That's why I didn't elaborate on that loaded paragraph. :p

I'm thinking of a mature and elegant way to post how I feel about religion. At the end of the day, cynic I am, I'd like to believe there is some purpose to it all.

But I'm also impressed with the Universe and the world around me. I'd also be okay with "the purpose" simply being my short existence. Maybe the universe always existed, and always will. And on most days that is good enough for me. I haven't even fully appreciated this world, let alone the galaxy, let alone the universe.

The hardest part: letting go.

It's hard to just...let go. We are all strapped on this roller coaster ride called life, and we cannot get off. So enjoy the loops, and the drops, and the zero gravity. Because at the end of the day: everyone's roller coaster ride comes to an end.

That part scares the shit out of me still.

[TheSlyMoogle]

ALL OF THE STATEMENTS BELOW ARE MY PERSONAL OPINION!!!


HMM:


My personal beliefs on religion are no longer as hardcore as they used to be. At the end of the day, my opinion will not matter to the majority of people raised in an organized religion.

I grew up in a Southern Baptist family. I came out, and was immediately disowned.

Most of you know this.

After conversations and observations I feel like religion in an organized fashion is just a way to control the masses. I've met way too many righteous assholes turned out by organized religion and the different beliefs that it is daunting to me. For the most part I feel like it's a way to keep people for actually thinking for themselves.

I'm not saying that people are dumb, but I feel like in a group setting like that, people don't have to think.

My personal religious beliefs are now:

Maybe there is some type of higher power, but I'll never figure that out in this life, and there is no longer any point in trying to figure it out, for when I finally pass on I'll know what's up.

[Combine 017]

Scientology is the only true religion, it has never taken advantage of any of its followers. You guys just need to release your thetans or whatever.

[KillerGremlin]

I release my thetans all the time.

[Dylflon]

I want to be religious because of how terrified of dying I am but I can't because I'd know I was being a phony.

[Typhoid]

I want to be religious because of how terrified of dying I am but I can't because I'd know I was being a phony.



Not for argument's sake, but for conversation's sake;


You'd "know" you were being a phony?
How is that any less closed-minded than "There's definitely a God, Science is wrong".
You're not even leaving yourself any room for spiritual growth.

[Teuthida]

Isn't a lot more comforting to know you simply won't exist after you die rather than have some sort of essence of yourself (What parts exactly? What will be your form? What you looked like when you died?) transported to some other realm of who knows what ruled by some higher being? Believing in an afterlife is far scarier of a concept for me than simply being worm food.

[Typhoid]

Isn't a lot more comforting to know you simply won't exist after you die rather than have some sort of essence of yourself (What parts exactly? What will be your form? What you looked like when you died?) transported to some other realm of who knows what ruled by some higher being? Believing in an afterlife is far scarier of a concept for me than simply being worm food.

As Calvin (Of the Calvin & Hobbes') said "Dying sounds like an awfully big adventure."


Personally, I don't find much solace in the fact that once I die, time might as well have never existed in the first place.


Occasionally I try to find a way to mesh science and religion together. Science is built on what if, after all. And there's no bigger "what if" than "What if a God (or what we would perceive to be a God) actually does exist?"

I recently watched Horton Hears a Who (Because I can), and it made me think about this. Follow me, here.

The Who's of whoville cannot see Horton the elephant. They cannot understand the fact that there is more than there world out there. They cannot comprehend what it would look like, or even begin to fathom the size of everything that exists outisde their little spec on that flower, let alone the size of the elephant; gigantic to them, but infinitely tiny within his own Universe. Even if they were to SEE Horton the Elephant, he would be much too large to even be recognized as a thing.


If we were to stare directly into the face of God, would we even know it? :ohreilly:

[Teuthida]

I think you'll like this: http://www.smbc-comics.com/index.php?db=comics&id=2431#comic

The Who's of whoville cannot see Horton the elephant. They cannot understand the fact that there is more than there world out there. They cannot comprehend what it would look like, or even begin to fathom the size of everything that exists outisde their little spec on that flower, let alone the size of the elephant; gigantic to them, but infinitely tiny within his own Universe. Even if they were to SEE Horton the Elephant, he would be much too large to even be recognized as a thing.


If we were to stare directly into the face of God, would we even know it?

I'm iffy on the god thing for that reason. If some god did exist, it would surely be incomprehensible to us.

But for there to be an afterlife you would have to assume humans are special compared to all other lifeforms other than our intelligence. (Which I know religious folks have no problem believing but you need to do mental gymnastics to make things work out otherwise.)

Imagine how many insects are always dying. Heaven would be almost entirely beetles. Or do they go to hell? Or does each little beetle soul get reincarnated?

What about one-celled organisms? If one of those die, nothing happens? The human body is made up of trillions of them which are dying as well at different rates. So the distinction is an independent organism then? (Except no creature exists in a vacuum.) Or is size the determining factor? In the grand scheme of things we are itty bitty teeny weeny specks.

Basically you would need to subscribe to the notion that only humans (a very new species) possess a soul (which there is no proof of) for any of this work out (or keep some semblance of yourself in this afterlife). But your memories are all housed in your physical brain...

As far as I'm concerned there can only be an afterlife (how one thinks of one at least where you are still you) by not thinking about how it would actually work.

So much simpler and elegant to think of ourselves as just mass. When we die our form just changes.

I would suggest watching The Invention of Lying. Not the greatest movie and probably offensive if really religious but there are some good ideas, especially about the creation of the afterlife idea.

[KillerGremlin]

I'm not so worried about being dead, I'm more concerned with the transition.

Cell death in your brain sounds terrifying.

What happens to your brain after you die?
Messenger RNA circulates for hours, but what proportion of your neurons/glial cells remain functional? Is there support for a common post-mortem experience?

If the blood supply to the brain is interrupted (ie heart stops), within six seconds the person will be unconscious. This is because neurons cannot store their own oxygen and glucose (energy supply) and must constantly draw it from the blood. WIthout this supply, the neurons will shut down and stop firing electrically and chemically, hence the unconsciousness. If the oxygen and glucose supply is cut off for longer, revival may be possible but there will be permanent brain damage. If blood supply is not restored within six minutes, there is severe permanent damage.

There are some arguments for or against decapitation because the subject may remain alive momentarily. :p

The concept of a stroke (how my grandfather and his dad went) terrifies me. Or a heart attack. Just the transition is freaky, not so much being dead. If there is nothing after I die, I won't give a shit, will I? :D :p

I also have a weird fear of cremation and being buried. I guess that's irrational.


As far as science meshing with religion....I like the idea that the Universe is a constant and that it has "always been." Maybe life is cyclical and we will all do it again. But then I look back and think..."Do I really want to not be able to drink and/or drive again? Fuck no!?"

So then maybe there is reincarnation. That could be fun. If I come back as a female I'm definitely going les.

Or maybe everything is just a string of conscience and once you die you just become an infinite stretch of energy. Maybe time slows down.

Or maybe if you were a good person you get to go hang out with J-C for all eternity. I hope all the cool people are there...like George Carlin and Bernie Mac.

If there is a purgatory, I'd like to think we are in it right now. If I come back as a ghost, the first place I'm going is the lady's locker room. Hide your wife and kids. That isn't ectoplasm.

[Bond]

If some god did exist, it would surely be comprehensible to us.
I'm curious as to why you have that view? I've had a lot of conversations on religion before, but I don't think I've ever heard that point.

[Teuthida]

Oops damn. Typo. Incomprehensible. I'll go fix that.

[Angrist]

Do any of you follow the news on physics lately? Basically they thought they had figured it out... but now they discovered they haven't. The speed of the expanding galaxy isn't decreasing (as gravity would dictate and which is the basis for the bing bang theory), but it's increasing.
Scientists also can't figure out the behavior of gravity outside our solar system. They can't find enough mass to explain the movement of stars etc. So for years they've had this theory of dark matter, which can't be seen but still exerts gravity. But because apparently that isn't enough, some scientists propose that energy can also exert gravity. And when that isn't enough, there has to be 'dark energy'.....
And then finally there's the recent discovery (presumption) that neutrinos are faster than light.


I'm not saying that stuff like that is a prove there is a God, because that would be a fallacy. I'm just saying that whatever science uses to disprove a God, I'm not buying it. People think they're so clever, while in fact they only understand a small part of the universe.
Oh and I wonder who are worse: scientists who think they're clever, or all the people who just believe them without looking at the facts/reasonings themselves.

[KillerGremlin]

I'm not saying that stuff like that is a prove there is a God, because that would be a fallacy. I'm just saying that whatever science uses to disprove a God, I'm not buying it. People think they're so clever, while in fact they only understand a small part of the universe.
Oh and I wonder who are worse: scientists who think they're clever, or all the people who just believe them without looking at the facts/reasonings themselves.

Whoa, whoa, whoa.

When did scientists try to prove or disprove God?

Physics is an exploratory science that examines our natural environment. It is based on theories which are compositions of ideas that stand up to repeat testing and empirical evidence (i.e. the scientific process). As you stated in your post, many of the theories are being adapted and changed to fit new information. That's the whole point of science and why science is awesome.

Science doesn't prove or disprove God. It never has been intended to do such.

On the other hand.....

http://pics.blameitonthevoices.com/062010/ricky_gervais_on_religion.jpg

[KillerGremlin]

Also, we've known for a long, long time that:

1) The universe is expanding

2) We are accelerating away from everything else

This video is absolutely important and worth your time:

<iframe width="560" height="315" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/7ImvlS8PLIo" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>


Dark Energy seems to be very real...although I'm not qualified to really defend it so I'll post another video.

<iframe width="420" height="315" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/T6IBoa4FxvY" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

And from what I can tell, the jury is still out on the neutrinos that are faster than light. And even if neutrinos do faster than light and we need to make changes in our theories, that is a good thing! I certainly hope we don't know everything. Humans are relatively young, and we have so much to learn. That's why science is great.

But the best part? You can still have a passion for learning and exploration and you can still have religion and God. The existence of God has no baring on environmental observations. You can observe that it is hot or cold outside, and you can attribute that to God or you cannot. Either way, you can observe that it is hot or cold outside.

[Combine 017]

Also, we've known for a long, long time that:

1) The universe is expanding

2) We are accelerating away from everything else

I thought there were some theories now that the universe is contracting?

And I didnt watch your hour long videos because I cant sit still that long, but ive been watching a newish series called "Into the universe with Stephen Hawking" and it goes over stuff like the expanding universe and dark energy and neutrinos and being able to time travel using a black hole.

[Dylflon]

Not for argument's sake, but for conversation's sake;


You'd "know" you were being a phony?
How is that any less closed-minded than "There's definitely a God, Science is wrong".
You're not even leaving yourself any room for spiritual growth.

I'd know I was being a phony because I'd be being religious when I'm not sure in my heart if I believe in god or not.

[Angrist]

Maybe it's interesting to note that the Bible doesn't speak of faith as something you merely hope... It's more than that, it's based on good arguments, on a good study of the Bible etc.

So if you wonder if there's something out there, just give it a more thorough look.

[KillerGremlin]

I thought there were some theories now that the universe is contracting?

And I didnt watch your hour long videos because I cant sit still that long, but ive been watching a newish series called "Into the universe with Stephen Hawking" and it goes over stuff like the expanding universe and dark energy and neutrinos and being able to time travel using a black hole.

Recent experimental evidence (namely the observation of distant supernova as standard candles, and the well-resolved mapping of the cosmic microwave background) has led to speculation that the expansion of the universe is not being slowed down by gravity but rather accelerating. However, since the nature of the dark energy that is postulated to drive the acceleration is unknown, it is still possible (though not observationally supported as of today) that it might eventually reverse sign and cause a collapse.

buuuuutttt....

But the experts also took a stab at what a contracting universe could look like to an observer billions of years into the future.

“As the present-day observable universe started to get really small, the observer would most likely see some of the things that happened in the early universe happen in reverse. Most notably, the temperature of the universe would eventually get so high that you could no longer have stable atoms, in which case the hypothetical observer wouldn't be able to hold himself together.”

Yikes. But fear not. It turns the expansion of the universe has been accelerating rather than slowing.

Astronomers believe that’s caused by a mysterious dark energy pulling galaxies apart, according to NASA.

“Dark energy is this idea that not only is the universe expanding, dark energy is actually making that expansion happen even faster,” said Marla Geha, as assistant professor of astronomy at Yale University. “The dark energy will actually continue the expansion of the universe forever, so there probably will not be a Big Crunch if we have the numbers right.”

But the continuous expansion would have other consequences. Over tens of billions of years, the galaxies that we see around us would get farther and farther away, making the universe more of a lonely place, Geha said.

http://scitech.blogs.cnn.com/2009/08/18/will-the-big-crunch-follow-the-big-bang/


I think the Big Crunch is still a serious theory, so you are right that scientists think at some point in billions of years the Universe may collapse. For now, the Universe is expanding and will continue to do so for a while.

[Bond]

The nobel prize in physics was awarded this year to a bro that figured out the universe is not only expanding, but that it is expanding at an increased rate (I think KG already said this). The universe may eventually contract, but it currently is not (at least this is current thinking).

[TheSlyMoogle]

Maybe it's interesting to note that the Bible doesn't speak of faith as something you merely hope... It's more than that, it's based on good arguments, on a good study of the Bible etc.

So if you wonder if there's something out there, just give it a more thorough look.

Lol...

Have you even fully read and understood the bible?

I mean really?

BECAUSE THE BIBLE IS FUCKED UP!!!

Which actually makes it a pretty interesting read. I really wish more people had read it, and realized that for the most part any modern day preacher/pastor/priest/whateverscientologybuttfuckleader/bullshitdude is saying is mostly out of context to avoid a lot of the fucked up shit the bible says.

[Angrist]

I've read the Bible once, I'm on my 2nd read-through at the moment (with 4 pages per day it should take a bit more than a year to finish it).

[TheSlyMoogle]

(with 4 pages per day it should take a bit more than a year to finish it).

How can you expect to read and fully comprehend something at the pace of 4 pages a day?

...

[Combine 017]

According to the bible we are all inbred. So if everyone came from the same 2 people, how did different races form, and different diseases through humans? The bible is stupid and has so many flaws. And hasnt it been changed several times in the past?

[Angrist]

How can you expect to read and fully comprehend something at the pace of 4 pages a day?

...Eh are you being ironic?

Anyway, the time has come for me to jump out of this thread again. People start throwing unconstructive statements into the discussion and I'm not going to spend any time and energy into dealing with them. I don't see it make much difference anyway; if you want to dislike the bible (or anything really), you'll always find a rock to throw.

[Typhoid]

I'd know I was being a phony because I'd be being religious when I'm not sure in my heart if I believe in god or not.


How would you ever know if spirituality of any kind would help out your piece of mind if you're not even willing to attempt the possibility of expanding your beliefs.

Closed minds can never grow.
Obviously I'm not saying "Hey buddy, believe in God." I don't even believe in 'God' - we both know that.


But how do you know you'd be a phony if you're not even sure if you believe in a God or not in the first place. Sounds to me you're more afraid of what people would say about you if you truly did start believing in a 'God'.

By looking into various religions, you don't immediately forgo logic and everything you've learned about history and science.

[Vampyr]

Religion of any sort boggles my mind.

I feel like I live in a world where everyone believes in Santa Claus and I'm one of the few people who realizes that he isn't real.

[Combine 017]

Religion of any sort boggles my mind.

I feel like I live in a world where everyone believes in Santa Claus and I'm one of the few people who realizes that he isn't real.

I think Buddhism is pretty cool, mainly because Buddhist monks and temples look cool.

[KillerGremlin]

Religion of any sort boggles my mind.

I feel like I live in a world where everyone believes in Santa Claus and I'm one of the few people who realizes that he isn't real.

The North Pole is real...Midgets are real....reindeer are real....there are plenty of fatass people who are old and have huge white beards. And who doesn't like milk and cookies.

I think Santa is pretty probable, all things considered. :p

[Typhoid]

The North Pole is real...Midgets are real....reindeer are real....there are plenty of fatass people who are old and have huge white beards. And who doesn't like milk and cookies.

I think Santa is pretty probable, all things considered. :p

Santa Claus: The world's favourite Canadian... Or Russian. I'm not sure. Both countries colours are primarily red, and the gift-giving can be seen as general Canadian niceness, or horrible Soviet Communism.

[Combine 017]

http://farm6.static.flickr.com/5288/5239002401_24bebe7af8_o.jpg

[Bond]

Religion of any sort boggles my mind.

I feel like I live in a world where everyone believes in Santa Claus and I'm one of the few people who realizes that he isn't real.
What's your primary exposure to religion? The southern evangelicals? I think that may be skewing your view of religious people a bit (understandably so I might add).

[Vampyr]

What's your primary exposure to religion? The southern evangelicals? I think that may be skewing your view of religious people a bit (understandably so I might add).

My family is religious, but not overly so. I've never even been to church a day in my life.

They just believe in a god - for me that's enough to cross the line into strangeness. That someone could believe that, with not a shred of evidence. It's just so obviously a fairy tale to me - written by people for other people.

That's what I mean when I make the Santa Clause analogy. I feel like we, as a people, should have grown out of this by now. I know that's probably very offense to people who believe - I'm basically calling them stupid - but I just cannot grasp how someone can believe this stuff.

[BreakABone]

Religion of any sort boggles my mind.

I feel like I live in a world where everyone believes in Santa Claus and I'm one of the few people who realizes that he isn't real.

NEVER compare religion to Santa Claus.. I did that once many years ago.. turned out well.

[KillerGremlin]

That's what I mean when I make the Santa Clause analogy. I feel like we, as a people, should have grown out of this by now. I know that's probably very offense to people who believe - I'm basically calling them stupid - but I just cannot grasp how someone can believe this stuff.

It's a combination of evolution, tradition, family, and politics. Religion is ingrained in so many aspects of our society.

I think there is a lot of wisdom in religion. Unfortunately, most of the good wisdom is ignored. I'm pretty sure God hates Republicans (AND TO DISCOURAGE AN UNNECESSARY POLITICAL DISCUSSION, he hates Democrats too :p).

Jesus was a hippy who hung out with prostitutes and blind people and preached the New Testament. He was more about giving your stuff to the poor and asking for forgiveness...which is kind of just saying "genuinely love your neighbor and God and good things will come to you."

[Professor S]

Jesus was a hippy who hung out with prostitutes and blind people and preached the New Testament. He was more about giving your stuff to the poor and asking for forgiveness...which is kind of just saying "genuinely love your neighbor and God and good things will come to you."

Jesus asked people to be charitable with their own wealth, to CHOOSE to give to others. He never asked them to take from A to give to B, and Republicans are far more charitable than Democrats.

Back on topic: Now that the discussion has degraded into calling believers "stupid", I'll jump in.

It is a current statistical impossibility that life spontaneously originated on it's own. Those that choose not to believe in God have tried to answer this by presenting theories such as "planet seeding by aliens" (who created the aliens?) to "we just don't know yet, but it wasn't God".

Now either of these may be true, but there is no evidence for either of them. They are guesses. Statements made out of belief, and not fact. Feel free to choose your religion, atheistic or theistic, but no one should pretend that they know more or are smarter than anyone else simply because they choose to not believe in the "spaghetti monster". You simply choose to believe in something else, but in the end, it's just faith... same as the most devout Baptist.

[Teuthida]

and Republicans are far more charitable than Democrats.
Not disagreeing because I don't know, but I would like to see an actual source for that.

It is a current statistical impossibility that life spontaneously originated on it's own.
Um no. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Miller%E2%80%93Urey_experiment

[Vampyr]

Jesus asked people to be charitable with their own wealth, to CHOOSE to give to others. He never asked them to take from A to give to B, and Republicans are far more charitable than Democrats.

Back on topic: Now that the discussion has degraded into calling believers "stupid", I'll jump in.

It is a current statistical impossibility that life spontaneously originated on it's own. Those that choose not to believe in God have tried to answer this by presenting theories such as "planet seeding by aliens" (who created the aliens?) to "we just don't know yet, but it wasn't God".

Now either of these may be true, but there is no evidence for either of them. They are guesses. Statements made out of belief, and not fact. Feel free to choose your religion, atheistic or theistic, but no one should pretend that they know more or are smarter than anyone else simply because they choose to not believe in the "spaghetti monster". You simply choose to believe in something else, but in the end, it's just faith... same as the most devout Baptist.

No, it's really, really not the same. I don't believe in anything. I don't pretend to know the origin of life, but I think I remember reading back in high school about how scientists had conducted experiments using electricity in a box with similar atmospheric conditions to Earth, and small microorganisms formed.

If that's true, then isn't it extraordinarily more probable that life got it's start that way, as opposed to some all-powerful, omniscient being that no one has even a shred of evidence of willing life into existence?

And even if that isn't true and I'm remembering incorrectly, it doesn't change the fact that all religions were created by man, for man. They are a guess, but have no basis in fact. Science does. That is the difference. One is from someone's imagination, the other based on observations.

If one religion or another does turn out to be right, I'll eat my hat, because they just won the cosmic lottery in a most epic fashion.


-----

EDIT: Sorry Teuth, didn't see your post. Looks like I was remembering right.

[Professor S]

Not disagreeing because I don't know, but I would like to see an actual source for that.

Politically, this has been common knowledge for a very long time. Many believe this is because democrats tend to be 1) less religious, and 2) view government programs as charity (consciously or subconsciously).

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/12/21/opinion/21kristof.html

Um no. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Miller%E2%80%93Urey_experiment

I see that they created primordial goo (amino acids), but I fail to see the part where life was created. In fact, experiments have been done where every amino acid needed for life have been put together in ideal conditions with favorable stimulus and nothing has happened. No life created. In the end, we are left with assumptions and the only possibility not being considered is a supreme being. IMO, to believe that the results of the experiments noted in that article = life being created is a leap of "faith" if I've ever heard one.

Again, we see mountains being made out of molehills. The ability to recreate the components of life does not = spontaneous formation of life. Science is about observation and proof, not conclusions based on assumptions that may be correct or incorrect.

I think this is caused by noble cause corruption. People feel the need to prove to everyone that God does not exist, so they extend their argument beyond the boundaries of science in order to "free the ignorant masses". In the end, its things like this that reinforce my belief that most atheists are "true-believers" and not nearly as rational as they think they are. If they were, they would be agnostic.

[Professor S]

If that's true, then isn't it extraordinarily more probable that life got it's start that way, as opposed to some all-powerful, omniscient being that no one has even a shred of evidence of willing life into existence?

In terms of probabilities, I believe both come out to about nil. Note: Spontaneous creation of life is not absolute zero, but the chances are so remote it is considered a virtual impossibility. I believe the probability is 1 chance in 10 to the power of 390. To give some context, there is a far greater chance of observing every known atom in the universe than of life spontaneously erupting. (since you can't statistically measure the God equation I'll give Him an absolute zero). The best part of all of this? The most common argument against the probability dismissal is that the creation of true life is NOT RANDOM. So, the defense of abiogenesis is order, or one might say, design?

So we are left with the point of my post: You pick your belief, and I'll pick mine. But one zero doesn't get to be obnoxiously condescending to another zero. They are equal in terms of probability.

[Teuthida]

I linked that because you said it was statistically impossible. Which it is not. Imagine you have all the ingredients to make a cake. You still need to figure out the right proportion, what to mix with what and when, and even if you somehow manage to get all that right, you need to set it at the exact temperature for the correct about of time. Now think of creating life as infinitely harder and with far more variables, all of what we don't know. Life isn't like making a pie.

To make the jump to a supreme being for anything that can't be explained is the laziest course of action possible.

[Professor S]

I linked that because you said it was statistically impossible. Which it is not. Imagine you have all the ingredients to make a cake. You still need to figure out the right proportion, what to mix with what and when, and even if you somehow manage to get all that right, you need to set it at the exact temperature for the correct about of time. Now think of creating life as infinitely harder and with far more variables, all of what we don't know. Life isn't like making a pie.

You are forgetting the most important ingredient in baking a cake. THE BAKER. Without him, there is no cake.

To make the jump to a supreme being for anything that can't be explained is the laziest course of action possible.

I'm anything but lazy, as I hope I have proven with my background knowledge and research. I am a former atheist, and was raised in a non-religious household. My belief in God is a result of a search of knowledge, and not an avoidance of it. I consider ALL possibilities. Do you? Or have you already made up your mind based on assumptions and statistical impossibilities?

[Vampyr]

Like I said before, I'm not claiming to know how life on Earth got started.

You are - you are putting forth a hypothesis that there is a supreme being who created everything, but you don't have any evidence, at all, for this.

Also, this question has been asked a million times before, but if a supreme being did create life, then that just begs the question as to how that supreme being was formed.

Either it was created by another supreme being (who created that one?) or it spontaneously sprung into being. And if that life could spontaneously form, why couldn't life on Earth?

[Vampyr]

You are forgetting the most important ingredient in baking a cake. THE BAKER. Without him, there is no cake.



I'm anything but lazy, as I hope I have proven with my background knowledge and research. I am a former atheist, and was raised in a non-religious household. My belief in God is a result of a search of knowledge, and not an avoidance of it. I consider ALL possibilities. Do you? Or have you already made up your mind based on assumptions and statistical impossibilities?

You're asking us to prove a negative - it isn't possible. So I guess you win this argument by default?

[Teuthida]

You are forgetting the most important ingredient in baking a cake. THE BAKER. Without him, there is no cake.

I'm anything but lazy, as I hope I have proven with my background knowledge and research. I am a former atheist, and was raised in a non-religious household. My belief in God is a result of a search of knowledge, and not an avoidance of it. I consider ALL possibilities. Do you? Or have you already made up your mind based on assumptions and statistical impossibilities?


Heh, going to refer to god as the Baker from now on. The holy trinity of the Butcher, the Baker, and the Candlestick-maker :)


I do find it your shift in perspective to be interesting. I mapped out my logic behind an afterlife previously in this thread. There's enough proof for me to believe life started without a guiding hand. Especially when you consider the sheer size of the universe and the number of planets within it. A freak accident like life is bound to happen. I can't wrap my mind around what existed before the big bang though. Even if this universe is the offshoot of another, where did that one come from? Or if everything was condensed and the universe is cyclical in nature of expanding and contracting, there has to be a starting point. So if I was to give the plausibility of a god to anything it would be that. But then where did that god come from?

But really, why would a supreme being who created all of everything, make one-celled organisms on this planet? Given this discussion, I'm assuming you don't believe all the creatures on Earth were magicked into existence like the really religious types do.

[Professor S]

It's funny to think that anyone can "win" this argument. My goal isn't to convince you that God exists and that He created the universe, even though your goal is to convince me that he doesn't and didn't.

Here are my goals:

1) To encourage those that don't believe in God to be honest about the scientific arguments against his existence. Stretching science beyond it's boundaries does not disprove anything, and only hurts science.

2) To make non-believers realize that disbelief in God is a belief, not a fact. Facts must be proven, correct? I'm willing to admit my belief in God is a belief, and not a fact. Can you admit that nonexistence of God is a unproven belief, and not a fact?

3) Combining goals 1 and 3, to encourage atheists to drop the condescending attitudes and superiority complexes. Atheists have one belief amongst many. No need to act like assholes every time God or religion is mentioned.

Overall, I think everyone should be open to the possibility that God is real; not to accept Him, just to be open that he might just exist (I lived in this spiritual limbo for years). An open mind never hurt anyone.

[Professor S]

Heh, going to refer to god as the Baker from now on. The holy trinity of the Butcher, the Baker, and the Candlestick-maker :)

You made that one too easy for me. But I think a baker is a decent analogy.

I do find it your shift in perspective to be interesting.

Probably because I am a deist, and not tied to religion or dogma. In many ways, my belief in God is based in reason. Without a definite answer to everything, and the failure of atheist evangelists like Richard Dawkins to adequately make their case (often betraying themselves when they try), I still have this underlying belief in my chest that there is a God, so I choose to follow that belief.

I mapped out my logic behind an afterlife previously in this thread. There's enough proof for me to believe life started without a guiding hand. Especially when you consider the sheer size of the universe and the number of planets within it. A freak accident like life is bound to happen. I can't wrap my mind around what existed before the big bang though. Even if this universe is the offshoot of another, where did that one come from? Or if everything was condensed and the universe is cyclical in nature of expanding and contracting, there has to be a starting point. So if I was to give the plausibility of a god to anything it would be that. But then where did that god come from?

But really, why would a supreme being who created all of everything, make one-celled organisms on this planet? Given this discussion, I'm assuming you don't believe all the creatures on Earth were magicked into existence like the really religious types do.

Good questions, but I doubt I have answers. My belief is that God gave the components and the spark, but then let the engine run on its own, but this isn't a strong belief. Hard to say, but I love trying to find the answer.

As for evolution, I definitely think evolution in a species exists, and there is a strong chance that evolution between species takes place, but I'm not convinced of that. There are a lot of holes in Darwinism that need to be worked out. I'm not anti-Darwin, but I'm also not a blindly devout Darwinist like Richard Dawkins.

My biggest problem with people like Dawkins are that they are so devout in their faith that they lose their objectivity, and at that point they cease to be scientists, and become evangelists. Essentially, he is everything he says he hates, just the perspective is reversed.

[Combine 017]

You are forgetting the most important ingredient in baking a cake. THE BAKER. Without him, there is no cake.

Haaaa, that was good, I liked that.

Theres a funny show on netflix called "Animals that Defy Evolution". Its about some scientist guy who believed in evolution but then saw the light and now is trying to disprove it with stuff that doesnt make any sense. Hes things like, if theres a giraffe sitting there and it sees a zebra, hes just gonna chill, but if it sees a lion it runs away. Evolution didnt tell it to run away, god gave it the ability to distinguish between predators and other animals. And if god didnt make whales right on the spot like they are, theres no way it would have survived through evolution. Hes pretty much says that if god didnt make every animal it would have died.

[Teuthida]

As for evolution, I definitely think evolution in a species exists, and there is a strong chance that evolution between species takes place, but I'm not convinced of that. There are a lot of holes in Darwinism that need to be worked out. I'm not anti-Darwin, but I'm also not a blindly devout Darwinist like Richard Dawkins.

My biggest problem with people like Dawkins are that they are so devout in their faith that they lose their objectivity, and at that point they cease to be scientists, and become evangelists. Essentially, he is everything he says he hates, just the perspective is reversed.
I only ever hear the term "Darwinism" from folks who question evolution, equating it to a belief with Darwin as a prophet of sorts. Dawkins is a bit of a dick. I'll give you that.

Theres a funny show on netflix called "Animals that Defy Evolution". Its about some scientist guy who believed in evolution but then saw the light and now is trying to disprove it with stuff that doesnt make any sense. Hes things like, if theres a giraffe sitting there and it sees a zebra, hes just gonna chill, but if it sees a lion it runs away. Evolution didnt tell it to run away, god gave it the ability to distinguish between predators and other animals. And if god didnt make whales right on the spot like they are, theres no way it would have survived through evolution. Hes pretty much says that if god didnt make every animal it would have died.
Ah, I've heard about him. His doctorate is in dentistry.

[Typhoid]

It is a current statistical impossibility that life spontaneously originated on it's own. Those that choose not to believe in God have tried to answer this by presenting theories such as "planet seeding by aliens" (who created the aliens?) to "we just don't know yet, but it wasn't God".


Not to farm back 18 (or whatever) posts, but that's not entirely accurate.


I'll try break this down simply. I don't mean that as an insult, I just meant so it's as easy as possible for everyone to understand - and to try not to sidetrack myself.

I watched a show on the probable origins of life in the Universe a while back, and it made amazingly valid, and exceptional points.

They found elements of organic material on asteroids floating through space, meaning that asteroid impact can be a very likely cause of life. Not just on Earth, but everywhere. Asteroids are like the seed bags of life, and planets are the Earth for it to grow in.

Now that leaves the question of "well why isn't life everywhere, then?"
Maybe life isn't possible everywhere, but the possibility for life is everywhere, and life just happens to be a statistical inevitability of circumstance. (Sort of like Mold! Mold won't grow on every loaf of bread you have that goes bad, but if you give mold the conditions to grow, it always will.)

If you go dig in the middle of the Gobi desert, you might not find a plant, or even any traces of plants - but there are sure as shit plants on Earth, despite the fact you might not have found any in the 50 feet where you're standing in the Gobi desert.

Just because one may scatter seeds everywhere on the ground, doesn't mean the ground will be littered with plants; but just because there aren't any plants doesn't mean there aren't any seeds. You dig?


Edit:

You are forgetting the most important ingredient in baking a cake. THE BAKER. Without him, there is no cake.

But what if the ingredients for that cake were floating in space under their own power, and came together randomly, over billions of years to form a cake? a cake can't bake on it's own, you say?

What if the materials for the cake's oven were also spontaneously formed after billions of years of random coincidences, and inside of that oven a cake also formed. The oven then cooks the cake.

Now, I can see how the cake would say "How the fuck did I get here? I'm just a cake. I wasn't anything before, but now I am a delicious treat. How did I come out of billions of years of nothingness?"

See, the cake can't comprehend the reality of being a cake, because it is simply only a cake. In the cake's mind, the oven always was. The oven created the cake. But in reality the oven was also spontaneously formed after billions of years of perfect scenarios.
It doesn't understand that billions of years of swirling gasses and pressure can have nearly limitless possibilities.

Now, you might think "Wow, it's amazing that an oven was formed by simply gas, pressure and billions of years. And it's even more amazing that a cake was formed inside of that oven."

It might seemed far fetched to you, pastry-lover. "Why aren't there more cakes, then?" you might say.
Well since the spontaneous oven/cake was a series of perfect events, take the lack of other cakes as the sheer mindboggling fraction of a chance that came together for that one cake to form in the first place.

--------
While I try to be spiritual, I don't believe in creationism. By no means does that diminish the amazing happenings to take place for simply me to be here. I believe in the power of man. To give in to a higher power in the sense of creationism; I feel, diminishes the intelligence and sheer capability of man.

I like religion because it gives people piece of mind, and teaches good values. The one reason I don't like "religion" is because it holds people back from learning about the Universe. This is the struggle I always have.

I always think, if religious people are so sure there is a God, what's the harm in being knowledgable about the Universe. Surely he must have created everything, so what's the harm in studying more of his creations? Astronomers don't study planets and deep space to say "Nope, still haven't seen the face of God", so in that sense I don't understand the medieval divide that still remains between the two.


if anything I'm thrown off that religion suddenly ceased changing it's tone. Religions typically changed to encompass new understandings. World was flat, etc. But somewhere along the line, as massive un-repairable rip happened between learning about the stars, and believing in God. At one time, they were the exact same thing. Until somewhere along the line one person said "Hey, I'm afraid you won't find a God up there, don't look there." and someone else said "Hey buddy, I just want to know what shape the world is."

[Professor S]

I only ever hear the term "Darwinism" from folks who question evolution, equating it to a belief with Darwin as a prophet of sorts. Dawkins is a bit of a dick. I'll give you that.

By Darwinism I am referring to those that have full faith in Darwin's theory without exception. You can believe in evolution without taking everything Darwin believed as fact. I believe in evolution, but I am not a Darwinist.

And Typhoid, I appreciate the discussion, but I'm not sure your contribution addressed my points. The statistical impossibility of life originating spontaneously still exists whether from a meteor or on planet or the result co-mingling ingredients of a celestial pastry.

[Typhoid]

And Typhoid, I appreciate the discussion, but I'm not sure your contribution addressed my points. The statistical impossibility of life originating spontaneously still exists whether from a meteor or on planet or the result co-mingling ingredients of a celestial pastry.


My point was more that it's nearly impossible for humans to comprehend things beyond our lifetime. We're finite creatures trying to comprehend infinite possibilities.

I'll try prove what I'm saying a lot simpler.


How did your parents meet?
Did they live in the same city?
Did their parents move from separate cities to meet in 1 singular location, on one specific chance-happening?

Now go back further, what about your grandparents? Possibly they came from overseas.
Not to mention you were the winning sperm, and so was every other living person. That in itself is an amazing accomplishment for every living person. You fought for your right to exist before you even knew it.

Now let's just say one of your great grandparents didn't get on that boat, or your mom didn't go to that McDonald's that day and meet your dad - how different things would be for you - You wouldn't exist. Granted, you wouldn't know about it. But in going back 100+ years, there have already been an amazing amount of spontaneous coincidences for simply you to be alive. Now what about every other person who has ever existed. Now what about every single living thing that has ever existed. Now think about the specific location of every single planet, and floating body in space. If one of them is even a millionth of a fraction off (of say a collision, for example), billions of years down the line everything might be entirely different.


Now, it's a hell of a lot easier to say "wow, that sounds amazingly impossible. Someone must have controlled all of that", than it is to say "Wow. Imagine how insanely minute of a chance my sole existence is even going back only 100 years."




Edit:
*Places tongue in cheek*

What you (Not you, you) have to grasp to really understand it, is that humans aren't important. Life isn't about us. We're simply animals. We can just comprehend that, is all. A lot of us aren't okay with being animals - that we're better than they are. And in a lot of human-viewed ways we totally are. But in the grand sceme of the Universe we're just an organism on a small blue planet floating around an insignificant star among a throng of other suns on a non-descript arm of a galaxy just like countless others.

But I digress... :lolz:

[TheSlyMoogle]

On an off topic I wish we could go back and review some of the old religion threads we had several years back. I just remember some of the stuff we talked about then, and see how much we have all learned and grown since.

Anyway, I kind of agree with Prof here.

Either way, life as a whole, is a wonderful thing. However it happened, it did.

I stopped trying to figure it out, or trying to disprove a higher power. I rarely ever discuss it either, but will with people who generally aren't closed in their beliefs.

I just enjoy people who are constantly questioning. At the end of the day you can't know for certain, science or anyone really. Which is why death is the next great adventure they say. I hope that's true :D

[Bond]

Wow, this thread exploded.
My family is religious, but not overly so. I've never even been to church a day in my life.

They just believe in a god - for me that's enough to cross the line into strangeness. That someone could believe that, with not a shred of evidence. It's just so obviously a fairy tale to me - written by people for other people.

That's what I mean when I make the Santa Clause analogy. I feel like we, as a people, should have grown out of this by now. I know that's probably very offense to people who believe - I'm basically calling them stupid - but I just cannot grasp how someone can believe this stuff.
I would encourage you to read and/or listen to Alister McGrath and John Lennox. Both are Oxford professors and extremely distinguished in their fields. Both are also Christian apologists (people who defend Christianity on a rational basis), in the same vein of G.K. Chesterton and C.S. Lewis.

My intention is by no means to persuade or convert you, but rather to show you the best of the other side. I'd be happy to link you to a few specific lectures as well.

[Seth]

I'm totally stressing over finals and papers due, but I want to take just a quick moment to thank God for all he has done for me. Even in my perpetual stupidity, he has been merciful. All of the scripturally loaded words I have to praise Him with are understandably antagonistic given the nature of an open discussion about religion, but I feel at this moment I want to share the transformative influence that humbly approaching my creator has enacted in my life. My attitude towards life's obstacles has not been proactively beneficial in a lot of cases, but in this moment, reflecting on my blessings(appropriate time of year) I find that as always, the entirety of my felt joy is derived solely from His love.
His love is evident everywhere, and I really appreciate the people in my life who have demonstrated this actualization. Praise God! I find myself stepping back from institutionalized apathy and remembering that religion is completely an individual experience, and only real when the matters of self are replaced by a more acute understanding of collective needs.

It's disgraceful to recollect how I have neglected people who aren't of my immediate family and close friends. Even the closest people to me I have betrayed through lack of empathy. Part of it has to do with accepting and loving myself for who I am. Whether altruistic actions, in this light, can remain definitively unselfish, is irrelevant to me considering I can perceive an emotional and spiritual need in my community. Thank God for bringing clarity back into my life! Whether or not gases collapsing in univeral grandeur as the form of life's origin is the case, I know through my own experience that there is an omniscient creator who's love for creation superscedes the intercessory doubt that I have nurtured through personal and communal neglect.
God is love. We praise Him for his inalienable nature, and look past the stunted interpretations of people who's influence tends to eclipse the vast examples of his goodness.

Thank you all for your insights on this thread's topic.

[Vampyr]

I'm totally stressing over finals and papers due, but I want to take just a quick moment to thank God for all he has done for me. Even in my perpetual stupidity, he has been merciful. All of the scripturally loaded words I have to praise Him with are understandably antagonistic given the nature of an open discussion about religion, but I feel at this moment I want to share the transformative influence that humbly approaching my creator has enacted in my life. My attitude towards life's obstacles has not been proactively beneficial in a lot of cases, but in this moment, reflecting on my blessings(appropriate time of year) I find that as always, the entirety of my felt joy is derived solely from His love.
His love is evident everywhere, and I really appreciate the people in my life who have demonstrated this actualization. Praise God! I find myself stepping back from institutionalized apathy and remembering that religion is completely an individual experience, and only real when the matters of self are replaced by a more acute understanding of collective needs.

It's disgraceful to recollect how I have neglected people who aren't of my immediate family and close friends. Even the closest people to me I have betrayed through lack of empathy. Part of it has to do with accepting and loving myself for who I am. Whether altruistic actions, in this light, can remain definitively unselfish, is irrelevant to me considering I can perceive an emotional and spiritual need in my community. Thank God for bringing clarity back into my life! Whether or not gases collapsing in univeral grandeur as the form of life's origin is the case, I know through my own experience that there is an omniscient creator who's love for creation superscedes the intercessory doubt that I have nurtured through personal and communal neglect.
God is love. We praise Him for his inalienable nature, and look past the stunted interpretations of people who's influence tends to eclipse the vast examples of his goodness.

Thank you all for your insights on this thread's topic.

Alright, going to ask a question here that I've always wanted answered, but was too afraid of conflict to ask a religious person I know in real life.

Why do you think god has chosen to be merciful and assist you in your life? Why you, a relatively privileged person living in a first world country with access to opportunity, food, and education? Why does he spend time helping you, while he seemingly ignores the masses of children around the world who literally starve to death, probably the most painful death imaginable?

I'm just really curious as to how this gets rationalized.

[TheGame]

Alright, going to ask a question here that I've always wanted answered, but was too afraid of conflict to ask a religious person I know in real life.

Why do you think god has chosen to be merciful and assist you in your life? Why you, a relatively privileged person living in a first world country with access to opportunity, food, and education? Why does he spend time helping you, while he seemingly ignores the masses of children around the world who literally starve to death, probably the most painful death imaginable?

I'm just really curious as to how this gets rationalized.

That's like asking what is good without evil, what is life without death, or what is beautiful without ugly. The fact is, as long as you're alive you have something to be thankful for. Just because our society has access to more perks then another one doesn't mean that god hasn't been merciful to the other society relative to some other circumstance.

And yeah, obviously there's a bottom of the barrel, but I think that is not having experienced life to begin with. We should be happy to be in a position where we can bless other people and excersize that power.

[Seth]

When I was living in Thailand this question was pressing.
In the Bible, evil is identified repeatedly, and regularly defined as having no regard for the poor.
In some ways I feel that by simple passivity, the extreme poverty that is rampant in much of the world, is in part my doing, and consequently my responsibility.

Matthew 25:31 talks about this concept of those blessed with ability(whatever their's is) and those who are in trouble, and need help. The people gifted disproportionately are expected to not show contempt for the poor and needy.
Jesus said in verse 35, 'for I was hungry and you gave Me food; I was thirsty and you gave Me drink; I was a stranger and you took Me in; I was naked and you clothed Me; I was sick and you visited Me; I was in prison and you came to Me.'

He identifies these acts of goodness as the dividing 'behaviour' which will bring one close to God and eventual relief from the pains(it is painful to share in the misery of others) of this world.
Freedom of choice right? If a few greedy men extort a nation, or an economic class, it is their right as free individuals to exercise contempt for others, for their own gain.
The book of Matthew basically recounts Jesus' admonition of what we could presently identify as bloated religious 'saints', outwardly demonstrating reverant iconography and pious pretension, who perform actions through vanity as opposed to respect and love for God. Verse 40, 'Assuredly, I say to you, inas much as you did it to one of the least of these My brethren, you did it to Me.'

I don't have control over others, just the personal control that through living rightly, I can influence positively. The fact that sin is in the world, and enough people with too much material wealth tend to exploit the situation of vulnerable masses, is addressed as being part of the temporal experience that sin as brought about on this planet. I believe the actions of everyone on this planet are universal testaments to the goodness of God, whether people are blinded by sin or uplifted through their submition to divine love. It is a choice after all and we are free to exercise.
The gospel books are powerful literature. I love how God becomes approachable throughout my stressful days, if I take a bit of time and devote it to open mindedly reading the Bible and praising Him. Through acknowledgement of His power I can testify to a change in my character and the way I interact with others.

[Vampyr]

Eh, neither one of you are really answering my question.

I'm an atheist, and I'm also a very thankful person. I'm thankful for my family, for my friends, for my relative wealth, for my fiance, for my cat. I'm a very fortunate person, relative to others.

The point is that I'm not thankful to anyone in particular - I'm just in general thankful to have what I have, and to have been as fortunate as I have been. I'm kind to others and I donate to charity, so in that sense I'm using some of what I have to help others. All while being an atheist and not bringing a god into the equation.

I'm asking specifically, why do you thank god for what you have. Why do you think he expended his power to help you, but not use it to feed someone who is starving?

In a similar thought, most religious people say that praying to god helps to heal their loved ones who are sick. If that's true, why is god only capable of healing things that modern medicine is already capable of? For example, I've never seen or heard of anyone having their limbs regrow. However, if some experimental procedure were to be developed that had say, a 10% chance of regrowing someone's limbs, I'm sure religious people would start praying, and when it worked they would thank god.

Also, I see sporting events all the time where a player will have a great game and his or her team will win. At the end, they usually thank god.

How do they justify believing that god helped them win a football game, but he isn't saving starving people?

These kinds of religious people confuse me way more than deist like Professor S. While I think his belief in something where this no proof is quite strange, I think he views god more as a force of nature than a benevolent father figure.

[Typhoid]

I'll sort of add to Vamp's question, because this - too is something I've wanted to ask (it's practically the exact same thing, but I just can't ask my religious family, they're family after all).


I want to know how you cope with the idea that you pray to the God to heal your family that he made sick in the first place. Do you really believe God to be so fickle? If God made them sick, and God makes them healthy, why pray in the first place. It seems to me that God acts entirely randomly - kid on an anthill. Praying didn't stop the sickness from coming, and countless times praying hasn't healed anyone. In fact, everything people typically pray for is the result of God doing something terrible to their lives/to them/to a loved one. Unless you pray every night against every single disease you currently don't have in order to ensure you won't wake up tomorrow as a leper with polio and a sore throat.

And if God has a plan for everyone, and things are pre-determined (Destiny and all that), sin isn't really a big deal, is it? If life is pre-determined it was God's plan for those people to sin - or else they would have never sinned in the first place.

Life cannot be pre-determined if you have a choice, and if life is pre-determined, nothing you actually decide is a 'choice', it has all already been chosen for you by God.

[KillerGremlin]

I know why my cynical response is going to be...

I'm gonna see if I can find some journals that might support the observation.

[KillerGremlin]

I have a question too that you all can ponder while I ponder my previous comment.

Are all humans evil?

Let me expand. I have a fascination with serial killers and people with whacked out perceptions of reality. You might think that someone like John Wayne Gacy, who killed and raped 33 teenage boys is probably going to burn in Hell. After all...killing and raping 33 boys seems to go against one or two of the Ten Commandments. But, upon further analysis, we see some interesting things. For starters, John Wayne Gacy has serious brain damage. This is of the genetic variety, and is completely out of his control. This type of brain damage predispositions certain people to have strong antisocial tendencies. It's actually been shown in a number of studies that certain types of latent brain development in the Frontal Cortex is associated with behavior problems. Frontal Brain development happens last, and up until 25 years of age. That's why Teenagers act like dumbass fuckwits and adults have better behavior on average.

So, Gacy had a volatile brain chemistry to start with. Gacy's dad was also an alcoholic and abusive father. So he abused and beat Gacy. Now, it turns out when you have a ticking time bomb brain, being violently abused during childhood can trigger the "right stuff" to make you an antisocial serial killer. This in fact has been studied quite well. Google "serial killer brain studies" if you don't believe me.So all of a sudden, Gacy, this horrible serial killer...is just an unlucky soul who had the wrong brain type and got abused at a young age. I can empathize with him. How many religious folks are going to empathize with Gacy? That doesn't matter. That's a trick question. My real question is:

Does God empathize with Gacy?

Even if Gacy was an Atheist, didn't ask for forgiveness, and killed a bunch of people...he was basically dealt a fucked up biological hand from day one, and was placed into a fucked up living situation. This is no different than asking what happens to stillborn babies or children born with rare genetic defects who die at an early age. Or someone with down syndrome who will never comprehend religion, Original Sin, or forgiveness. Gacy is an extreme example. But you could argue that people who break the very moral codes outlined by the 10 Commandments are in fact not acting out on their own behalf.

Someone is going to chime in and say, "Gacy could have controlled his urges." And that type of judgmental statement typically shows a lack of empathy. It would be frowned upon in the professional Psychology, Psychiatric, and Medical field. To some degree we need to either decide that all humans are inherently evil - hence, Original Sin. Or the brain is like a car engine. Sometimes it works well, sometimes it doesn't: but it is always a product of the environment that it operates in.

I think there are profound implications in conversations and questions like these. There is also a "pushing people under the rug" mentality - even in fields like Psychology. From a moral standpoint: what do you do with a child molester or a serial killer? You can certainly extend some empathy towards them...but you cannot necessarily rehabilitate them. And again, I wonder...does Gacy go to Hell for being dealt a fucked hand? Did God deal him that fucked hand? Is he just a loophole to make us question faith? He certainly doesn't fit into the notion or concept of Original Sin, and free will, and choosing your own adventure in life.

I honestly have no answer to this. But the notion of Heaven and Hell bothers me. The notion the God might not be empathetic is concerning to me. Maybe he is extremely empathetic: maybe Gacy will be in the same part of heaven with all the stillborn babies and kids with early deaths.

Does anyone know how to address this answer from a religious standpoint? And please don't say something lame like "God has a plan."

I'm already a Level 14 Catholic Church-Goer.

edit: People don't have a lot of empathy towards child molesters or serial killers. I don't blame them. But I wonder if some of this lack of empathy is associated with strong Religious views or beliefs. Again...I feel like this might be worth looking into some research. I'm giving away too much, but this empathy stuff kind of ties into my previous comment.

double edit: there is a butt-load of empirical evidence and studies that basically prove the choices we make are the result of biological predispositions, and behavior experiences. This is called Epigenetics, and is the emerging popular thread in new Biology research. Some people develop in a way that they can make choices which fit the "moral constructs." Some people do not develop this way. It seems rational to extend empathy to the latter group knowing that your brain and behavior are really a product of your environment. Knowing these facts strongly challenges "free will," "Original Sin," "Judgement," and "Heaven and Hell." Is God a cool cat with lots of empathy, or the judgmental character as written in the Bible...?

[TheGame]

I'm asking specifically, why do you thank god for what you have. Why do you think he expended his power to help you, but not use it to feed someone who is starving?

I'm not sure how you'd like me to answer this question differently.

-Do you believe that having food would still be a blessing if it was readily available to everyone all the time?
-Do you think that being alive would be a blessing if people didn't die?
-Do you think that winning a football game would be a blessing if people didn't lose?

It's all about perception. If you're alive and/or got the chance to live, it's a blessing relative to never being born or dead. What you get above and beyond that is what you make of it. The people born into bad situations where they starve to death are and should be humbling, but at the same time.. if that's all they know, maybe they feel blessed by different things for different reasons that we take for granted.

[KillerGremlin]

Let me further expand again.

We need to make a philosophical distinction right away: Are there intrinsic and natural "morals." Assuming, hypothetically, there in no religion, no God, no divinity: are there natural moral rules?

I would argue yes. Life is intrinsic to living things. Therefore, killing a living thing compromises the natural right to life.

Let's assume that killing is morally objectionable and should be taken seriously. Let's also ignore killing for food and war. Remember, this is hypothetical.

I strongly oppose the 10 Commandments because they do not stand up to the empirical weight that humans do not have free will. Let me say outright, most people have a set of instilled rational beliefs, and "know" better than to act against them. People who fit into "normal" social constructs don't kill other people. Now, there are mounds and mounds of empirical evidence that suggest that "normal" people have a set of genetic predispositions and behavior predispositions. Odds are most people here don't have Gacy's brain damage. Odds are most people here weren't abused in such a way that has caused them to feel the need, or actually act on the urge to kill another human being.

Now, some of us have had sex, stolen, done drugs, or done other things that question the 10 Commandments. But I feel like this is more of a reflection on the aging church policies. None of us here have killed people (ignoring food and war), and I would attribute that to normal social-psycho upbringings.

Time after time, empirical after empirical after empirical study has shown that people do not control their choices outside of their "normal" sense of perception. Heroin addicts cannot control their addiction without tons of support, medication, and help. Food acts cannot control eating. People with anxiety or schizophrenia cannot put a lens of "normal" perception over their own skewed view. And even using the phrase "skewed view" makes me judgmental. Psychology and medicine has a holistic and humanistic philosophy, and has had that view for a long time. Psychology isn't about treating someone, it is about making their life comfortable. If you have anxiety, but live a comfortable life: then you are not abnormal. We would define "abnormal" as disruptive to daily functioning and healthy living. And even that is a tough philosophical point in medicine.

The brain in a pure sense is a clean slate. We add genetics into the equation and the brain now has certain characteristics that will influence development. You add behavior and those behaviors influence the outcome of the individual. My own behaviors, perceptions, and experiences are the result of my genetics, and the experiences I have had in my life. If you changed just a few external stimuli or experiences, I may never have been the video game loving person I am today. If you change a few experiences and stimuli, John Wayne Gacy may not have raped and killed 33 teenagers.

The point is, I reject the traditional notion of free will for the sound empirical reality which is that we are largely not in control of our behaviors. I would argue by extension: my decision to fit into society's "normal moral construct" and not kill people is the result of a fairly normal upbringing. There are "standards" and "practices" to develop normal humans. There is a sensitive window to learn language, for example. We send children to school. We tell parents not to rape or abuse their kids. We try to control for behavior; so much so we would punish a parent molesting their child, because it goes against the "normal construct" we have established in society. Some parents who do a perfect job raising their child still have issues: maybe it is genetics, maybe it is external stimuli or experiences from another source. The point is, it is something.

I don't make the choice to not kill people because I have some sort of moral compass. I make the choice not to kill people because I have a complex view and understanding, as imparted on me from other people, my upbringing, my genetic backdrop, and everything else that I have experienced up until this point.

I don't believe you could honestly hold someone to 10 Commandments unless you were a judgmental, non-loving, non-empathetic God. Understanding what we know about development and the brain today, we can see that many people make the choices they make due to their environmental circumstances. And when I say "environmental circumstances," I refer to the Epigenetic realization that your brain and YOU are made up of experiences and neural paths.

To place judgement on someone who was abused, or is genetically susceptible to eating too much sugar or using heroin, is just shallow and uneducated.

On a slightly related note, I feel like there is either a lack of empathy in posts in this thread...or a deflection of empathy. Forwarding would-be-empathy to religion doesn't help make the world a better place.

[KillerGremlin]

Basically, a human brain is a box of legos.

Through thousands of years of evolution and social interaction, humans have a set of instructions that are ideal.

Ideally, you build a lego brain so that it doesn't kill people, molest children, or whatever.

Sometimes, genetics throws you a curve ball and you don't have enough legos to make a brain that perceives the same world we do where killing is wrong.

Sometimes, the person building the lego brain does a very poor job and doesn't follow the instructions.

Both situations often result in a lego brain with a "distorted perception" compared to the "normal perception" we all follow. When that lego brain rapes and kills 33 boys, causes the Holocaust, or whatever:

Does that brain go to Hell?

If you answer yes, there might be a good chance your God lacks empathy and understanding.


Edit: A final disclaimer to avoid confusion.

I don't empathize with the monster that John Wayne Gacy became. The man who raped and killed kids? I can't empathize with that monster. I'm empathetic to Gacy, the human, who was abused as a child and had the unfortunate set of genetic traits that crippled his brain. I'm empathetic and feel VERY SORRY about the entire situation. I literally feel emotionally sick when I think about his victims. It's a tragedy that his father, the alcoholic and abuser, was also likely abused. It's a horrible situation all around, with no winners. My view, which I find is shared and common with some of the most decent people I have ever met, may or may not align with the Biblical view. Which is why I raise this issue.

[Vampyr]

I'm not sure how you'd like me to answer this question differently.

-Do you believe that having food would still be a blessing if it was readily available to everyone all the time?
-Do you think that being alive would be a blessing if people didn't die?
-Do you think that winning a football game would be a blessing if people didn't lose?

It's all about perception. If you're alive and/or got the chance to live, it's a blessing relative to never being born or dead. What you get above and beyond that is what you make of it. The people born into bad situations where they starve to death are and should be humbling, but at the same time.. if that's all they know, maybe they feel blessed by different things for different reasons that we take for granted.

We aren't talking about the same things. I think you think I'm saying no one should ever be sad because there is always someone more sad, and no one should be happy because there is always someone more happy.

I'm not saying that. I'm not talking about tiers of happiness.

I'm saying that there is hunger in the world, and that people die from it. I don't think you're fully comprehending how painful that would be - to starve to death. And it happens. Maybe these people feel blessed for some things, but I doubt the children who die this way do. I know when I was a child I never really stopped to think "wow, I'm really blessed."

I'm just saying that these atrocious things happen, and there is no god in any of it - at least not a kind god. Then you have these religious people in first world countries who talk about how god has entered their lives and made their lives better.

Now THAT is a matter of perspective. Their lives are good because they lived in a developed nation and had good opportunities, not because of an act of god. Why do they give credit to him, when it's easy to see that it's just the natural entropy of the universe, that some people are very lucky and some are very unlucky?


@KG: yeah, I pretty much agree with all of that. I don't think it was directed at me, probably more at Typhoid, but yeah.

[KillerGremlin]

Let's talk about the lego box. There is a very sensitive window in early childhood development where children can learn social behaviors and language. If you miss that window, the kid is absolutely fucked. The reason is that the neural networks (remember...the brain develops til 25, but the bulk of the development happens EARLIER rather than LATER) slow their development.

<iframe width="420" height="315" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/ljVd6XS-J0s" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

The genetics that are in place to allow humans to learn language and social interactions so easily is the result of evolution. It's crazy fucking stuff, but it is also totally awesome.

These same principles apply to other areas of development. If you abuse a young child? They grow up to have problems. If you smoke during pregnancy? You cause genetic damage which results in development issues.

To assert that a Feral Child has any free will or "Original Sin" or anything like that...well...I don't know. Can someone enlighten me?

[TheGame]

We aren't talking about the same things. I think you think I'm saying no one should ever be sad because there is always someone more sad, and no one should be happy because there is always someone more happy.

I'm not saying that. I'm not talking about tiers of happiness.

I'm saying that there is hunger in the world, and that people die from it. I don't think you're fully comprehending how painful that would be - to starve to death. And it happens. Maybe these people feel blessed for some things, but I doubt the children who die this way do. I know when I was a child I never really stopped to think "wow, I'm really blessed."

I'm just saying that these atrocious things happen, and there is no god in any of it - at least not a kind god. Then you have these religious people in first world countries who talk about how god has entered their lives and made their lives better.

Now THAT is a matter of perspective. Their lives are good because they lived in a developed nation and had good opportunities, not because of an act of god. Why do they give credit to him, when it's easy to see that it's just the natural entropy of the universe, that some people are very lucky and some are very unlucky?


@KG: yeah, I pretty much agree with all of that. I don't think it was directed at me, probably more at Typhoid, but yeah.

I understand what you're saying, but I for one would rather be born and die from starvation then to not have lived at all. Life is a gift. Your original question was asking how it's rationalized, and I'm telling you how it is rationalized.

For example... I hate to use myself as an example, but my little brother died form cancer at the age of 2. Do I think it's unfair/sad that he never got the chance to live a normal life? Of course I do. If I could go back in time and stop him from existing so he wouldn't have to deal with the cancer? NO.

Even though he had a short life he blessed a lot of people and brought our family back together. He helped me put my own life into perspective at an early age, and appriciate the time that I do have here because it's not promised. Even if you're born in te NA or Africa, you aren't promised a longer life or a less painful death at all. Nor are you promised a happier life.

That's why there are wealthy people out there killing themselves, and poor people loving life.

So yes, when I see a poor person that I can help, I help them. When I see people dying from starvation, it makes me upset. But at the same time, it makes me remember how blessed I am to even be here and have the chance to experience life. I could have died just as quick or quicker then anyone who ever lived.

The less fortunate should create humility for you. People aren't at church going "Thank God that I have a better life then a few billion people", It's more like "Thank you for letting me be here and giving my this gift of life, because I didn't have to be here and didn't have to have this gift."

Then we can get into prayer, which is basically wishing well for other people that you can't help, and thanking god for what you have already recieved. You can pray for yourself to succeed at something, or to make it through something, but my personal preference is to wish the best for others. Usually if I'm praying for myself, I'm praying to have a good outlook regardless of how things turn out, and I leave things in God's hands.

See now I'm just preaching to GT. lol

I gotta go get my haircut.

KG Typhoid, I'm not ignoring you guys, just too much to read. I'ma have more time to look tonight.

[Combine 017]

I understand what you're saying, but I for one would rather be born and die from starvation then to not have lived at all.

Why?

[Bond]

I just wanted to express how sad I am that I don't have time to read this whole thread and respond. :(

But I will on Sunday. :)

[Vampyr]

Still missing the point - I'm not arguing that these people should have never been born (although, yeah, in most cases I think it would have been best if they hadn't). I'm saying that they ARE HERE, right now, and no god has fixed their plight, but evidently he helps people in first world nations feel content.

[TheGame]

Still missing the point - I'm not arguing that these people should have never been born (although, yeah, in most cases I think it would have been best if they hadn't). I'm saying that they ARE HERE, right now, and no god has fixed their plight, but evidently he helps people in first world nations feel content.

There are plenty of people in the 3rd world who are content, and plenty of people in the first world who aren't. And everyone dies, it doesn't matter if you're in the first world or third world. Life is what you make it. Just because someone else's life sounds bad to you from your point of view, doesn't mean that the person going through it has a dark/bad outlook on life.

I'm sure some snobby millionaire somewhere looks at your life and is asking themselves "how can he live like that? I would rather be dead then be that poor". And at that same moment, there's probably another snobby millionaire who feels like they have nothing to live for and there's no way out of the mess they made except to kill themself.

I'm not sure how I can explain it better. Life is what you make it. People who have less should teach you humility and make you more thankful for what you have. People who have more, well... don't worry about them, by thankful for what you have. Where you stand on the totem pole of weath doesn't matter, because your mind and your outlook on things is what's really in control.

Yes god gave them less then he gave you, and gave you less then he gave someone else.. from a wealth/health standpoint. You may be thanking god for putting a roof over your head and giving you transportation, while a dying man may be thanking him for letting him wake up another morning and seeing his wife's face again.

Bad things in general exist to make you appreciate the good things.

[TheGame]

Why?

Because I think the chance to live life is a blessing in itself.

[Combine 017]

Because I think the chance to live life is a blessing in itself.

Even if youre only going to live for a few years?

Not even enough time to understand the concept of life.

[TheGame]

Even if youre only going to live for a few years.

Not even enough time to understand the concept of life.

I already addressed that in the same post you originally quoted.

Since you want to go there though, what is the concept of life? You do realize how people understand life is subjective right? Just because you are more wealthy and live a longer life then someone else doesn't mean that they're life was a waste. Just like your life isn't a waste because there are people more wealthy then you and can't understand the concept of debt, public school, or wiping their own butt (or whatever a spoiled person can't live without).

Your concept of happiness shifts based on how much knowlege you have and based on your personal experiences and the situation you were born into. Just because you die a few years after you're born doesn't mean you didn't experience happiness, sadness, love etc etc. And no matter how long you live, you're going to die. Hate to break it to you, but it's going to happen.

Yeah if you die young young you don't experience as much joy relitive to someone who lives longer, but you also don't experience as much pain.

[Combine 017]

Your concept of happiness shifts based on how much knowlege you have and based on your personal experiences and the situation you were born into. Just because you die a few years after you're born doesn't mean you didn't experience happiness, sadness, love etc etc. And no matter how long you live, you're going to die. Hate to break it to you, but it's going to happen.

Yeah if you die young young you don't experience as much joy relitive to someone who lives longer, but you also don't experience as much pain.

But there are people who are born who do not experience happiness, who are born suffering only to die early. If I had the choice I would opt out of that life, it would be miserable. And im well aware that death is inevitable, but if you dont even get to "live", then whats the point of being born? Im sure you realize that if you were the one born into that position your views and beliefs would be changed drastically, but that can be said about anything really.

Back to that "death is inevitable" topic, I remember seeing somewhere that cell replicating nanites could be created, and that they would replace/repair any dyeing cells or something, so theoretically you could avoid death? At least through natural causes. Maybe at that point everything will go all Logans Run on us.

[TheGame]

But there are people who are born who do not experience happiness, who are born suffering only to die early.

-EDIT-

Rewording... Happiness is a relative term. Some days are better then others, therefore they could be happy about the better days. If all of their days are sad (by your opinion), then for them 'sad' is 'normal' and it no longer has any power over them. Therefore they can appriciate different things that we take for granted.

For all we know, we lead a sad, pointless, and painful life to somone else.

[Combine 017]

-EDIT-

Rewording... Happiness is a relative term. Some days are better then others, therefore they could be happy about the better days.

I guess so. Maybe they found a bug to eat one day, making them slightly happier, then died the next day.

[TheGame]

I guess so. Maybe they found a bug to eat one day, making them slightly happier, then died the next day.

Maybe.

They could have not had a bug to eat, and died the same day. btw I edited my last post more.

[Vampyr]

There are plenty of people in the 3rd world who are content, and plenty of people in the first world who aren't. And everyone dies, it doesn't matter if you're in the first world or third world. Life is what you make it. Just because someone else's life sounds bad to you from your point of view, doesn't mean that the person going through it has a dark/bad outlook on life.

I'm sure some snobby millionaire somewhere looks at your life and is asking themselves "how can he live like that? I would rather be dead then be that poor". And at that same moment, there's probably another snobby millionaire who feels like they have nothing to live for and there's no way out of the mess they made except to kill themself.

I'm not sure how I can explain it better. Life is what you make it. People who have less should teach you humility and make you more thankful for what you have. People who have more, well... don't worry about them, by thankful for what you have. Where you stand on the totem pole of weath doesn't matter, because your mind and your outlook on things is what's really in control.

Yes god gave them less then he gave you, and gave you less then he gave someone else.. from a wealth/health standpoint. You may be thanking god for putting a roof over your head and giving you transportation, while a dying man may be thanking him for letting him wake up another morning and seeing his wife's face again.

Bad things in general exist to make you appreciate the good things.

So the entire way this is rationalized is that god does help every one, but just a tiny bit - so small that it's not even recognizable that anything was done at all?


Hmmm.

I think I make a valid point that god not fixing these peoples plights either proves that god doesn't exist or is uncaring if he does.

And the major difference in our relative happiness is that if a billionare were to actually have my life, he wouldn't literally die from it. I would literally die if put into the situation of a lot of people in the world.

[Combine 017]

So the entire way this is rationalized is that god does help every one, but just a tiny bit - so small that it's not even recognizable that anything was done at all?

Made me think of this.
<iframe width="420" height="315" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/FbinE6bx8xM" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

[TheGame]

So the entire way this is rationalized is that god does help every one, but just a tiny bit - so small that it's not even recognizable that anything was done at all?

What is small to you is big to someone less fortunate. What is big to you is small to someone more fortunate. What you see as a tiny bit of help could be a miracle for someone else. Aka, waking up tomorrow morning.

I think I make a valid point that god not fixing these peoples plights either proves that god doesn't exist or is uncaring if he does.

And the major difference in our relative happiness is that if a billionare were to actually have my life, he wouldn't literally die from it. I would literally die if put into the situation of a lot of people in the world.

First of all, we all die. No matter how rich or poor you are, you're going to die. Saying that you would litterally die in a different situation means nothing, you could litterally die in 5 minutes because you're human.

And if you're saying you'd die faster in certain less fortunate people's situation.. then If the billionare were to be living your life, yes he litterally would die faster then he normally would too (under "average" circumstances). He doesn't need health insurance and can just pay for anything instantly. And even if they have a fatal disease they can drag it out forever with medication i.e Magic Johnson and HIV.

[Teuthida]

Ok, so to sum up. You attribute living as to being a gift from god. Nothing more then based on the examples the others gave? I mean, you actually are sort of correct about happiness. At least when it comes to wealth. There have been studies that winners of the lottery are back to their baseline happiness level a year later. But there are plenty of horribly painful diseases that make death a better option. Like what about babies who die shortly after death? Surely that wasn't a life worth living? Look up harlequin babies and tell me that was worth living through short as their lives are.

[KillerGremlin]

I'm just going to chime in and play devil's advocate because I feel like a better explanation is needed.

Whether or not God is helpful doesn't really prove or disprove his existence. I think it's a fair point to piss off religious people, certainly. I think you're better off arguing Biblical plot holes...which is pretty easy to do. But even that doesn't disprove God, because the Bible could mean fuck all and God could still exist. I'm not saying that this argument is predicated on proving or disproving God. There are many Bible stories that touch on the relative degree of suffering or wealth.

There are many stories in the Bible with this message: that starving guy with nothing is going to Heaven, and the rich asshole is going to Hell.

Time on earth is really minimized. The end goal isn't your earthly possessions, it is what lies beyond this life. So you could be poor, blind, or in a third world. Your time on earth suffering will ultimately be met with God's glory. Whereas someone who could help the suffering but chooses not to will not experience God's glory.

That's somewhat independent of this current conversation. NO. God doesn't fix things. Jesus performed miracles because he was the Son of God and needed to prove this fact. Jesus was basically God's earthly avatar. It seems like a common misconception with Christianity interpreted is that God is going to heal the sick or fix problems.

God's not about that stuff. He never has been. That's one area where Judaism works better for me...I feel like they hold God to much more passive acts.

But here is the take home point, guys: There are NO expectations or obligations for God to make improvements on earth. That point is hammered so hard in the Bible. Earth is humanly, and the real good stuff happens when we leave this bodily earth. Once you leave earth, then you fully get to experience God's embrace.

[TheGame]

Ok, so to sum up. You attribute living as to being a gift from god. Nothing more then based on the examples the others gave? I mean, you actually are sort of correct about happiness. At least when it comes to wealth. There have been studies that winners of the lottery are back to their baseline happiness level a year later. But there are plenty of horribly painful diseases that make death a better option. Like what about babies who die shortly after death? Surely that wasn't a life worth living? Look up harlequin babies and tell me that was worth living through short as their lives are.

For you it wasn't worth it. For the baby, only the baby can judge that. For the parents/family, it could have served a purpose in their lives.

[Typhoid]

In my mind it's a perfectly linear paragraph I'm about to write, but this joint will definitely have something else to say about that.


First off, I'm going to say that I too agree that you should never wish anyone not live. Any life is better than no life. My sister lost her first baby, and almost her fourth. It's tough to describe how a situation like that changes you, even if you're not directly affected by it. But in no world would I wish my unborn nephew never have existed in the first place. Not for any religious reason, but because he earned his right to exist as long as he did.




Anyways, to the thing I wanted to write about in the first place. I apologize for how probably painful this will be in that it will jump around 7 times.

I'm only going to address it as 'God", but I don't mean Western-White-Haired-Zeus. I just mean "A higher power". No ones specific God, no ones specific religion - I'm only referring to monotheism, however. There will be a lot of questions in here. Not really for each one to be answered, but to hopefully invoke thought - the most powerful human capability.

So God is typically everywhere, and loves everyone, right?
So why do some geographical areas not know of God? [Why do some geographical areas have different Gods than you. If there is one true God, why is there not one true God. Why are you right, and they're wrong. Someone is lying. Why is it them. Why are they as equally convinced it's you. What if nobody prays to the real God.] Why do we need to spread God's love, and the word of God? Why does God seemingly not love starving [people in third world countries]? I mean, he made them starve, overpopulated, poor - and it's our job to enter their country, spread the word of God and build infrastructure? Why was the word of God not already spread there by God himself, as he did for you? Why does God not help those people the way he has helped the non-starving parts of the world?

And say little Johnny is dying of polio, and you pray for little Johnny to get better. Why pray? God gave little Johnny polio. Did God give little Johnny polio just to see who'd pray for him to be better? Essentially judging people's worth based on how many people pray for them? Like some type of vote, where the losers are given horrible, horrible diseases, or die in painfully gruesome accidents?

One bone I do have to pick though is with ancient geological events that were seen as "Hand of God", which now we know are "A Volcano erupting in Thailand" or "An Earthquake in North America, sending a tsunami across the world" - and that still hasn't changed the view of anything. That boggles my boggled mind. God didn't strike down Sodom and Gomorra with fireballs - it was a highly coincidental incident with a bunch of meteors. The plague - at the time people thought it was an act of God because people were living so sinfully. But realistically it's just because there was legitimate filth everywhere that attracted rats that infected people which spread rapidly with devastating effects.

Somewhere along the line, the acts of God stopped, but the belief that they ever happened hasn't. Look at Hurricane Katrina. Thousands of years ago it would have been; "Gawwd-a has-a struck down the sinnahs of New Orleans. The gaaaamblahhs, porn-awg-ra-fyers, theeeeevin' low-livin sodomites" - but now with the understanding of the world it's just "Terrible Hurricane in New Orleans. Water levels rose above the dykes. The City is ruined."

Why did God not strike down the sinners of Haiti? Have any of the San Francisco earthquakes been acts of God? What about the Earth heating up and the polar caps melting; why isn't God doing that? Why wasn't the Spanish Influenza God's fault? Maybe the asteroid that's coming near Earth in around 2028 is an act of God. Why isn't the fact that our Sun will expand out towards Earth, envelop it, destroying the planet in 4 billion years - why isn't that an act of God?

Why is it no longer "Fuck, I wish God didn't make it rain today. I like it so much better when we appease him and he decides to make it sunny, and doesn't decide to bring horrible plagues upon us or ruin our crops" - but why do people still believe that was valid.

I'm not attempting to sound so insulting, that's not my intention. But I want to know how religious people justify that today's normal [understood] occurrences (tornadoes, asteroids, hurricanes, earthquakes) were yesterdays 'hand of god' - and still believe it. Like, why believe that thousands of years ago God struck down [place] with [natural disaster], when today we have proof that it was 'just a volcano', or 'just an earthquake'. Why believe that back then an earthquake was an act of God, when today it's plate tectonics.

*Exhale*

[KillerGremlin]

For you it wasn't worth it. For the baby, only the baby can judge that. For the parents/family, it could have served a purpose in their lives.

Babies cannot make judgements.

But they can feel pain.

How would this conversation go down if we were talking about third trimester abortions, or drowning a baby in a bucket after birth like they do in China?

[KillerGremlin]

Politically, this has been common knowledge for a very long time. Many believe this is because democrats tend to be 1) less religious, and 2) view government programs as charity (consciously or subconsciously).

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/12/21/opinion/21kristof.html

Thank you for the link. My only food for thought response would be to factor in the amount of civilian casualties and wars caused by Republicans vs. Democrats. Look at the Middle East...for example. On the other hand, Obama clearly has a war agenda, so maybe it goes both ways. But charity is more than just giving people money. When you add civilian causalities and war into the equation, who really comes out on top? :ohreilly:

Early Christianity was spread via war. Look at the Spanish Inquisition or what we did to the Native Americans. Christianity, actually....Catholicism....has a lengthy history in Europe. The Martin Luther revolution was the result of BAD RELIGION. Catholics are responsible for many wars and deaths throughout European history. Not to mention how often religion was abused by kings and other nobles. Remember, to date, the earth was flat, the earth was in the center of the universe, and God created the universe. Since then we've discovered the earth is not flat, we aren't in the center, and we came from the Big Bang. We haven't figured out what happened pre-Big Bang. So you can go two directions: God created us, or science still needs to fill in the gap.

None of that proves or disproves the existence of God, but when you consider the amount of causalities and war that are the result of religion, even religion's charitable contributions seem to weigh fairly against the destruction caused by religion.

Again, none of this really proves or disproves the existence of God. But, I have to ask:

I wonder if the big personalities in the science community wouldn't be so cynical or anti-religion if historically religion wasn't so anti-science. So much so in fact that many historical science figures died at the hands of religious men. I know in Physics class we were reminded what happened to people like Copernicus, or the Library of Alexandria. Need I remind you that Copernicus has done way more to advance human civilization than the Catholic church.

I think the science community is far more anti-religion than anti-God. And they've earned their jaded patch. I mean seriously, if you're a scientist you have every right to own a "fuck religion" mentality.

But it's a complicated gray area issue. Here is why: You have organizations like the Salvation Army. The Salvation Army is fucking awesome, they help a TON OF PEOPLE out. But they are also anit-gay. For me, I have to refer people to Salvation Army for free resources all the time. I'm partially conflicted because I disagree with the anti-gay stance, so I'm in serious moral contention because I'd rather help people. I see the positives, like the Catholic church assisting in Africa. And then I see Pope Douchefuck the III telling the people not to wrap their shit. Seriously, Pope? AIDS!!!???!!

It's all the holes in the mythology that keep me away from religion....I'm open to spirituality and find that my own journey and questions are a rewarding experience. Organized religion has the faults of any major institution, only MORE SO because it is founded and based on antiquated and retarded ideas.

The notion of God or Spirituality should remain separate from both science and organized religion. I'm down with some higher power or some connected conscious. I'm open to that notion. I can't get aboard religion, I've seen way too much hurt caused by religious institutions. I'd like to think if there is a God, he set the universe in motion and grabbed a bucket of Popcorn. And some lube. Because he is watching you undress.

[TheGame]

Babies cannot make judgements.

Yes they can.

[KillerGremlin]

Yes they can.

I'm going to need you to elaborate....

[Typhoid]

I'm going to need you to elaborate....



I believe 5 out of 7 babies advise you use Crest brand toothpaste.

[TheGame]

I'm going to need you to elaborate....

They cannot make moral judgements because they haven't been exposed to society, but they can make judgements for themselves. Judgement: That's hot, that's cold.. That feels good, that's uncomfortable.. etc etc.

[KillerGremlin]

They cannot make moral judgements because they haven't been exposed to society, but they can make judgements for themselves. Judgement: That's hot, that's cold.. That feels good, that's uncomfortable.. etc etc.

Those aren't judgements...not at that age. If you are interested in learning about early stages of development, there is no better place to start than....

http://fc03.deviantart.net/fs71/f/2010/268/e/7/gene_parmesan_by_vdvaart15-d2zfll1.jpg

http://sfwgif.com/gifs/JEAN-PARMESAN.gif

GENE PARMESAN?!?!!???!!!

No...I'm just kidding. You want to read Jean Piaget.

Judgements are based on abstract thought. Until a child can understand the world and form abstract thoughts - the Concrete stage - they rely largely on reflexes and motor skills, and then eventually symbols. A baby may feel "cold" or "hot" or "pain" or "no pain," but they can abstractly conceptualize these things.

Sensorimotor: (birth to about age 2)

During this stage, the child learns about himself and his environment through motor and reflex actions. Thought derives from sensation and movement. The child learns that he is separate from his environment and that aspects of his environment -- his parents or favorite toy -- continue to exist even though they may be outside the reach of his senses. Teaching for a child in this stage should be geared to the sensorimotor system. You can modify behavior by using the senses: a frown, a stern or soothing voice -- all serve as appropriate techniques.

Piaget's Cognitive stages: http://www2.honolulu.hawaii.edu/facdev/guidebk/teachtip/piaget.htm

Through evolution and early behavior cues, a child reacts negatively to something hot. Reflex...not abstract thought or judgement. Hell, you don't react to something that is hot because of judgement. The hot/cold reflex is one that sticks with you til you're old and dead.

[Professor S]

Thank you for the link. My only food for thought response would be to factor in the amount of civilian casualties and wars caused by Republicans vs. Democrats.

I think wars are a muddier comparison because they can be considered just or unjust, while charity is simply a moral good. But using your new comparison, let's compare the casualties of the Iraq wars that were the responsibility of Republicans to the civilian casualties created in WWII and the Korean and the Vietnam Wars under Democrats... I don't think we actually have to pull up the numbers, do we? In WWII alone a Democrat authorized the use of nuclear weapons... twice. Want to compare the use of smart bombs with carpet bombing, fire bombing and napalm?

I happen to agree with the use of the weapons considering the times, but by your terms Democrats are the greatest offenders BY FAR.

[Combine 017]

Dont forget chemical warfare.

[KillerGremlin]

I think wars are a muddier comparison because they can be considered just or unjust, while charity is simply a moral good. But using your new comparison, let's compare the casualties of the Iraq wars that were the responsibility of Republicans to the civilian casualties created in WWII and the Korean and the Vietnam Wars under Democrats... I don't think we actually have to pull up the numbers, do we? In WWII alone a Democrat authorized the use of nuclear weapons... twice. Want to compare the use of smart bombs with carpet bombing, fire bombing and napalm?

I happen to agree with the use of the weapons considering the times, but by your terms Democrats are the greatest offenders BY FAR.

My only response to that would be that World War 2 was a response to Nazi Germany and was more out of self-defense. Vietnam and the Korean War were both effed, so I can't disagree there.

The War on Iraq had some religious context, but I think deep down we all know that it wasn't really about religion. And Obama hasn't had any staunch opposition to messing with the Middle East, so boo on him. He seems just as pro-war as any Democracy-spreadin' American Politician.

So I respectfully appreciate that Republicans are more charitable than Democrats. Ideally I wish both parties would stay the hell away from religion. :lol:

Also, random tangent, but what the fuck? "Effed" is a word now? It's not coming up on my browser spell check...it's defined if you Google search for it, and it has a Wikipedia thingy:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Effed

That's fucking awesome! I use "effed" in professional settings all the time.

[KillerGremlin]

Is anyone here knowledgeable of history?

I've always wanted to ask: Did Hitler plan to win, or just stir up a whole lot of shit?

Was there any journals or documents recovered where Hitler stated a clear manifesto or something?

[Professor S]

My only response to that would be that World War 2 was a response to Nazi Germany and was more out of self-defense. Vietnam and the Korean War were both effed, so I can't disagree there.

I agree that the reasons for entering WW2 were far less muddled than Vietnam or Korea, but the discussion was based on civilian casualties during the war and not the justification; military methods and not politics. WW2 methods were BRUTAL to civilians.

Again, the times considered and technology available, I'm not fully disagreeing with the methods used during WW2. Well, I have to disagree with the use of firebombing in Japan. The US targeted civilians in these campaigns, burning down most of the country in the process (most Japanese homes were made of wood at the time.) Firebombing was far more horrific than even the nuclear bombs.

[Professor S]

Is anyone here knowledgeable of history?

I've always wanted to ask: Did Hitler plan to win, or just stir up a whole lot of shit?

Was there any journals or documents recovered where Hitler stated a clear manifesto or something?

I'm not a historian by any stretch, but I can safely say Hitler was a true believer in his cause, and he absolutely intended to win. By the way, if he had listened to his generals he probably would have won. Engaging a war on 3 fronts is madness, and attacking Russia was the nail in the coffin even though, again, his military almost pulled it off even though Hitler was diverting supply trains to transport Jews for execution.

[Seth]

I would argue that the surface atrocities of WWII are extreme, with firebombing and overt use of nuclear strikes unavoidably horrendous by the sheer immediacy of their effects.

Depleted uranium, which is in every ballistic fired from personal defense weapons and advanced missiles, is decimating the populations in a way that is just as horrendous. Women in Faluja are told not to attempt conception for the fact that birth deformities(let alone less detectable ills) have increased by thousands of times since the recent wars began.

[Combine 017]

Depleted uranium, which is in every ballistic fired from personal defense weapons and advanced missiles

I dont actually know this, but im pretty sure standard issue personal defence weapons, such as hand guns and rifles, dont have depleted uranium rounds. I think thats just for the higher caliber weapons like anti-tank guns, or artillery cannons.

[Fox 6]

Personal Defense Weapons are actually a classification of firearm. Examples are the p90 and the HK MP7. They fire smaller caliber rounds with heavy penetrating power. I think the bullets rely more on their design and less on the materials. Plus Depleted Uranium seems to expensive for smaller caliber weapons. The GAU-8 Avenger on the A10 Thunderbolt however is the perfect platform and makes better use of its rounds when taking out tanks and such, or the Sabot rounds from most modern tanks.

[Seth]

Marines used to be versed in the proper handling of their ammunition. Automatic rifles fire D.U. rounds. I meant P.D.Weapons to include standard issue rifles.

It's a really good way of getting rid of a substance that is a pain in the neck to store with environmental watchdogs raising heck.

[TheGame]

No...I'm just kidding. You want to read Jean Piaget.

Judgements are based on abstract thought. Until a child can understand the world and form abstract thoughts - the Concrete stage - they rely largely on reflexes and motor skills, and then eventually symbols. A baby may feel "cold" or "hot" or "pain" or "no pain," but they can abstractly conceptualize these things.

I never said they're capible of making a complex judgement. It's not like they'd have time to weigh out all their options and decide.. their life to that point is all they know.

[Bond]

KG - hasn't Jean Piaget been fairly discredited in the Psychology field? I know his stages and such are a nice general framework, and he did some pioneering work, but he also primarily studied his own children.

[KillerGremlin]

KG - hasn't Jean Piaget been fairly discredited in the Psychology field? I know his stages and such are a nice general framework, and he did some pioneering work, but he also primarily studied his own children.

This is correct. Much of Piaget's frameworks and theories are still applied to modern psychology, and used in the education system. But quite a bit of his stuff has be deconstructed, challenged, and shown to be plain wrong. I believe development is seen more as a smooth continuum and complex process than Piaget originally imagined.

He's still a good place to start, influential, and probably not completely wrong. Psychology usually has a number of frameworks that can be used to describe/theorize a situation. The best developmental frameworks probably focus on a mesh of Biology/Neuroscience/Psychology. I'm not a developmental psych guy, and the neuroscience and biology stuff is definitely out of my realm.

[TheSlyMoogle]

This is correct. Much of Piaget's frameworks and theories are still applied to modern psychology, and used in the education system. But quite a bit of his stuff has be deconstructed, challenged, and shown to be plain wrong. I believe development is seen more as a smooth continuum and complex process than Piaget originally imagined.

He's still a good place to start, influential, and probably not completely wrong. Psychology usually has a number of frameworks that can be used to describe/theorize a situation. The best developmental frameworks probably focus on a mesh of Biology/Neuroscience/Psychology. I'm not a developmental psych guy, and the neuroscience and biology stuff is definitely out of my realm.

Developmental Psychology was the only Psychology class I ever had that made me want to blow my fucking brains out.

Every other psych class I had was a fucking pleasure cruise though.

[Seth]

http://beforeitsnews.com/story/1460/387/Jesus:_You_Have_Made_Enormous_Strides_in_the_Last_Few_Months.html

Religion is about love. I believe that the Bible promotes this. This is why Wyclif in his oxford environment strove against the church's determination to keep scriptural truths away from the native language. The church saw a split which has been part of political wars since. Members who identify with either a reformed denomination or the mother church have been, since young, taught why the other doctrinal teachings are bad and, in Wyclif's preferred indictment, "of the antichrist".

I don't want my religious beliefs to interfere with people's ability to comprehend the love of Jesus Christ, and its transformative power in the individuals who claim him as their saviour. I look at all religions this way, in that the moral lessons of each are what sustains the people who follow its teachings, but at the same time, because of my unique circumstance, I have been made aware of century old prophecies that identify the messiah, the saviour of society, and the subsequent time that we live in. The Bible says that God judges all according to their unique existence, which I find completely reasonable, and answering to the issues that so many people have with 'labeled' religion.
Jesus is love, and this is profoundly delivered in the gospel stories of his time on earth. I am so grateful for the way that his word changes my approach to daily life, when I take the time to acknowledge his role and learn from his example, in my own pursuit of happiness.

The main deterrent for me, in reading the Bible, is my rationalizing that I have no time when so many other things are required of my waking hours. However, it is intuitively beneficial to study the life of Jesus as it seems to give me more time for everything else. Something along the lines of putting Him first, and all these things will be added on to you.





In the spiritual realms we are watching with joy as humanity intensifies its efforts to release the unloving attitudes that have never served it and embrace the loving ones that are leading you onwards towards awakening. You have made enormous strides in the last few months, and the results are plain to see all over the planet. The most obvious ones, of course, are the “Occupy” demonstrators who, despite quite intense provocation, have remained peaceful and have focused their intent on sharing love and compassion in all their interactions. They are being greatly supported and encouraged by their angels and guides, and their efforts are inspiring and uplifting vast numbers who, for whatever reasons, cannot physically take part in this spiritually motivated grassroots movement that resonates with everyone on the planet. Even those who disparage, discount, or attempt to crush it. All your hearts are beginning to open, and those who would control and manipulate others, in any manner at all, are finding themselves unable to resist the call of Love that is being broadcast indiscriminately all over the world.

As you know, Love is the power and the Intent of creation, It is God, It is All that is, and everyone of you is held eternally in Its divine embrace. Your unawareness of this, your inability to feel It and to know It, is purely as a result of your decision to build an imaginary and illusory environment, separate from God, in which to experience existence without Him. It was but a momentary thought that you had, and within which you built what appears to be an almost limitless universe where you are but tiny insignificant beings, alone and lost in its vastness. But it was only conceived of for a moment. Nevertheless, you split Yourself into billions and billions, or maybe trillions and trillions – it does not matter how many, because despite how real it seems to you, it still does not exist, Only God exists, and You are eternally one with Him – of bits, beings, or aspects of God’s Son scattered and abandoned throughout its apparent vastness. When you awaken into Reality the insignificance of the illusion and all that it seems to contain might just amuse you, but only momentarily, because existence – awareness of being one with God – offers such boundless opportunities for creative ecstasy that the illusion will be instantly forgotten.

You never needed it – but you chose to build it and experience the severe limitations it imposed on you. During the apparent eons you have spent enclosed in it, the God Spark within you has been burning constantly, so that when you were ready It would light your way Home. Many of you are now getting enticing glimpses of It as you let love instead of fear direct your thoughts, words, and actions. And as you allow Love to increase Its influence upon you, those brief glimpses will increase in frequency and become longer lasting, to ensure that you cannot lose your way.

Divine guidance has always been available to you from this Light within you, and now, in ever-increasing numbers, you are noticing It, focusing on It, and intending to follow It Home. The intent that you are holding is strengthening and intensifying in every moment because the divine Will is for you to awaken into the bliss that is God, and now that you have chosen to align yourselves with It there is no going back. You are on course to your awakening, as your Father, your angels, and your guides rush to support you and ensure your safe, speedy, and complete awakening.

Your loving brother, Jesus.

[Bond]

Is anyone here knowledgeable of history?

I've always wanted to ask: Did Hitler plan to win, or just stir up a whole lot of shit?

Was there any journals or documents recovered where Hitler stated a clear manifesto or something?
Look up Hitler's work with Albert Speer on Welthauptstadt Germania. Dude intended to win.

I tried to find a video for you, but all I found was Neo-Nazi propaganda. Here's a picture:

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/4/40/Bundesarchiv_Bild_146III-373%2C_Modell_der_Neugestaltung_Berlins_%28%22Germania%22%29.jpg

[Bond]

But really, why would a supreme being who created all of everything, make one-celled organisms on this planet? Given this discussion, I'm assuming you don't believe all the creatures on Earth were magicked into existence like the really religious types do.
I find this to be a particularly agonizing point that Evangelicals who discount evolution tend to make. Having a God that needed to intervene to create intelligent life, or who needs to intervene in every step in the evolutionary (intelligent design) process is not impressive. Indeed, it is the sign of an incompetent God.

A far more competent, and impressive God would be able to set life into motion with one stroke of the pen, with the eventual outcome being intelligent life. Evolution is God's friend.

I'm asking specifically, why do you thank god for what you have. Why do you think he expended his power to help you, but not use it to feed someone who is starving?
Why do you assume by thanking God for what one has, one is also affirming that God extended His power to help? Is this what you assume religious people mean when they do this? For most I know, it is not.

Also, I see sporting events all the time where a player will have a great game and his or her team will win. At the end, they usually thank god.

How do they justify believing that god helped them win a football game, but he isn't saving starving people?
Again, are you assuming these players, by praying, are thanking God for helping them to win the football game, or do you know this for fact? I've watched a few players speak on this subject, and what you assume is incorrect for them, at the least.

I'm not trying to be inflammatory, but I think you might be seeing what you want to see in the actions of religious people.


Life cannot be pre-determined if you have a choice, and if life is pre-determined, nothing you actually decide is a 'choice', it has all already been chosen for you by God.
Free will and determinism are compatible under the philosophical thought of... you guessed it... Compatibilism. See: http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/compatibilism/

[Vampyr]

Why do you assume by thanking God for what one has, one is also affirming that God extended His power to help? Is this what you assume religious people mean when they do this? For most I know, it is not.


Again, are you assuming these players, by praying, are thanking God for helping them to win the football game, or do you know this for fact? I've watched a few players speak on this subject, and what you assume is incorrect for them, at the least.

I'm not trying to be inflammatory, but I think you might be seeing what you want to see in the actions of religious people.


Yeah, that is what I assume. What do they really mean, then? Are they simply thanking god for their existence in the universe? I could see that meaning having some relevance, but at the same time it feels like a pointless thing to say.

[Bond]

Yeah, that is what I assume. What do they really mean, then? Are they simply thanking god for their existence in the universe? I could see that meaning having some relevance, but at the same time it feels like a pointless thing to say.
Generally speaking, I think that is fair to say. More specifically, it's thanking God for their athletic ability and recognizing that without God they would not be in a place to play xyz sports game. It's a derivation of "There but for the grace of God, go I."

[TheGame]

Yup, pre game praying for the best hoping that you have no regrets and play to your full potential.

After the game, thanking god for another oppertunity to play and for making it through it. And when someone gets seriously injured, or there are world events, or someone is lost it puts things even more in perspective.

Win or lose, that's the routine.

[Typhoid]

More specifically, it's thanking God for their athletic ability and recognizing that without God they would not be in a place to play xyz sports game.


Doesn't praying to God for the things you're good at/the things humans have accomplished sort of take away a lot of the magnificent capabilities of human beings in the first place?


If I thank God for (let's say my athletic capabilities), I'm assuming I was simply born better than non-athletic people. As if somehow if I didn't play Soccer or Hockey my whole life, I'd still be just as good at them as if I had never played. Praying to a God for my ability to be good at sports diminishes my own role in practice, determination, studying, and general knowledge of those sports. In my mind God didn't make me good at sports. I made me good at sports. I didn't need any type of 'force' inside of me, making me better than everyone else from the day I was born. I was not 'chosen' to be good at sports. I have midi-chlorians inside of me who boost my performance if I just slow down and listen to my own body.



I mean, I'm sure some people have thanked God once or twice that there's a cure for (some) cancer. But wait...God created Cancer. Humans created a way to beat it. God also created polio. Humans created the polio vaccine.

It seems like God is in a constant struggle to create things in order to kill us, which then makes a (usually a scientist, and assume-ish-ly a non-religious person) create some type of antidote, to which someone will say "Thank God for this antidote."


Personally, I thank God for the Hydrogen Bomb, and Napalm. I'm glad he gave us the technology in order to create Nuclear Fusion and release massive amounts of energy in order to destroy massive amounts of humans in a split-second. I'm glad he decided to let us discover how to incinerate the people we don't like from above. I'm glad he decides to let countless tornadoes rip through the homes of poor people, and sends in massive tsunamis and floods to destroy the homes and lives of more poor people. And Hurricane Katrina? Don't get me started on how much of an act of God that was. I thank god for Earthquakes and asteroid impacts. I thank God for supernovas which can destroy us and we won't have any idea. I thank God for creating a sun with a finite life, so that we only have 4 billion years of possible existence on this planet - the planet he created for us to live on.

-----
If we succeed at anything, it's "Act of God", "God's will". You "Thank God" you were able to pass your test, as if you didn't study for it, or take X years of schooling. Yet when something goes wrong, it's the fault of a human. It seems to me that we only ever fuck up, and every time anything goes correct in anyone's life it's (to someone else) an 'Act of God'. "Congratulations to the _______ Olympic team of _______ in the sport of ______. God chose you to be better than these other people this year. Come back in 4 years to see who God likes more, then!"

"And tonight the final score is: The Steelers 14, and the Lions 45."
"Yeah, Tom. Clearly they had God on their side tonight. Maybe the Steelers just didn't pray enough. Hopefully God decides for them to win next week."

"And in other news, a little girl whom God decided to give polio to has survived in defiance as doctors administered a vaccine in order to allow her to live a long, healthy life. Let's see what God has to say about that."

Thanking God for my accomplishments seems so soul-crushing. I'm aware someone will say "well if it wasn't for God you wouldn't have been put in that situation anyways!". To which I will say now; phfff.

If God is in charge of my accomplishments, and what I succeed at - why am I in charge of my failures? Clearly I cannot succeed without God's help, so why does he occasionally refuse to help me? if he puts me in a death-defying situation and I get out of it, considering I was about to die but lived - that's an act of God. But if I actually do die, then it's because a stupid human did something stupid.

God seems like that douche in your workgroup who tries to take credit for everything you email to your boss, yet when your boss doesn't like it God's like "Oh, I don't know man. I took that day off. That was all Steve's fault."


----
I had an old lady once tell me that proof of God is in the fact we die. She said "well we all die. God takes us all someday. when he decides it, we'll go."
I wanted to shout at her "Buuuuuuuuuullllllllshit to that, old lady."

If I walk into traffic right now, and get hit by a car. Is that an act of God? If I die by jumping off of a cliff, did God decide that was my time? What if I do get cancer, and some human-invented-thing cures me; would God be pissed, and try to kill me in Final Destination-esque ways until I'm finally finished? And besides, if God wants you dead, wouldn't he just kill you on the spot? He's God. he (allegedly) created time and space itself, yet I can find a loophole around a disease he made to kill me?

I don't believe that us having a finite life is any proof of God. Imagine a world where not a single person believes in a higher power; people would still die. Life would go on. The world would still turn. Natural disasters would still happen. Scientific progress would still take place. Wars would still happen. Bad political decisions would still be made. People would still be assholes. Dogs would still chase cars.


----Edit: And I'm not talking about the people who just say "Thank God" under their breath after they find out they don't have a baby, or after a big save or something. I say that all the time for non-things. I'll take a big poop and think "Thank God that didn't tear me open", but I don't mean 'Thank God', it's a bullshit phrase for a lot of people. I'm only referring to the people who literally mean "Thank God" every time they say it.

[Bond]

Doesn't praying to God for the things you're good at/the things humans have accomplished sort of take away a lot of the magnificent capabilities of human beings in the first place?
No. How would it do this at all?

It seems like God is in a constant struggle to create things in order to kill us, which then makes a (usually a scientist, and assume-ish-ly a non-religious person) create some type of antidote, to which someone will say "Thank God for this antidote."
Are you supposing that God has interjected Himself into history to create diseases, or are you saying that God created the universe, and hence created the environment in which diseases have the ability to form? These are two completely different things.

[Typhoid]

No. How would it do this at all?


Well like I said before - if I thank God that I am able to do well at sports, I'm relatively diminishing my own role in practicing, and devoting __ days a week to practice, and __ day a week to a game. I wasn't born good at Soccer and Hockey. I practiced. I made myself better at the games, I trained by playing and studied by reading and watching. And if you break that down to "Well God gave you the abilities in the first place", that just completely diminishes the human aspect from it entirely. Because, again, if God made me naturally good at soccer/hockey, that means I personally haven't really done anything at all to be good at those sports, aside from like them or play them. Now if I am born pre-disposed to be better at something than someone, that is different. Because God didn't make me better than everyone else in the area of ______. I wasn't selected to be who I am. I was made this way by random genetics. My own ability to learn, grow, study, and train in a specific area is what made me good at that area, opposed to an intelligent higher power delegating my traits, selecting who I am and what I am good at before I'm who I am or am good at anything.

That's the one part of religion I have a really hard time trying to justify.
because like I said, if I say "Thank God he made me really intelligent", that's like insinuating I never had to study my whole life, like I never had to read or attempt to constantly learn. It removes my role of working hard for being what I am.

It's like the first rule of AA [Don't talk about AA]. Say you're powerless to a higher power. As soon as they do that, they remove the fact they're 'not responsible' for becoming an alcoholic, and that 'God made them that way', and that they never had a choice in 'the disease they have'.


Are you supposing that God has interjected Himself into history to create diseases, or are you saying that God created the universe, and hence created the environment in which diseases have the ability to form? These are two completely different things.


Well now I guess it comes down to what extactly did God create?

Did God create the Universe, and everything in it, or did God create the Universe, and simply humans and only humans?

Insinuating God didn't create viruses seems to go against the belief of creationism itself. if God didn't create viruses, and viruses are technically living things, that means there was life before god, or life aside from God. So then if not God, what created those viruses? They must have evolved from something. They couldn't have just popped up out of nothingness, unless of course, God willed it.

[Bond]

Well like I said before - if I thank God that I am able to do well at sports, I'm relatively diminishing my own role in practicing, and devoting __ days a week to practice, and __ day a week to a game. I wasn't born good at Soccer and Hockey. I practiced. I made myself better at the games, I trained by playing and studied by reading and watching. And if you break that down to "Well God gave you the abilities in the first place", that just completely diminishes the human aspect from it entirely.
I think you're confusing two different concepts. Your analogy is basically a derivative of the intelligent and / or accomplished issue that I'll address below. Having the ability to do something and practicing, studying, etc. at it are two different things. The first is inherent, the second takes practice and repetition. I don't see how thanking God for the first detracts at all from human endeavors at the second.

That's the one part of religion I have a really hard time trying to justify.
because like I said, if I say "Thank God he made me really intelligent", that's like insinuating I never had to study my whole life, like I never had to read or attempt to constantly learn. It removes my role of working hard for being what I am.
Again, being inherently intelligent and being accomplished at something are two different things. The first does not necessitate the second.

Well now I guess it comes down to what extactly did God create?

Did God create the Universe, and everything in it, or did God create the Universe, and simply humans and only humans?

Insinuating God didn't create viruses seems to go against the belief of creationism itself. if God didn't create viruses, and viruses are technically living things, that means there was life before god, or life aside from God. So then if not God, what created those viruses? They must have evolved from something. They couldn't have just popped up out of nothingness, unless of course, God willed it.
That's not what I'm trying to get at. What I said previously:

Are you supposing that God has interjected Himself into history to create diseases, or are you saying that God created the universe, and hence created the environment in which diseases have the ability to form? These are two completely different things.

In the first option, God has purposefully interjected Himself into human history to create diseases (a parallel of creationism in which God interjects himself into world history to create humans). In the second option, God merely created a universe that has the potential to breed diseases such as cancer, polio, etc. The first is an active form of creation, and the second is a passive form of creation. I think they entail very different scenarios, very different morals, and very different ways in which to judge God.

So, depending upon which scenario you're talking about, we can evaluate further.

[Seth]

About viruses, who is to say that an advanced civilation in the past didn't create viral strains for biological warfare purposes? What about a previous nuclear war that has had resultant genetic defects carried on through millenia?
Maybe the antideluvian world was comparitively non-violent. The earth's mantel remained platonically unfractured, and water levels below the crust and in the atmosphere were much higher, creating a homeostatic climate that left much more of the world inhabitable.


There was a time when reading the Bible in native language was such an opportunity, that whoever had access to its words would have digested the message as much as possible. The sole intent of the church in 1100 ad. was to maintain the administrative power of the church to dispense biblical truths as it saw fit. In essence, it was a religious arm of governing control. That which Jesus preached against. We live in a time where the Bible is old hat, so old and thumped that we hold it in disdain, as a symbol of evangelical stereotypes and caricatures.


Put on the whole armor of God, that you may be able to stand against the wiles of the devil. For we do not wrestle against flesh and blood, but against principalities, against powers, against the rulers of the darkness of this age, against spiritual hosts of wickedness in the heavenly places. Ephesians 6:11-12


Recognizing spiritual beings doesn't diminish the amount of responsibility that an individual has in shaping his or her life. To portion God's manifestation is speculative, in that in a Christian sense, we thank God for our heritage, knowing what sin has brought upon this 'age'(our earthly experience). In my perspective, it is entirely presumptuous that viral infections or genetic shortfalls are something petitioned in a creator's original intent. We're living on a metallic planet that formed in the void of space, as our star settled into stasis and gravity did its thing. To affirm that this past occurrence was wrought without divine intention is a viewpoint shaped within scientific constraints; dictating an explanation for the sake of scientific objectivity as opposed to philosophical speculation. Compatibalism is explained through the conjecture of possible 'other realities'. The Bible teaches that we were thought of before the creation of the world. This implies a loving creation, so loving that it gave allowance to its preknowledge of dissention amongst created beings. (In heaven a luciferian movement dissenfranchised a third of the angels to revolt)

I thank God, not to alleviate any degree of responsibility for my own state, but to reaffirm appreciate in a divine Creator who, through the process of worship, promises that his blessings will be poured out. As an individual humbles himself, in the christian context, it signifies contrition. This contrition demands the type of behaviour which you claim is a result of human's recognition of ability and the result of discipline in refining abilities. The Christian recognizes his/her special talents, acknowledges the differentiating talents in others that far surpass their own, and in the midst of all the degrees of ability, is purposed to embrace what they have, work on their strengths and weaknesses, and remember that their body and mind is the temple of God, and that the soul (not necessarily dualistic), is impressed by the presence of its creator. It is a personal experience and is extremely humbling. Being humbled doesn't dictate a sense of lost control. The opposite is instead instilled as one becomes the embodiment of the law and the saving grace of a God who sacrificed himself as an example to dispel the argument made by 'spiritual hosts' who claim that God disallows choice. It comes down to what you worship. If you worship solely yourself, ie your capabilities and determinations, then you will live life, with that outlook firmly rooted in your perspective. Why God 'allows' 'creates' 'continues' suffering is part of the whole process of this age, as a time when the conjectures of a disenfranchised intellectual are shown to contradict the laws of the universe. (We all recognize that there are in fact laws which govern the physical realm)

AA is disinheriting of one's cumulative state. This is only to the extent that an individual recognizes their power of choice. By labelling it a disease, one does not make it any more 'defeatist' than does the recognizing of the role of genetics in the propensity towards disease.

When the doctor tells someone that they are susceptible to heart disease because of family genetics, he is parroting a pharmaceutical mantra that emotionally bankrupts individuals of their ability to take control of their lives. At the same time it doesn't 'cause' an individual to choose satin drugs as the answer to their hamburger-loving death. Lots of times this demarcation of the faults in mainstream medical practice is similar to the criticism pointed towards 'dependency' on God.

One of the commandments, "Honour your father and mother, that it may be well with you and you may live long on the earth."
can be read as, do this or this alternate bad thing will happen to you.
or,
it can be read as, do this and you will embrace the divine laws of God, which when followed, promote a long life of joy.

Understanding that God created everying perfect, and that our earth is the sin-degenerated, literal battleground in the contest of freedom is important to understand, as this reveals the altruism that is God. From a universal standpoint, when Christ having lived a sinless life, gave himself up on the cross for the redemption of man(who is separated from God through sin), the argument that Lucifer platformed on became obsolete as a loving example became testament to the selfserving nature of 'knowing good and evil'. (What is more humilitating than being nailed up on a tree without arguing your innocence?) As living in the post-messianic era, we have been given this gospel message of love which demands faith, belief, and thankfulness. We thank Jesus for fulfilling what was promised over a thousand years before his crucifixion, to a patriarch who removed himself from his contemporary's idolatry, and expressed faith in the divine love and sole power of the one God. Through a nation's history we are given the promises of a God whose intervention is evident in the minds of those who come to him, in a state of humble contrition, acknowledging his power and believing themselves saved as is promised through the words of the Saviour.

Read the Gospel books, Paul's letters to the first churches, and the culminating prophecy of Revelation. The last book is full of esoteric symbolism which is used to identify the markings of the end of this world. The esoterism is dissolved through a full study of the Torah and its use of imagery and symbolism, as well as the revealing study of new testament writings. The Bible is completely self expository, but so few take the time to understand what it is actually saying. The modern interpretation of 'religion' is completely convoluted through centuries of multi-cultural influence and self-deluded hypocrisy. Everything that people find wrong with 'religious truth' is identified in the Bible. Christ's message was so anti-religious he died for it. The church sprang out of martyrdom. People were willing to die for their belief in Christ, just as Abraham was willing to kill his own son because he believed in God. Belief is soooo powerful. That's why believing that adherence to God, either through thankfulness or reverance, or contrite sorrow, is inoculating of an individual's liability for their lives is so powerful. It is itself a form of inoculation because everything is because it just is. Disease on this planet is, because of chance mutation. It just is. Get how this is wholly dysfunctional to someone who believes in a beginning and end of 'GIFTED' human cognitive response that has been given the opportunity to follow a universal law or their own 'knowledge'?
"And God will wipe away every tear from their eyes; there shall be no more death, nor sorrow, nor crying. There shall be no more pain, for the former things have passed away." -Rev 21:4

This can be received in an inoculated light, such as found in The Invention of Lying, (which isn't entirely 'awful' as it understands the power of belief in a conjected story) or it can be appreciated in the context of personal, divine exposition which, through its nature requires the full divinity of a person to be exercised.

What I mean to say is, we are required to behave a certain way because goodness in its complete purity has been demonstrated, which requires us to follow 'laws' because we believe. The action of believing doesn't separate the individual from the behaviour imperatives, as through Christ these imperatives are made always present in the minds of those who choose to let him guide their lives. We follow the ten commandments past a sense of social fabric, by recognizing their congruency with the ultimate dictum which is, "love thy neighbor as thyself." This is directly applicable to the luciferian imbalance which sought to exalt the self. When we exalt the self we are blinded by the temporal gratification of self worth derived from ego restrictions; ego restrictions are made possible through the separation of ultimate love and the inseparable intent that drives all of us to 'do what we do'.

My ego restrictions have in part created this imbalanced post.
Psalm 43 seems to imply what Typhoid is saying, the questions being directed at God, and possibly reducing the role that one has in outcomes. It is however, a cry of belief of the helping God. Psalm 44 is all about questioning why God isn't helping. It is a declaration of faith, that despite not understanding God's removal of his blessings, is still faithful through its appeal that God renew his protection. Through faith we are made faultless.


http://beforeitsnews.com/story/1484/850/Expert:_Fukushima_Spinning_Out_Of_Control.html