Re: Religions
 

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:

Re: Religions
 

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.

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.

Free will and determinism are compatible under the philosophical thought of... you guessed it... Compatibilism. See: http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/compatibilism/

Re: Religions
 

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.

Re: Religions
 

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."

Re: Religions
 

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.

Re: Religions
 

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.

Re: Religions
 

No. How would it do this at all?

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.

Re: Religions
 

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'.



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.

Re: Religions
 

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.

Again, being inherently intelligent and being accomplished at something are two different things. The first does not necessitate the second.

That's not what I'm trying to get at. What I said previously:

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.

Re: Religions
 

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/...f_Control.html