The Faith & Religion mega Thread

Originally Posted by SigTerm Not going to work. Problem #1: God by definition knows everything and can do everything. If any kind of suffering or pain exists, it is because god choose so. Problem #2: Standard defence against "proposing a standard" is to invalidate your standard. Then you'll introduce another standard which will also be invalidated, and this will go on forever never reaching a conclusion. Let me demonstrate problem #1. You're engineer and you're designing a car. You make a design, but design has a twist - 1 hour after starting the engine, car will lock all doors, spray gasoline inside car's interior, and set it all on fire, killing driver and passengers. You - as engineer, know that will happen with absolute certainty. You also know how to remove the twist, and it requires no effort from you - you have time, it won't affect you in any way, and it won't affect cost of the design in any way, and it requires nearly no effort. Also nobody except you will notice this problem until car hits the market. There is absolutely no reason for you to release "automobile of death", yet you consciously decide to produce automobile that will kill passengers with 100% guarantee. The same applies to universe - if you take a look at it all, it'll be obvious that there are many similar "design flaws", and if you claim that this is result of sentient design of omnipotent/omniscient beings, then all those flaws mean that creator cannot be "good". Trying to find better definition of "justice" is not going to solve something as fundamental as this.

If your analogy is to be applied to an individual whose destination is hell, you leave out a key part--first, it's not a death-trap car where the driver is deceived by God; the driver is audacious enough, to take not God's, but the devil's dare and toy with sin, which is unto death, and in every such case God provides a clear way out.

Originally Posted by SigTerm You're using "tunnel vision" to support your point. You rip out one or two citations out of entire collection of book and try to make "interpret" it. By doing so you forget that there's also the rest of book, which also includes parts with god-started genocide, slaughter, also factual errors and slavery. You can't ignore those parts - they exist and cannot be thrown away. Mentioning only one verse that support your point does not make them disappear - they still exist, and people are aware of them.

Not quite. I'm considering the entire context of the Bible, as well as the creation.

Originally Posted by bluegospel If your analogy is to be applied to an individual whose destination is hell,

My analogy is applied to god. There is no reason to design universe in this way when you know everything and can do anything, unless you want to make everybody suffer. Remember that african worm that can only survive by eating child's eyeballs. Or every war, murder, crime, etc. There's no reason to design nature, universe and humans in such ways that this will be allowed to happen.

A god - if exists - and is omnipotent/omniscent - is supposed to know of every single crime, every single "unjust" action, and every suffering person/animal. Such god also has full power to fix the situation. And such god also has full knowledge - about how to actually do it. Yet every single day, every single second, such deity decides to do nothing, although every situation is caused by his own design of the world. Not much of a difference from my "evil engineer" example. The problem is that such behavior is not the behavior of a "good" deity, "just" deity or "loving" deity. Trying to find different definition of "justice" is not going to fix that.

Originally Posted by bluegospel you leave out a key part--first, it's not a death-trap car where the driver is deceived by God;

Nope. It is a death trap. No matter how you look at it.

Originally Posted by bluegospel Not quite. I'm considering the entire context of the Bible, as well as the creation.

You do not give that impression.

Originally Posted by SigTerm My analogy is applied to god. There is no reason to design universe in this way when you know everything and can do anything, unless you want to make everybody suffer. Remember that african worm that can only survive by eating child's eyeballs. Or every war, murder, crime, etc. There's no reason to design nature, universe and humans in such ways that this will be allowed to happen. A god - if exists - and is omnipotent/omniscent - is supposed to know of every single crime, every single "unjust" action, and every suffering person/animal. Such god also has full power to fix the situation. And such god also has full knowledge - about how to actually do it. Yet every single day, every single second, such deity decides to do nothing, although every situation is caused by his own design of the world. Not much of a difference from my "evil engineer" example. The problem is that such behavior is not the behavior of a "good" deity, "just" deity or "loving" deity. Trying to find different definition of "justice" is not going to fix that.

If God says, "It will be more noble for me, and for my faithful ones, more intimate, if we endure hardship, crying and laughing together; our joy will be more rich, after such difficulties, those hardships finally being altogether abolished; if we should endure them happily, God and his people together, being thankful for all the good in the meantime;" then who are you to judge God?

Originally Posted by bluegospel If God says, "It will be more noble for me, and for my faithful ones, more intimate, if we endure hardship, crying and laughing together; our joy will be more rich, after such difficulties, those hardships finally being altogether abolished; if we should endure them happily, God and his people together, being thankful for all the good in the meantime;" then who are you to judge God?

//Assuming that there was a god and it indeed created me (which to be proven),
I'm am the creation. I've been given ability to judge, so I'll use it. I've been given ability to doubt and think, so I'll use it too. And I won't be very surprised if those abilities can be used to banish, kill or overthrow the deity, should this become necessary. And even such consequences will be entirely god's fault - with his omnipotence/omnisceience god is meant to know what's going to happen. If an omnipotent/omniscient god creates creature that refuses to bow to that god, it is god's fault - because that god is created the design, and even deity should take responsibility for creating life. And who knows, perhaps the deity was actually sick of existing and created humanity as the only means of destroying itself.

That is, of course, assuming there is a god and that this god is omnipotent/omniscient and that this god is responsible for creation of life. Because, you know, even if there's a creator, it doesn't mean that you should worship it, listen to it acknowledge it or even agree with it. My position will remain agnostic. A god may or may not exist, but an "omnipotent/omniscient/just/good god" described in bible most likely does not exist.

/Sarcasm

HOLY MOLY! God does exist inside Linux kernel ->

[prince@dodofucker]$ locate god
/lib/modules/2.6.18-274.3.1.el5/kernel/sound/pci/echoaudio/snd-indigodj.ko
/lib/modules/2.6.18-274.7.1.el5/kernel/sound/pci/echoaudio/snd-indigodj.ko
/lib/modules/2.6.18-274.el5/kernel/sound/pci/echoaudio/snd-indigodj.ko
/usr/src/kernels/2.6.18-274.3.1.el5-x86_64/include/config/snd/indigodj.h
/usr/src/kernels/2.6.18-274.7.1.el5-x86_64/include/config/snd/indigodj.h
/usr/src/kernels/2.6.18-274.el5-x86_64/include/config/snd/indigodj.h

*Sarcasm/

Well, just for fun, the believer's style you know.

Regards.

To each his own.

Originally Posted by k3lt01 The evidence for Human evolution does hinge on missing links. There is nothing that actually shows a progression from Ardepithecus to Australopithecine to Homo. There are very few remains from Ardi and Australo so it is basically extremely difficult to claim that Australo is a descendant of Ardi and very also very little to say that Homo is descended from Australo. This being the case where did Homo Sapien Sapien come from? Did he just materialise? I'm not saying he was created but if your arguing vehemently that he wasn't you need to show something to say where he come from.

I know, pages old, but this one I had to comment on....

I wouldnt say that there us 'nothing that actually shows a progression from Ardepithecus to Australopithecine to Homo'. However, its not proven (and IMO it wont be).

The problem is the way that this possible progression is presented. Its not taught that it is 'possible', or even 'likely' in anthropology, or anywhere else I've seen it. Its presented as proven fact. However it is NOT proven. It is at best a guess based on a fairly limited number of fossils.

Other (scientific) theories on the evolution of humans are rejected. In the case of some of them, eg aquatic ape, the thoeries have been dismissed out of hand, without any (IMO) proper investigation. Theres a lot of reasons for that, but none of them are 'science'.

BTW, I'm not suggestion that evolution is wrong. I'm also not suggesting that aquatic ape theory is right, or that the current idea is wrong. What I am saying is that science is very good at 'what happens when I combine 'A' with 'B''. Its not so great when the variables start mounting up.....

Originally Posted by bluegospel If God says, "It will be more noble for me, and for my faithful ones, more intimate, if we endure hardship, crying and laughing together; our joy will be more rich, after such difficulties, those hardships finally being altogether abolished; if we should endure them happily, God and his people together, being thankful for all the good in the meantime;" then who are you to judge God?

So you are saying that either 'omnipotence' is limited or you are saying that 'the end justifies the means'.

Which is what you have previously described as 'Machiavellian' and the way that 'Satan' operates-

http://www.linuxquestions.org/questi...4/#post4398085

BTW, can you please remove the link in your sig to your 'for-profit business'.

There is no advertising allowed in the forums

http://www.linuxquestions.org/linux/rules.html

Originally Posted by cascade9 So you are saying that either 'omnipotence' is limited or you are saying that 'the end justifies the means'.

I'm saying that suffering with others is noble. It's better to have suffered with others, than to have avoided it altogether.

Originally Posted by cascade9 BTW, can you please remove the link in your sig to your 'for-profit business'. There is no advertising allowed in the forums.

Oh, Okay, not a problem.

Originally Posted by bluegospel I'm saying that suffering with others is noble. It's better to have suffered with others, than to have avoided it altogether.

I strongly disagree.
Suffering with others is not noble. It is pointless - it changes nothing, adds nothing, and improves nothing. Removing cause of suffering is noble.

I have impression that the whole "self-sacrifice" and "suffering is good" is one of the most harmful ideas in christian culture.

Originally Posted by bluegospel I'm saying that suffering with others is noble.

It would have been better had you said: having empathy for the suffering of others is noble.

Originally Posted by brianL It would have been better had you said: having empathy for the suffering of others is noble.

But that's not what I meant. Had God created humanity to suffer, while he himself shared with them only the same emotion of their suffering, but not the suffering itself, that would not be noble.

The fact is, God chose to suffer with humanity, and to consummate that experience by their mutual and eternal triumph over suffering, ultimately glorifying that Christian church whose members have born one another's suffering with God, and with God's help.

Originally Posted by bluegospel But that's not what I meant. Had God created humanity to suffer, while he himself shared with them only the same emotion of their suffering, but not the suffering itself, that would not be noble. The fact is, God chose to suffer with humanity, and to consummate that experience by their mutual and eternal triumph over suffering, ultimately glorifying that Christian church whose members have born one another's suffering with God, and with God's help.

Again, (that is assuming that god exists for the sake of this discussion), how do YOU know that god suffers with us? How can a 'perfect' absolute like god suffer in the first place?

Don't you think that any noble and omni* deity would not only eliminate suffering for himself, but also for the rest of the universe?

I don't have children but I assume if I had, and deliberately exposed them (and myself) to suffering without any particular purpose, or to test them (test what?), you'd call me a sick sadistic/masochistic pervert that derives pleasure from observing and experiencing suffering. That's not what I'd call noble.

Originally Posted by bluegospel The fact is, God chose to suffer with humanity,

Aside from the little problem sycamorex mentioned:
Are you saying god enjoys suffering? I see no reason for a good deity to create world WITH suffering, when it have power and knowledge necessary to create world without suffering (omnipotent/omniscient, remember?). It doesn't make sense. It fits straight into my "evil engineer" example. Besides, should the deity wish to experience suffering, deity should have plenty of ways (omnipotent/omniscient, remember?) to inflict it upon itself - without involving humans in the process.

Originally Posted by sycamorex Again, (that is assuming that god exists for the sake of this discussion), how do YOU know that god suffers with us? How can a 'perfect' absolute like god suffer in the first place?

God directly confirms in my spirit, by His living Spirit, that his Word is true, such as, that his Son suffered beatings, humiliation and death on a cross for your sake and mine. More than that, he bore the sin of the entire world and was separated from God his Father for about 3 days.

Originally Posted by sycamorex Don't you think that any noble and omni* deity would not only eliminate suffering for himself, but also for the rest of the universe?

Yes, at the time he appointed.

Originally Posted by sycamorex I don't have children but I assume if I had, and deliberately exposed them (and myself) to suffering without any particular purpose, or to test them (test what?), you'd call me a sick sadistic/masochistic pervert that derives pleasure from observing and experiencing suffering. That's not what I'd call noble.

Yes I would, if 2 conditions were not met:
1) You and your Son were God.
2) Your Son was fully mature and willing to suffer for his people.

Originally Posted by bluegospel God directly confirms in my spirit, by His living Spirit, that his Word is true,

"The Spaghetti Monster directly confirms in my spirit, by his Living Spirit, that his word is true"

How does it sound to you? What would you think of a person who claims that? You could either dismiss such a person as a lunatic, or fully respect his/her beliefs putting them on the same level as yours and therefore admit that one of you is probably wrong as the 2 beliefs somehow contradict each other?

Originally Posted by bluegospel ... such as, that his Son suffered beatings, humiliation and death on a cross for your sake and mine. More than that, he bore the sin of the entire world and was separated from God his Father for about 3 days.

If an almighty god let his son suffer, it was his decision. He didn't have to do it. There's no one above him. There's nothing he couldn't accomplish... so why expose his son to such suffering? He could have done it without anyone suffering, couldn't he? Why did it let the sin happen in the first place? Wouldn't it be wiser of him to prevent it in the first place? I really fail to understand why all this suffering was necessary while god could just flick his fingers and prevent all of this (his son's suffering, our sins, etc) It doesn't sound as a noble or wise behaviour? It smells to me as if the story is just to make all of us feel guilty of something we never done for all our lives.

Originally Posted by bluegospel Yes I would, if 2 conditions were not met: 1) You and your Son were God. 2) Your Son was fully mature and willing to suffer for his people.

How is this different? Does that mean that if you're god you can inflict suffering to all around you at will?
If god and his son had a thing about pain and suffering, they could have indulge in their activities in the privacy of their kingdom. Why force it on others who may not enjoy it as much? Sorry, I can't help but conclude that looking at the scale of their experiments on people, the most cruel dictators of the world look like saints.