Anti-religious question

The Diplomat said:
Well, it's not just when talking about eternity, but other things. Like the sexuality of Adam and Eve before the Fall. The fact that the whole Christian religion, and the concept of family and husband/wife, is based on the original sin, and without it there would be no Bible. The philosophical debate between God having an actual hand in things (creation, the flood, fate and destiny, etc.) vs. natural coincidence and free will. Many different contradictions and catch 22s in the Bible, but I don't take the Bible literally. It's those that do, who these questions are for.
Click to expand...

Whether or not they can reconcile a literal interpretation with a coherent world view is somewhat irrelevant. Just because one can't, doesn't mean that it's not possible. If they reach a point which they cannot explain, it's not an "aha!" moment, at least necessarily.

The Diplomat said:
Sure it's a punishment, it's probably the most important punishment that was laid out for us. Before the Fall, Adam and Eve were immortal beings who possessed everything (seemingly) that they would ever need. After the Fall, they were punished with death and painful birth, which would last for the rest of time as long as humans reproduce. It's only a natural progression if you believe in natural progressions :P When it comes Genesis and the creation, I don't see any natural progression - only God's will.

I ponder why God chose certain times to do things. Why flood the planet at *that* moment? Why send Jesus at *that* time? And why hasn't there been a single Godly miracle since?
Click to expand...

LogicalInsanity said:
seriously LOL at your first sentence....well played...

what do you mean by natural progression?

Thanks for answering.
Click to expand...

I think this conversation would benefit from thinking about God in a slightly different way. The common way of thinking about God is that everything he did, and every consequence of those actions, are done so by a simple choice. That is, God decided (for some reason which is unknown to us) to create, and as an omniscient being, all the consequences are his doing.

The other way to look at this is that God is not able to simply do anything that comes to mind in the way which we imagine. If you think of a complete and infinite deity lacking nothing, why would he create mankind to begin with? That would directly contradict his perfect nature, as he would not benefit in any way from a creation apart from his perfect self.

I contend that if you read the Bible, the answer that is outlined is that God created because not doing so would be incompatible with his nature of love. Love requires sacrifice and an element of sharing. I believe the doctrine of original sin (and others) starts to make more sense through this lens, given that God had to create, and the consequences are not as important as doing right for the sake of doing right. In this way, the punishment is just the natural progression of mankind and his nature which arose out of free will.
 
TheComebackKid said:
Lol, I didn't think this was a difficult analogy
Click to expand...

This help?
IMG_6417-resized-600.jpg
 
dontsnitch said:
Whether or not they can reconcile a literal interpretation with a coherent world view is somewhat irrelevant. Just because one can't, doesn't mean that it's not possible. If they reach a point which they cannot explain, it's not an "aha!" moment, at least necessarily.





I think this conversation would benefit from thinking about God in a slightly different way. The common way of thinking about God is that everything he did, and every consequence of those actions, are done so by a simple choice. That is, God decided (for some reason which is unknown to us) to create, and as an omniscient being, all the consequences are his doing.

The other way to look at this is that God is not able to simply do anything that comes to mind in the way which we imagine. If you think of a complete and infinite deity lacking nothing, why would he create mankind to begin with? That would directly contradict his perfect nature, as he would not benefit in any way from a creation apart from his perfect self.

I contend that if you read the Bible, the answer that is outlined is that God created because not doing so would be incompatible with his nature of love. Love requires sacrifice and an element of sharing. I believe the doctrine of original sin (and others) starts to make more sense through this lens, given that God had to create, and the consequences are not as important as doing right for the sake of doing right. In this way, the punishment is just the natural progression of mankind and his nature which arose out of free will.
Click to expand...

Snitch is killing it today. Great post.
 
Dip, why are you so focused on sex between adam and eve? What implications does it serve and why so important?
 
TheComebackKid said:
Dip, why are you so focused on sex between adam and eve? What implications does it serve and why so important?
Click to expand...

Well, because the concept of sexuality and having children coming from sin is a rather important distinction, don't you think? If they were able to have children before the Fall, then hypothetically they could have populated the earth with immortal offspring. I was just curious how some would address this issue. Conversely, if they were asexual, then there would have been no lineage and thus no Bible to tell. I understand that most consider the actual garden of God/Eden to be a mythological place, and some think of it as otherworldly - so Adam and Eve being banished on Earth as a punishment would mean this certainly wasn't the first choice for us.

I ask because these kinds of questions leave open certain holes. The very foundation of Christianity is based on sin. The concept of family, having children, having husband/wife and her being a servant to the man came from the first sin. Without the Fall, there is no Noah or Abraham, and certainly no Jesus.
 
dontsnitch said:
I don't know what Christians believe, I know what I believe.

This conversation is more nuanced than "God created everything".
Click to expand...

So did someone else create the capacity, and the attraction (for some) for sin? did it just happen? did god not know beforehand that adam and eve would eat the fruit? did he not know what hitler would do before he created him?

or am i asking the wrong person because you arent christian?
 
anomynous said:
I'd like to see that display. Isn't your point, further, that it suffices that someone can do such experiments? And that this someone doing so in some way suffices or is a stand-in--or should be so--for everyone else? That's what I'm getting out of your remarks. If I'm at all correct about that, then maybe the distinction between science and philosophy you wish to draw will be lost on the majority of mankind as well; it may be for them an academic distinction that doesn't have much bearing on real life.

And how does this better understanding manifest itself? And by what metrics do you measure its ostensible superiority?
Click to expand...

I'm tired of repeating myself. Yes, that's my point. I measure the success of the scientific method by the ridiculously long list of things that were predicted before they were shown to be true experimentally, and better still the benefits to scientific understanding of predictions that were shown toe be false in leading us toward new physics and a better understanding of the FACTS. I don't know how to be any more clear. When something turns out to not be true it doesn't shatter our belief system but rather it enhances it. This is not possible with religion without a major crisis of faith.

And of course, it doesn't have much bearing on real life for the layman, but neither does this thread. I don't see your point. I really don't know your purpose ITT since we seem broadly in agreement while you continue to misconstrue me, but I've made mine clear. Philosophy is not science. Religion is not science. Both are rightly criticized when they contradict fact which was my answer to the OP. The impact of philosophy upon science and vice versa is a separate discussion from whether philosophy is science as asserted by TS and I have not intended nor attempted to discuss that aspect of human understanding.
 
dontsnitch said:
Dude, believe what you want, I don't know why you would press me to answer, when you (and I) knew full well you would crap on whatever I said. Fortunately, I was well aware of this and didn't spend any time in actually pulling up scriptures.
Click to expand...

should I believe what I want?

did jesus had a horrbe death? yes.

he however was not a prisioner, , he was not a slave, he wasnt starving to death, he was not dying of thirst, he ws basically just some dude walking around, pretty much what everyone did.

Of course I would crap on whatever you said ABOUT this becuse is simply not true.
 
JonnyRingo84 said:
So did someone else create the capacity, and the attraction (for some) for sin? did it just happen? did god not know beforehand that adam and eve would eat the fruit? did he not know what hitler would do before he created him?

or am i asking the wrong person because you arent christian?
Click to expand...

I am a Christian, but that doesn't mean that I have all the answers, or that I will naturally agree with every other Christian, especially about tough theological subjects.

As I see it you're presenting a tough question, one which deals with the problem of omniscience and free will, which I admit has been interesting me lately, which basically asks whether or not God is responsible for the consequences after he set everything in motion.

I personally resolve this with the long post I made above, which basically questions God's omnipotence (for lack of a better description) which simply stated says that God had to create life because it was the right thing to do, and part of this would include giving life a free will.
 
Burning Hammer said:
I'm just asking if anyone has a philosophy on life that can be confirmed by science. The reason I ask is because people can be vehemently against religion or people and their faith yet they themselves are using faith in the unknown just as much as anyone else. I think it's pretty interesting.
Click to expand...

Ah, I get what you're asking. I wonder the same thing frequently. I once started a thread on here asking atheists if they believe aliens have visited Earth (because I'm always shocked when I hear someone dismiss God as lacking proof, but believing aliens have visited Earth) and it exploded into madness. It was easily the best thread I ever chose to start in the WR. I'll see if I can bump it for you...
 
JosephDredd said:
Ah, I get what you're asking. I wonder the same thing frequently. I once started a thread on here asking atheists if they believe aliens have visited Earth (because I'm always shocked when I hear someone dismiss God as lacking proof, but believing aliens have visited Earth) and it exploded into madness. It was easily the best thread I ever chose to start in the WR. I'll see if I can bump it for you...
Click to expand...

That was a good thread, I was surprised by the responses of people suggesting that aliens had to exist as a matter of mathematics, and as such, believed in them.
 
alright, back from a night out with the fam.

As I'm sure we're all on the same page regarding religion, where are we at regarding stoves?
 
Burning Hammer said:
What is your philosophy on life? Can it be confirmed by science? If not, aren't you religious? :eek:
Click to expand...
I have no clue as to why these are supposed to be anti-religious questions. They do contain a category error, though: philosophy is not science. It is neither supported nor undermined by it. No ought from is, remember?

I'm religious, by the way, not that it was news to anyone in the WR.
 
People don't understand why they do a lot of what they do, even those who have religious or philosophical beliefs don't.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Latest posts

Forum statistics

Threads
1,280,793
Messages
58,318,174
Members
175,998
Latest member
Rosabelot

Share this page

Back
Top