Theological Quandaries 101

Darkpoet · Post by **Darkpoet** » Fri May 18, 2001 9:29 am

Originally posted by loner72:

Hmmm...well, if God is the source of life (coming from my own POV of the Creator as seperate from the creation), then God Himself(/Herself/Itself) must be deathless. If God is the eternal Creator, there is no end to the act of creation. Therefore the "universe" (not necessarily as we know it) is eternal.

I might be wrong here, but isn't there a theory in science that the universe will eventually end by flying apart, or something?...

They also said that when the planets alined, that we would be dead. Hmmmmm, I'm still here, the earth did not break apart. Too many theories, not enough fact.

Anatres · Post by **Anatres** » Fri May 18, 2001 9:31 am

@loner72; I don't remember the exact postulate but it has something to do with the limits of matter. But that then bring to mind (at least to my mind) the limits of Time. Just how long is eternity?

Anatres · Post by **Anatres** » Fri May 18, 2001 9:35 am

@Vivien; there is nothing wrong with looking at, and accepting, differing points of view. It's more important to allow oneself the opportunity to question (IMO).

hermetic · Post by **hermetic** » Fri May 18, 2001 9:37 am

Re: evolution
In my earlier post on evolution, I wasn't claiming there is no God. If you guys are going to take me seriously at all, believe me when I say that I DO believe in God. God exists in this universe, but not as an entity whose sole purpose is to direct the genetic code of life, much less as a deity responsible for humanity. I guess that's where my beliefs differ from those of the conventionally religious. I feel the need to communicate with God, but not pray. When I take the Lord's name in vain, I do it with just as much ire as any dogmatic slave. Evolution negates the comfort in God that religious people have, the safety blanket. The creationism vs. evolution debate is a waste of time, the science of it all cannot be disputed. The ethics of evolution ought to be the theological quandary.

Anatres · Post by **Anatres** » Fri May 18, 2001 9:51 am

@All; another link.... [url="http://www.deism.com/paine_essay01.htm"]Deism (Thomas Paine)[/url]

This pretty much sums it up for me. (And if you haven't noticed, I'm of the mind that God does not intervene in the affairs of humanity.

hermetic · Post by **hermetic** » Fri May 18, 2001 9:54 am

Aye, Anatres, the clockmaker theory of God. He set the clock going and let it be. I think it's a Swiss idea. Heh

scully1 · Post by **scully1** » Fri May 18, 2001 10:10 am

Originally posted by Darkpoet:
If there was a creator, why would he allow a meteor to hit the earth to cause an ice age?

Part of the plan, man

hermetic · Post by **hermetic** » Fri May 18, 2001 10:29 am

Hey Anatres, shame on you for posting a link to such an enlightening site. I know of a few net goodies myself, but I don't want people to think I sacrifice cats in honour of my deist God. It is rather ironic how deism was intended to be the American religion when the USA were founded. All these years later, the USA is the bastion and granddaddy of dogma in the western world. The best example of deist plans gone awry is the history of the Mormon church. All the evidence points to Joseph Smith having been a mason with a masonic agenda when he founded Mormonism. Today it's just another establishment, made up of Utah's capitalists and nuclear families. The central tenet of modern Mormonism is a far-cry from what Smith and his cronies intended. Today it's a church like any other except with the kooky belief that when one goes to Heaven, he or she will look just like God/Adam/Jesus in appearance. It's an afterlife of conformity taken to the extreme.

Xandax · Post by **Xandax** » Fri May 18, 2001 10:57 am

Originally posted by Mr Sleep:
[url="http://www.drdino.com/FAQs/index.jsp"]http://www.drdino.com/FAQs/index.jsp[/url]

Here is a link to Dr Kent Hovinds FAQ's page.

He can explain a lot better than I.

I've been reading some of the stuff this guy has put on the net - and I must say, as impressed as I was with you people not trying to "condem" us non-belivers, and you respect for our oppionin, this guy is the opposite.

-----

Here are some quotes from this site:
Q:
"What can public school kids and their parents do about evolution being taught in the public school system?"

A:
"Transfer your child from public school to private or home school. Public schools lose funding when enrollment drops"

"Lobby for a law requiring a warning sticker in every book that contains evolution"

"Run for school board or get on your textbook selection committee and demand that books be accurate"

"Inform teachers of their right to teach creation in public school. Many are fooled by the propaganda from groups like the ACLU into thinking they are not allowed to talk about creation when they really are."

"Students:
Earn good grades; behave well; be on time; be respectful.
Pray for your teacher."

------------

To me it seems this guy doesn't want the "evolution theory" though but he would most definatly want the bible thought.

His argument: The evolution theory isen't proven and is not correct in its present form.

My argument: But is the bible?? - It is not proven and is it correct?

Anatres · Post by **Anatres** » Fri May 18, 2001 11:40 am

@hermtic; What me enlightening????
Mea culpa!

Nightfire · Post by **Nightfire** » Fri May 18, 2001 1:20 pm

@Anatres:

@Nightfire; the foxhole quote was to demonstrate that everyone finds faith when times are stressful.

Faith in what? In a deity? No. As I said, you'll find many counter-examples, myself included. Some people find strength in a religious belief, others don't. Some people may become religious under duress, others abandon faith when confronted with the harsher aspects of the world. We're all different, after all.

(And I'll sic Boo on the first smartass to say, "I'm not!".)

Nice reply to EMENIN, BTW.

@Kayless:

Pascal’s Wager isn’t a guide for conversion; it’s a reason to stop being an atheist.

A very weak one that falls apart under even casual scrutiny. For me to become a theist would require two steps: 1) presentation of objective, actual and direct evidence of the existance of a deity, and 2) proof that the deity is worthy of positive attention, based on the ethical tenets it espouses.

Pascal's Wager doesn't offer any of that; in fact, it automatically disqualifies any deity who would resort to such "arguments", due to of the Wager's reliance on nothing more than desperate self-preservation in the face of incomprehensibly brutal consequences.

Again I fail to see how Pascal is pointing a metaphorical flamethrower at your head. He’s not saying ‘join or burn fool!’ he’s saying if you don’t believe you’ve lost everything, which to me at least isn’t the same thing. It’s a warning, not a threat.

It is the same from my POV. I'm not saying that Pascal himself is doing the burning, but he accepts such methods, which IMNSHO is morally reprehensible to say the least. "I'm just the messenger" or "I'm just following orders" is never an excuse for brutality.

Even if there isn’t a hell you’d still be damned unhappy if everyone else was chilling in heaven and you weren’t.

I'll thank you not to tell me what I think, 'tis quite rude, you know.

To wit: No, I wouldn't, because any deity who judges people on the grounds of belief alone would not be worth worshipping. Period.

Let's pretend Pascal is your neighbor. (...)

There is a major difference between your real-world example and PW: my house exist, fire exists, dry vegetation and houses are flammable. No faith is required to know that. I see no reason to betray my own conscience over something that has no such objective proof going for it.

@Xandax:

I belive in (hmmm) that you always should belive in what you feel something towards - and not just because, you might or might not be condemmed at some point in time.

Yes, thank you.

Your post makes perfect sense, and you're correct that it's futile to try and make an atheist bet on something he/she has no reason to believe in in the first place.

(This is too long already, I'll stay out of the evolution sub-thread. This is too long already, I'll stay out of the evolution sub-thread. This is ...)

Craig · Post by **Craig** » Fri May 18, 2001 1:33 pm

My idea is that even if god did create earth and monkys he most probaly did not make humans they evoled

Anatres · Post by **Anatres** » Fri May 18, 2001 3:35 pm

@Nightfire; yes, there are exceptions to every rule. Pardon me for assuming that you were not one of them. The quote, after all, is not mine. Besides, you might only find faith in the other person(s) that share your foxhole. Faith that they will fire their weapon at the appropriate time. Faith that they won't run away because of their lack of faith in you, themselves or their training......

I will also add that you too are making broad assumtions about me. I will still hold to the position that we all, even you, have faith in something. Even if that faith is based entirely in the material rather than the secular.

The Outsider · Post by **The Outsider** » Fri May 18, 2001 4:24 pm

<logs in, notices 4 whole pages of fresh posts>
<blinks>

Okay. Now that the discussion has fallen into the evolution / creationism trap, I'll chip in.

Postulation #1: The universe exists.
We'll have to go with this one. If you're solipsistic, at least assume that you exist.

Postulation #2: The universe was created.
This is where anthropomorphization (making the universe human-shaped) creeps in. "Created" implies agency; we tend to assume human-like agency. Essentially, we want to believe that the universe is ours, made by one of ours, for us. (sound familiar?) This is where you get the "and G-d made man in his own image". The more cynical amongst us will have noticed that there's a good chance of this chain of events occurring the other way around.

Postulation #3: The creator of the universe is benevolent.
Despite the anti-fetish held by the more devout monotheists towards the body and the material world (here, the hindu/buddhist faiths can be slotted in, as well- temporarily), the perception is that the creator of this big ball of gas did so for good purposes. Not, as it tends to seem on a Monday, as a way to jerk us around

.

Postulation #4: Time moves in a linear fashion.
This notion of time as a straight line, from beginning to end, is endemic to the monotheistic traditions. In contrast, Hinduism and several of the North American faiths posit a circular view of time. In this model, there is a cycle for everything. (I know the Biblical types have that "there is a season..." quote / Nana Mouskouri song going through their heads right now.) This includes the universe itself. It was (I am 85% sure) a Hindu mathematician who first set forth the cyclical-state model of the universe (in the terminology of modern mathematics and physics); this has since become one of three universe models.
[see terry pratchett's works- one of them has an encapsulation of these three models; quite hilarious]

Postulation #5: The universe gets more complex as it continues.
This, interestingly enough, seems to be in violation of the laws of thermodynamics; the nature of entropy suggests that everything runs down, like an unwound clock. However, this is where evolution kicks in. Evolution's model is similar to guitar feedback, where the mingling of different sounds produces new sounds. For those of you that are wondering why monkeys aren't "evolving", I'll point out two things: first, there's a giant timescale involved; second, how many men evolve enough to put the seat down during their lives?

Postulation #6: Evolutionary and creationistic models of the universe are at odds.
This has largely been discussed in relation to the United States and Christianity. Very well then. The problem with reconciling the two models is that the hardcore creationists adhere to a literal interpretation of the Bible. In other words, when the big G said 7 days, that means 7 * 24 hours. To the second. Yeah, and he started on a Monday, 4004 BCE (thank you James Ussher). There are many problems with this.
1. The Bible was not written in English. You're looking at ~2500-1700 years of transcriptions, translations, and at least 50 years of a gap between the happenings of JC and his posse, and their being set down in the gospels. One large honking fact (do the research) is that the prophecy in Hosea, used to signify the immanent arival of JC, not only doesn't refer to him, but also makes no mention of a virgin- it's a "young woman" in Aramaic.
2. These translations etc often had local agendas in mind. "Local" means anything short of keeping it exact; altering the wording for the audience. Look at the difference between the gospels. Also, consider that the King James version was created for royal purposes. This is where you get the addition of most of the anti-witch stuff (cross-reference: MacBeth).
3. The composition of the chapters of the bible was done by people who didn't know about all the clever stuff we know today, like the existence of China, and that there are things smaller than mustard seeds.

Literal understanding of the bible is, frankly, illogical by any approach.

------

<gasp>

Longish post. Oops. Incidentally, I recommend the following books on the subject:

Nelkin, Dorothy. _The Creation Controversy: Science or Scripture in the Schools?_. Boston: Beacon Press, 1982.

Spong, John Shelby. _Rescuing the Bible from Fundamentalism: A Bishop Rethinks the Meaning of Scripture_. San Francisco: HarperSanFrancisco, 1991.

Anatres · Post by **Anatres** » Fri May 18, 2001 4:35 pm

@Outsider; excellent post. Watch out though, you have been a bit too humorous and logical

.

scully1 · Post by **scully1** » Fri May 18, 2001 5:45 pm

@The Outsider -- Absolute agreement on literal understanding...and translation frequently obscures more than anything else...

However, if I'm not mistaken, the "anti-witch stuff" was indeed in the most ancient manuscripts of the writings of the Law and the Prophets. That is why in the late middle ages/early Renaissance, before the KJV came along, "witch"-burning was condoned. The practice was based in those biblical precepts.

The Outsider · Post by **The Outsider** » Fri May 18, 2001 8:11 pm

@loner72: What you're thinking of is the Exodus etc material, i.e., : "thou shalt not suffer a witch to live". The original Hebrew word for this is kashaph, which means magician, sorceror, and so on. Magic-user, but not necessarily witch (if you're interested, ping me on this and I'll delineate the differences). King James stressed the translation of this to "witch", which he equivocated to Satanism.

The two hundred years of intense witch burning were from around 1450-1650. This is where you get the Inquisition etc etc. What they were after were magicians; anyone whose spiritual power was other than that of the Church. By applying the "if you're not for us, you're against us" approach, all magicians became Satanists.

The King James Bible cemented and enforced this approach. Sorry if I was unclear.

A good book on the subject (I'll probably do this a lot; it's an academic reflex):

Russel, Jeffrey B. _A History of Witchcraft: Sorcerors, Heretics & Pagans_. London: Thames & Hudson Ltd., 1980.

Kayless · Post by **Kayless** » Sat May 19, 2001 4:13 am

Originally posted by Nightfire:
A very weak one that falls apart under even casual scrutiny. For me to become a theist would require two steps: 1) presentation of objective, actual and direct evidence of the existance of a deity, and 2) proof that the deity is worthy of positive attention, based on the ethical tenets it espouses.
Pascal's Wager doesn't offer any of that; in fact, it automatically disqualifies any deity who would resort to such "arguments", due to of the Wager's reliance on nothing more than desperate self-preservation in the face of incomprehensibly brutal consequences.

Have you ever seen a Giant Squid? Can you confirm the existance of Dark Matter? Yet you probably believe these things exist right? We all choose what to believe in and what not to, and everyone takes at least a few things on faith (if not we’d spend our whole lives searching for confirmation on every minute detail). If Pascal’s Wager were really as thin as some people have suggested then it wouldn’t have maintained for centuries or be taught in High School philosophy classes to this day. Believe it or not many academics have debated this idea and most admit it has its warrants along with its failings. So even if you don’t believe in it, at least show some respect for an interesting philosophical concept. That’s the key reason why many Christians and atheists get angry at each other; a mutual show of disrespect. I’d like to transcend that if possible.

Originally posted by Nightfire:
It is the same from my POV. I'm not saying that Pascal himself is doing the burning, but he accepts such methods, which IMNSHO is morally reprehensible to say the least. "I'm just the messenger" or "I'm just following orders" is never an excuse for brutality.

To me, morally reprehensible acts are categorized with incest, murder, rape, etc, not philosophical disagreements. I’m sorry that you find Pascal’s Wager so incredibly offensive, but I get the feeling that even if Pascal had worded his Wager differently you’d still find reason to attack it. Regardless, it seems your problem is not with the concept of the Wager, but with Christianity's idea of hell.

Originally posted by Nightfire:
I'll thank you not to tell me what I think, 'tis quite rude, you know.

Where I come from my earlier comment would not be a cause for offense. But I don’t know what your personal experiences have been so I will try to be a bit gentler with my words next time as not to inadvertently offend you again.

Originally posted by Nightfire:
To wit: No, I wouldn't, because any deity who judges people on the grounds of belief alone would not be worth worshipping. Period.

You seem to be unfamiliar with the concept of religion itself, since all religions are about belief. That’s precisely what defines them. So your assertion that ‘any deity who judges people on the grounds of belief alone would not be worth worshipping’ is an oxymoron. With this viewpoint I can understand why you’d be an atheist.

Originally posted by Nightfire:
There is a major difference between your real-world example and PW: my house exist, fire exists, dry vegetation and houses are flammable. No faith is required to know that. I see no reason to betray my own conscience over something that has no such objective proof going for it.

I was trying to let you see things from Pascal’s angle in a conjectural thesis. Moreover, as I mentioned above there are many things we take on faith. Can you prove to me that man really did land on the moon? How do you know it wasn’t some big farce? It's all a matter of personal belief.

I can’t make you consider the viewpoints of other people as equally valid, all I can do ask that you try to see things from another perspective and try to show respect for concepts other than your own.

[ 05-19-2001: Message edited by: Kayless ]

Vehemence · Post by **Vehemence** » Sat May 19, 2001 5:05 am

The idea of God being merciful is rather intrinsic to Christian belief. This concept of kind and loving God has been around for quite a while. So I fail to understand why you say I am exaggerating God’s mercy quotient when it’s been the basis of Christian teachings since the time of Jesus himself (so it's a hardly a recently developed idea). If you feel I’ve been overly astringent or dishonest in my proclamations then I apologize for not elucidating my point better. But my message remains constant. Here are some scriptures showing God to be a nice guy, in case you still feel I’ve been fabricating the idea, or that it was something made up in the 1960s

Sorry Kayless, didn't mean to suggest that you had exagerated it by yourself, merely pointing out that it is possible for over an extended period of time, that such a thing could occur. Chineese wispers ring a bell

Sorry if this seems to be putting your faith down, but your rational attitude towards your faith is a rarety in what I've seen. I know what people are capable of. They protect their beliefs so stongly that extending certain elements is not uncommon. If you want proof of that, please consult any decent psychology book. They all say that.

This paragraph is similar to the one in your earlier post where you refer to Christian beliefs as ‘garbage’. We’re all entitled to our own values, but making condescending remarks about someone else’s belief system, strikes me as the wrong approach. Besides, I thought I had made a reasonable point that faith could provide more self-reliance for a person, not less. Comparing a believer in God to a ‘homeless person’ or a 'child with a teddy bear' who hasn’t grown out of believing seems a bit inappropriate. Regardless of my own views I respect your beliefs Vehemence, is it so much to ask that it be reciprocated?

I don't mean to come off being condescending, but I can see how it could be interpreted this way. You made a good point before about how faith could increase self-reliance, but It wasn't enough to convince me. Which is ok, because I'm not really in a position of wanting to be convinced. My position is one of clarification. That's all.

You've got a good arguement, Kayless, if I've gone a little far, I'm sorry. Honestly, I do respect your beliefs and I apologise if I don't show this.

Kayless · Post by **Kayless** » Sat May 19, 2001 5:26 am

It’s all right Vehemence I’m not offended. Sometimes I feel like I’m waging a battle on two fronts. For every step of progress I think I make there’s some self-righteous religious fanatic around the corner to destroy what little I’ve accomplished. Mutual acceptance is hard to achieve when you got people on your own 'side' that don’t want help. Some folks don’t understand that if you want your beliefs to be respected you have to respect the beliefs of others as well. *Sigh* Just got to keep fighting the good fight, and all that.