Theological Quandaries 101

[Anatres]

@Sleep; I've been thinking about starting a (strickly) anthro-type post but from the size and, sometimes, vehemence of this one think it would just continue the creationist v. evolutionist debate. Oh well.

As for your propensity to be more comfotable sitting, it has been about 3.5 million years (after the last Leaky discoveries) that Man has been upright. But it's only been about six thousand since we have been spending a larger percentage of our time sitting. Perhaps the tendency toward a realigned spine is happening faster than most evolutionary occurances due to the fact that more of us are here (the size of the population) and most of us spend our entire working, and a large majority of our leisure, time sitting. This could, presumably, contribute to the genes adapting faster.

Just a few thoughts (not intended to insult anyone's conflicting beliefs).

EDIT: Well, I finally posted enough to hit the top of a page!


[ 05-22-2001: Message edited by: Anatres ]

[Mr Sleep]

My dad is a builder so he spends a modicum of his time upright.

Not intending to offend anyone

[Anatres]

Back on topic, maybe.

A question for the creationists (no flame intended)....

Is Man the only sentient being in the Universe? And if not, do all the others hold the same views of creation/diety as you do?

[fable]

@Kayless: Fair enough. Sorry to hear about the loss of your pet/friend; I know how that goes. You have my sympathies.

If babies are born innocent, can we presume they don't require baptism at the early point in life it is administered? When does this innocence cease?

Mr. Sleep writes, in referring to a comment of Kayless:
BTW religions are not about beleif religions are about doctrines set down by the highest Church.

Could we perhaps agree that religions are about the integration of belief and doctrine: systems of belief?

If this is accepted, then what determines the relative success or failure of particular belief systems across time? And what determines the failure of those that vanish, other than violence from a religious majority?

[nael]

as far as baptism goes, that depends heavily even within christian faiths. some see it as a symbolistic ceremony offering the baby to God to cleanse the baby and to show that the family believes in God. soem believe that you can't be baptized till you are old enough to decide for yourself if you want to be baptized. and there are many variations besides these. the differences lie in if you have more faith in God or man. is it soemthing you control, or somethign God controls and you just show your acceptance through ritual. do we have a choice in being saved? or is it somethign gauranteed to us? not all christian faiths have the same views on these matters.

as for sentience, i don't think that is really a religious quandry. God makign us does not exclude that he can make others elsewhere. but on a scientific basis, i doubt there is. the nature of the universe is to simplify, nto to become more complex. think of the trillions and trillions of bacteria here on earth, which can live from freezing dark depths of the ocean to inferno acid pools. the sheer possibility of multicellular organisms evolving is small enough not to include self awareness.

[Kayless]

Originally posted by fable:
<STRONG>If babies are born innocent, can we presume they don't require baptism at the early point in life it is administered? When does this innocence cease?</STRONG>

That’s a tough question. When does the age of accountability start? Prosecutors have this same problem whenever young children commit crimes. When do we assume a child is old enough to actually understand its actions? At six or eight? Perhaps earlier? Perhaps later?

[ 05-22-2001: Message edited by: Kayless ]

[Nightfire]

@fable RE: Pascal's Wager ... You mirror my own rambling opinion.


@Kayless: First off, I'm sorry for the loss of your pet -- I know how hard it can be, and no one should feel ashamed for admitting as much, as some would have us believe. An animal's genuine affection can be even more valuable with society as a whole still putting way too much emphasis on competition, posturing and conformity.

Loss is loss. Personally, I'd sooner question the empathy of someone who disdains grieving over a "mere animal" than of someone who doesn't.

The Nazis were not atheists, though there likely were individual members who were. As a whole, however, they pushed the god button with gusto, and their terrible anti-semitic madness did not come out of nowhere, but sprang partially from old Christian prejudice. Take Martin Luther, who was deeply anti-semitic himself (and a misogynist, too).

(Note, just to be sure, that I do not believe this puts any blame or reflects on you or other Christians.)

You seem to be unfamiliar with the concept of religion itself, since all religions are about belief.

No -- I used to be a theist, Christian first, then Wiccan. In fact, it was arguments like the Wager which prompted me to become a Christian.

And you misunderstood my point: while all religions are about belief (which I never denied, and never will), not all deities decide your fate in the afterlife based (solely or primarily) on your belief in them or the lack thereof ... and this includes some (many? most?) denominations' version of the Christian god.


Maybe we should bring the PW subthread to a stop here, as I do not think it is going anywhere. We both have stated our opinion, and I will not apologize for mine because disagreement, even strong disagreement, does not equal disrespect for you. However, I do not feel obligated to respect or accept ideas, no matter who they originated with. If my stance on the Wager offends you, I again ask you to consider the outsider's POV and the possibility of your arguments and opinions offending them. Such displeasure has to cut both ways or neither.

It might be better to abandon the subject lest we start yelling at each other, and instead focus on less volatile topics we can agree on, like the thread about Sarevok on the BG2 forum.

[fable]

Nightfire writes to Kayless:
Loss is loss. Personally, I'd sooner question the empathy of someone who disdains grieving over a "mere animal" than of someone who doesn't.

That's well said.

The Nazis were not atheists, though there likely were individual members who were. As a whole, however, they pushed the god button with gusto, and their terrible anti-semitic madness did not come out of nowhere, but sprang partially from old Christian prejudice. Take Martin Luther, who was deeply anti-semitic himself (and a misogynist, too).

There's a particular letter that Martin Luther sent to a ruler of a German state, advising him to attack the poor and the Jews if he needed to solve some prevalent inequities in his nation. It was definitely not his brightest moment, but it should not be seen as a prominent influence on his theological descendants.

As much can be said, much earlier, for John Chrysostom, (literally "John the Golden-Tongued"), who was an extremely powerful and influential bishop in the Christian church. His sermons against Jews are rife with poison, bad logic, and bad theology.

That said, there were several Christian priests and ministers in Nazi Germany/Austria who protested the treatment of minorities (not just Jews), and who paid the ultimate physical price for this protest. Unfortunately, the Roman Catholic Church took a cowardly position, and its Pope at the time (who was, I think, beatified recently) took absolutely no stand against the Nazis whatsoever.

I get the impression from your phrasing that you're no longer a Wiccan. Without meaning to be invasive, may I ask why?

[Kayless]

Thanks Nightfire, fable. I’ve been harsh to you guys and I’m sorry. I’m just glad you're so understanding.

“Near this spot are deposited the remains of one who possessed beauty without vanity, strength without insolence, courage without ferocity, and all the virtues of man, without his vices. This praise, which would be unmeaning flattery if inscribed over human ashes, is but a just tribute to the memory of Boatswain, a dog.”
-George Noel Gordon, Lord Byron

“None of life’s relationships are more pure than between a boy and his first dog.”
-Aaron Fraser Pass

Anyone hear what’s going on in Afghanistan lately? I posted the link on the Taliban thread but thought I’d repeated it here. [url="http://dailynews.yahoo.com/h/ap/20010522/ts/afghanistan_hindus.html"]http://dailynews.yahoo.com/h/ap/20010522/ts/afghanistan_hindus.html[/url] It seems the Taliban intend to require Hindus to wear identity labels on their clothing to distinguish them from Muslims. Seems painfully similar to the Nazis making Jews wear the Star of David. Is this the beginning of a repeat in history?

[The Outsider]

@Kayless: thanks, you've just made my day a little darker.

It's truly astounding that, in the era of the United Nations and world-enforced peace, that the Taliban have been allowed to operate for the last 5 years. Oh, wait, I forgot: the UN is flaming useless. Look at how well they handled Rowanda. Genocide was attempted in that country, and the regime basically got away with it. Just as the fundamental fascists in Afghanistan are getting away with it. Brilliant. And, unlike the Spanish Civil War, there's no chance of people from other countries wandering over there as a sort of vigilante army.

<cough>

Excuse me, but Afghanistan's been exasperating me for a while.

[fable]

@Outsider, no excuses needed. I get exasperated over the determined way some people I know claim the only genocide in modern times was committed against the Jews--weren't they aware of the "Fake Famine" of the Ukraine in 1932/3, caused by Stalin, which cost 6 million Ukrainian lives? Or the more recent horrors Rwanda, and Burundi? Or the way Mainland China is forcibly destroying the culture and native people of Tibet?

Afghanistan is another terrible example. The problem with the UN is the problem with all discussion: it only works if all parties intend to treat matters seriously and fairly. Governments, as a rule, IMO, are very serious, but seldom fair.

[Kayless]

Believe it or not some people I’ve met think the Holocaust was a trumped up ‘Jewish Lie’ to instill sympathy for a devious race. Even if I wasn’t part Jewish I’d still be extraordinarily offended by that. It’s amazing how such blind racism can still exist even in ‘civilized countries’. Just goes to show that for all our technology and supposed tolerance we’re only a few steps removed from the very creatures we abhor.

[ 05-22-2001: Message edited by: Kayless ]

[fable]

@Kayless: Believe it or not some people I’ve met think the Holocaust was a trumped up ‘Jewish Lie’ to instill sympathy for a devious race. Even if I wasn’t part Jewish I’d still be extraordinarily offended by that.

I wonder if, in part, this is a reaction to the sheer enormity of the event--just like the pro-Stalinist party in modern Russia, which refuses to accept that their "hero" ever did any of the horrors he's credited with. What they don't seem to realize is that the sheer quantity of killed in no way makes the crime more improbable. Any task, given enough hands, can be seen through to a largely successful conclusion. Hitler was a catylyst, but there were some people who played a careful, supportive, methodical role in carrying out his plans. Any holocaust is a triumph, not of greater evil, but of streamlined project management.

Of course, there are also those who refuse to believe it because of a personal political agenda. Thanks to interference from the American political establishment, Hirohito never had to acknowledge blame for Japan's role or policies in WWII, and Japanese schools still teach a bleanched version of the hell visited by the conquering hordes on China, Korea, and other Asiatic nations and its peoples.

[The Outsider]

@fable: Also, many people don't know (read: aren't told) that the British have a complete genocide to their name. Specifically, they managed to kill off all of the Tasmanian natives, back in the 19th century. The last remaining woman, afraid of being a freak, made a number of strong legal stipulations that her remains not be placed into a museum. Upon her death, guess what? Her bones were placed in a museum.

[nael]

i just finished watching an HBO movie called conspiracy, it is about the meeting where the details of holocaust were decided upon. really creepy.
@kayless, hav eyou really had much exposure to people who make these claims about the holocaust. i have always heard that there are people who say so, but even the neanderthalic white supremicists say it happened. so, who actually says it never happened? please forgive my ignorance, but i am curious

[nael]

ooh, and don't forget the portugese who are responsible for knocking the eastern african countries back to the stone age and decimatign their populations

[fable]

@Nael, I went to college with a young lady who was born and initially educated in the UK. She always smirked when the issue of Hitler's holocaust came up, and claimed that it was 1) never directed at any given group, and 2) severely exaggerated in its numbers. She figured on a million, at most, and that it was the result of battle deaths among the enemy.

Nothing could persuade her otherwise. She was firmly convinced that there was a conspiracy to create both the numbers and the victims.

But perhaps the saddest part of all this is the way this "victim" mindset has become an excuse for a theocratic regime to deny still other people their rights, and try to crowd them out of their homeland through sheer numbers and grants on land.

[Rail]

I am not Jewish by heritage, I have met a person who believes the holocost was either an outright lie or an exaggerration, and such an idea greatly offends me. Greatly! But, then again, those same people are probably the ones claiming the 1960's Apollo moon landings were created on a hollywood stage. I guess that either says something about their whole beliefs or it says I somehow become acquainted with some bizzare people.

On a serious side note, the whole concept of the creation of Israel is a tough one for me. A HUGE injustice was done to the jewish people during WWII. This is an understatement of monstrous proportions. However, it's tough for me to justify doing another injustice to another people in order to lessen the greater wrong. It is done, and should stay as is, IMHO. I wish this could be accomplished through peaceful means, but the longer I live, the more pessimistic I get over the political and social problems in the middle east. I hope my pessimism is greatly misplaced.

[nael]

the majority of my friends are arabic, and as such are highly opposed to the state of Israel. i just don't understand why the United States is so unwilling to stand up to Israel. they have more violations of UN sanctions than any other country in the world. eh, that's WAY off topic though. but one more side note on Israel, they were not given Israel after WWII to make up for atrocities, they launched a viscious campaign of terrorism against Britain to gain the lands.
it is such a volatile region with so many people claiming holy rites to it. fanatics ruin it for everyone, this is true in any religion or belief.

[fable]

@Nael, there's a romantic attachment when you've never been to the country of your ancestors. Many American Jews have this same sentimental feeling towards Israel, though they've never been there, and in fact know absolutely nothing about its government. They might even be extremely upset if they discovered how poorly many Israelis think of their less "holy" American co-religionists.

That explains the heavy American pro-Israeli lobby, which ensures a lot of support for anything Israel does. Politicians, by their nature, like to get reelected. I'm sure there's a fair amount of hypocrisy involved in supporting Israel every single time--but who has the courage to condemn, and suffer loss of office?

Anyway, we're getting off religion. I suppose we should create a spinoff topic.