Religulous

[Coren]

Originally Posted by Xakk

This is a really piss poor analogy. What is god's cosmic police?

It's a decent analogy, you just misunderstood it.

I simply used "police" as a demonstration of there being an example of a reason not to go and blow the creep away. Likewise there are outside reasons for God to not instantly eradicate everything that is evil; such as sticking to his own word and such.

[Xakk]

Originally Posted by Sharmai

Aww comon you know that doesn't work either. By definition God is supernatural. So OF COURSE he is reason and logic. And at the same time not reason and logic. God is not within the bounds of our laws and is also within the bounds of our laws. He is supernatural. It does not make sense because god sense requires a definement of boundaries. Since god is not within any boundaries we can understand then he can be both inside and outside of them all. He can make 2 + 2 =5. He can make a rock so heavy he can't lift it and yet still lift it himself.

The supernatural (Latin: super- "above" + nature) refers to entities, forces or phenomena which are not subject to natural laws, and therefore beyond verifiable measurement. ...
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Supernatural

He is everything and he is nothing. This is bullshit since it ends all debate/argument. Every question is answered with "Because he can".

[UnchainedAcolyte]

Originally Posted by Coren

It's a decent analogy, you just misunderstood it.

I simply used "police" as a demonstration of there being an example of a reason not to go and blow the creep away. Likewise there are outside reasons for God to not instantly eradicate everything that is evil; such as sticking to his own word and such.

Outside reasons?

Following your analogy though if we're faithful to the nature and position of God in the universe (all-knowing, all-powerful), God created that creep, knowing he would be a creep given his personal make up and circumstances surrounding him, still allowed him to be created and to unleash his creep-ness upon others, possibly innocents. It would be like the police unleashing a known criminal on the public, then subsequently apprehending him/her and charging them for crimes committed that the police knew the criminal would commit beforehand.

That's where the problem lies, especially in the realm of discussions of the existence of evil.

Anywho, as others have stated, if the film helps to encourage dialogue regarding religion, it would be fantastic, but I'm not quite that optimistic myself.

[voodoochile78]

Bill Mahr would be disgusted with all of you atheists if he saw you actually engaging in these kinds of arguments.

[Simas]

Originally Posted by Pinchandroll

In fact, that irreconcilable 3 part argument is essentially asking "Why didn't God make a perfect world filled with perfect people?" That can be asked many ways: Why do people grow old and die? Why are some people more athletic or better looking or smarter than others? Why create AIDS and malaria and why allow people to get painful hangnails? I think free will and diversity and imperfections are all indications of a good, benevolent God because they indicate (to me) that for all our shortcomings, we can all achieve eternal happiness by simply believing.

In short, I think the ultimate act of goodness is offering the gift of eternal life, not making everyone and everything perfect.


***I realize this might sound like religious debate, but I hope it can just be a discussion. It would be great to have a talk without people becoming rude, inflammatory, or mocking. Given the topic of the thread, however, I realize where this is headed...***

Granting that evil is nec. for the existence of good (which is problematic, if all evil dissappeared tomorrow would donating to charity somehow become not good, most people dont look at abstaining from charitable donations as evil, its morally acceptable to not give to charities) it does not follow that we need as much evil in the world as we have.

I can easily imagine the exact same universe we have today but sans Holocaust. That universe would still teach the difference of good and evil, still allow for Man to be tested, and still allow for free will.

If God is all knowing he knows our choices free will or not, so when he cast the die or made the watch he knew our free will would lead to the Holocaust.

In God's infinite wisdom and power he could have cast the die differently, allowing for free will but less evil.

I guess one could say God cant know how we will use our free will and still somehow claim hes Omnipitent but how many exceptions need there be until all powerful is just powerful.

The question isnt why didnt God make a perfect world with perfect people, he did, Heaven, the question is why didnt God make a better Earth with better people.

[Gryeyes]

Originally Posted by Simas

Granting that evil is nec. for the existence of good (which is problematic, if all evil dissappeared tomorrow would donating to charity somehow become not good

One can have a moral code not based on duality you know.

[Gryeyes]

Originally Posted by Coren

Umm, yes it is.

And my use of the word "Lucifer" is just preferable to trying to type out the Hebrew. It's become a popular, common name for Satan despite not coming into existance until long after Isaiah was written.

Yes im sure you are very knowledgeable of hebrew to know the distinction. The way you use the term "satan" and the assumptions you make on what "satan" is. Is extremely misinformed. When you want to understand the context of a word. You study the religion and culture that spawned the material. Protip: Its not Christianity.

[Surlok TP]

Is Coren our new Khorum? Where the fuck is he anyway?


Anyway, Coren.

What was there before God? Who created him? Who created the entity that created God? Who created the area that existed before God's universe? Who created the area that existed before that area,and so on and so forth?


If you want to have a discussion about religion and why you aren't just believing in an imaginary friend for grown ups,then lets start at the beginning shall we?
Keep in mind that there is no such thing as nothing.

[SalaciousTunare]

Originally Posted by Gryeyes

One can have a moral code not based on duality you know.

And how do you achieve such a feat, when there is no duality. (right and wrong)

This is honestly what I think the point of existence is, it isn't Jesus or Mohammed. It is light and dark, right and wrong, good and evil.

The entire nature of the universe is even dictated by such dualities, all the way down to particles of positive and negative.

[Surlok TP]

People can have no morals what so ever and simply avoid doing bad things because they don't want to spend the rest of their lives in prison.

Just because they avoid the interference of Social law doesn't mean they are all of a sudden morally right people, it just means they are looking out for their own best interests. There are a lot of things I won't do not because I think they are bad or evil or anything but because I don't want to spend my time in jail so I don't do it.


There is no such thing as right or wrong. Humans have morals because thye are taught that if they do this or that there will be consequences.

Religious people are not morally superior to people who are not, their morals exist because they want to be in god's good graces or whatever, not because they think it's right or wrong, they are never given the opportunity to make that distinction,someone else does it for them.

[Pinchandroll]

Granting that evil is nec. for the existence of good (which is problematic, if all evil dissappeared tomorrow would donating to charity somehow become not good, most people dont look at abstaining from charitable donations as evil, its morally acceptable to not give to charities)
it does not follow that we need as much evil in the world as we have.

I can easily imagine the exact same universe we have today but sans Holocaust. That universe would still teach the difference of good and evil, still allow for Man to be tested, and still allow for free will.

If God is all knowing he knows our choices free will or not, so when he cast the die or made the watch he knew our free will would lead to the Holocaust.

God definitely has the power to end poverty and misfortune, and eliminate the need for charity... so why doesn't he? You could even argue that a rich person refusing to give to charity is analogous to God 'refusing' to eliminate poverty in the first place? According to that logic, God would be evil, or at least 'not good,' right?

In God's infinite wisdom and power he could have cast the die differently, allowing for free will but less evil.

I guess one could say God cant know how we will use our free will and still somehow claim hes Omnipitent but how many exceptions need there be until all powerful is just powerful.

The question isnt why didnt God make a perfect world with perfect people, he did, Heaven, the question is why didnt God make a better Earth with better people

The logical continuation of this argument would be this: if God is infinitely wise and powerful and knowledgable, why isn't He able to create a perfect world that still has free will? I mentioned that in my first post, when I pointed out that not only is there evil in the world, there is sickness, inequality, and little annoying things that we could do without.

However, it is important to note that God did not create us to be perfect beings - we are imperfect beings with the choice to live as righteously as we can on Earth so we can live eternally in Heaven. Because we are imperfect beings, we end up with sickness, inequality, minor annoyances, and stuff like the Holocaust. God isn't going to selectively take away the 'worst' things and leave us with a world that is 'pretty good,' nor is He going to take away all the bad things and leave us with a perfect world.

I guess one could say God cant know how we will use our free will and still somehow claim hes Omnipitent but how many exceptions need there be until all powerful is just powerful.

The question isnt why didnt God make a perfect world with perfect people, he did, Heaven, the question is why didnt God make a better Earth with better people.

I suppose there are a number of Christian explanations for the existence of evil in this world:

-maybe there is an underlying purpose to all evil that allows for good to occur. By this I mean, God uses the presence of evil to do good. For example, Romans 5:3-5 says: "3 More than that, we rejoice in our sufferings, knowing that suffering produces endurance, 4 and endurance produces character, and character produces hope, 5 and hope does not put us to shame, because God's love has been poured into our hearts through the Holy Spirit who has been given to us." Basically, enduring evil makes our faith stronger. Another example would be the story of Joseph, in Genesis. He's sold into slavery by his brothers and taken to Egypt, but eventually becomes consult to the king and saves thousands of lives, and ends up forgiving his brothers, saying "You meant it for evil, but God meant it for good." (Gen 50:15-21).

-Another possibility, which is what I tend to believe, is what I explained above: evil is tied to free will. Most people would be happy if God stopped all murder, right? But why would He stop there? Shouldn't he also stop smaller things too? In fact, because a sin is a sin whether you're just thinking it or following through with it, why doesn't He prevent us from having sinful thoughts? This is where you encounter the issue of free will. Remember, according to scripture there was no sin in man's heart until they disobeyed God and ate the forbidden fruit. So, evil will occur whether we like it or not, and God allows this to happen because He is allowing us to choose how we live. Of course, according to my beliefs you're going to have to face the consequences when it's your turn to be judged, so there is a compelling argument to live a 'good' life.

-Another possibility is that we simply can't grasp the reason evil exists because it is beyond the scope of human understanding. During religious debates, this argument is often a big point of contention because critics will claim it's a cop-out argument with no supporting logic. I would argue that it's perfectly logical: we cannot apply limited, imperfect human logic to a limitless, perfect omnipotent God. In a Christian context, why would we even try to apply rules to an all-powerful being? It would be ludicrous to even assume we can somehow write down a set of rules or laws to govern God's behavior, so all we know about God's behavior is what we believe according to the Bible. The Bible tells us what he IS, but it never mentions his limits, so it would be foolish to apply limits based on our limited knowledge and experience on Earth.

[Deris]

I enjoy bringing up all the books of the bible that were removed pre and post Council of the Nicaea.

How someone can arbitrarily decide to "edit" the WORD of GOD is beyond my understanding - this is why I can never ever listen to a Christian as an intelligent person, because based on this logic, their entire religion is a lie and flawed, since they've cut out dozens of books out of their "Holy Scripture" which apparently can be edited, redacted/retracted and reinterpreted as the "Living" word of GOD !!111111

This is why the Torah and the Qu'ran are superior. They don't change, and never have. (Yeah Hadiths get changed/redacted/retracted, but thats another story.)

[Galgor]

I thought the Council of Trent was the council that established the biblical cannon?


P.S. Isaiah 45:7 KJV, "I form the light, and create darkness: I make peace, and create evil: I the LORD do all these things."

[Pinchandroll]

I enjoy bringing up all the books of the bible that were removed pre and post Council of the Nicaea.

How someone can arbitrarily decide to "edit" the WORD of GOD is beyond my understanding - this is why I can never ever listen to a Christian as an intelligent person, because based on this logic, their entire religion is a lie and flawed, since they've cut out dozens of books out of their "Holy Scripture" which apparently can be edited, redacted/retracted and reinterpreted as the "Living" word of GOD !!111111

I think you are misinformed. Can you give any evidence of these "dozens" of books" that were cut out of the Bible after the Council of Nicaea? Or, are you just saying there are dozens of books that have been removed since the Bible as we know it was compiled? Either way, you are wrong.

Can you find any evidence supporting your claim that the Bible has undergone so much change that "their entire religion is a lie and flawed"? Any documents deemed "not scripture" were never even accepted by Christianity to begin with, so how can you say they were removed?

The council of Nicaea's main action was to sanction the idea of God as the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, not three separate entities. In fact, the Nicene Creed is still in use today, with the only change occurring in during the second council of Nicaea, where the wording was modified to state the faith more clearly. The only writings that were discarded in this council were ones claiming God was three distinct beings, which was NEVER accepted by the Christian church in the first place. Google "Arius" for more info. Additionally, the link below addresses the claim that the Council of Nicaea messed with the bible and debunks it fairly thoroughly:

The Council of Nicaea (Nicea) and the Bible

If you are referring to the Apocrypha, which are the books added to the scripture by the Roman Catholic church after the Reformation, then you should know that they do not contradict existing scripture. The main points of contention about these books were that they contained some concepts that had no other biblical evidence supporting them, and they had some historical inconsistencies. This is why these books were never adopted by Orthodox or Protestant faiths. However, the doctrine of the Catholic church remained unchanged after adding these books, so again I fail to see how you can claim this makes "their entire religion a lie."

If you are referring to Pseudepigraphal and Deuterocanonical books, you should know that they were never considered scripture and they were never considered part of the Bible. The original Christian Church never supported them because they were written by apostles or by prophets and were never considered to be inspired by God. So, no 'editing' was done in terms of these books because they were never considered part of the Bible in the first place.

If you are referring to any other books, please enlighten me because the ones above are the major arguments commonly used against the legitimacy of written scripture.

The purpose of all the ecumenical councils were to reach a concensus on any ambiguities or to present a unified decision on very specific matters. The religion as a whole was constant: no individual can "arbitrarily decide to 'edit' the word of God" like you say. These councils were called to provide a unified means to practice Christianity - no components of the core Christian beliefs were ever edited, redacted, or added. I think it is a little unfair to say you can " never ever listen to a Christian as an intelligent person" when you are relying on false history to support your position. If you can offer some legitimate support for your claims it would make your argument stronger, but the majority of my post is straight historical fact.

[Surlok TP]

Originally Posted by Pinchandroll

straight historical fact.

It's only a fact if you believe in god,since it all relies on that one book being written by him, which means your argument doesn't have any value what so ever to one that doesn't believe that book is any different than any of those other books in that they were all written by regular men.