Originally Posted by
Theta
Originally Posted by bilbo07
If the bible says dont judge your neighbor, why are religious people some of the most judgemental people?
I agree with you entirely on this one. I've got a lot of problems of my own with institutionalized religion. The way the church runs is largely contrary to a lot that the religion preaches. I dont like the fact that somebody like the pope can deem things as right and wrong - I believe that Benedict condemned African Aid workers for handing out condoms in South Africa and said that they should stop doing it immediately and, instead, teach the Africans about the concept of abstinence... I've gone to Christian schools and non-christian schools, and the segregation at the Christian ones is nuts. Teachers, principals, students are all discriminating against atheists/agnostics.
My interpretation of why is that when youre told constantly how right/good you are and how you know the truth while everybody else becomes classified as "sinners". Youre told that youre going to heaven, they get sent to hell for all of eternity with the killers and rapists, I mean, how DONT you become judgmental? It frequently says that the only one to judge is God. Its kind of sad really.
Originally Posted by spincv
Can i go to iraq even if i am catholic. I.e thou shalt not kill.
I think so. The Bible makes a clear distinction between killing and murder and different passages elaborate on the differences in more detail. It has to do with malicious intent and attacking the innocent. I know that throughout the Bible, God tells a lot of different people that they have to go to war for diff. reasons. I know it says "Thou shalt not KILL" and not Thou shalt not murder, but the fact that its been translated so many times could reasonably explain a difference so small. The same can be said for policemen and killing in self defense; clearly it can be justified in some cases.
Originally Posted by
LakersNation
Originally Posted by
JFMartiMcDandruff
Originally Posted by Yen2dro3
If you lived in a third world country and live a sinless life but never heard of god or "Jesus" you go to hell?
NO religious person, no matter how religious they are, can tell you if someone goes to heaven or hell. Thats for God to decide. God is merciful but is also just, so maybe that person will go to heaven maybe they'll go to hell thats not for us to decide.
BTW, no human(Jesus excluded) can ever live a completely sinless life because everyone is born with original sin thanks to Adam & Eve....
For real man, people came in here asking me what heaven and hell are like and what will send who to where. Like, I think im pretty clever, but I'm not God lol. I dont know a lot of these things and I think when people come looking for ANSWERS instead of Justifications/Arguments, theyre going to be disappointed.
Originally Posted by
ZeroGravity23
^ appreciate my dude. i have more questions.
if a fertilized egg has a soul, what happens if that egg splits in two to form identical twins? does each twin have half a soul? or did the original fertilized egg have two souls?
what about when the opposite happens, when two fertilized eggs fuse to form one human being, creating what is known as a chimera - a single human with two sets of dna? does that person have two souls? or did each original fertilized egg have only half a soul?
I'd say that with the soul thing, when the egg splits a new soul is created. This isnt unreasonable since a soul was created out of nothing when egg/sperm combined so thats would be my conclusion (continuing on from your assumptions that (1) souls exist, (2) fertilized eggs have souls).
With regards to chimera, I didnt know that people could have it. But considering what you have been saying, it looks like youre under the impression that eggs have souls and they are additive and divisible. My understanding was that souls are made upon the creation of an individual person - so one per person or consciousness or w/e. After thinking about siamese twins, I'd say two separate souls even though they have the same body (and same dna im assuming?) given that they have two independent sets of consciousness.
Originally Posted by
Adrian1221
Theta, there was a time i didn't like you, but man im giving you props for this one
Thanks man. Lol but why didnt you like me?
Originally Posted by torgriffith
ya'll are too emotional about the situation to even understand God. Period. God is beyond your comprehension of human emotion and feelings. Until ya'll become objective and clearly debate the question, ya'll are gonna continue to have threads that fall off the track with all these sensational appeals. These types of arguments brought laughter to Jesus. God's will is God's will. Just because that answer is not complex enough for your intellectual egoism does not mean it is wrong. It is simply you rejecting an evident truth. Alpha and Omega is the beginning and the end, Life and Death. Creation and Destruction. If you accept this, and still get upset over God allowing innocent babies to physically die then you need some reading comprehension my dude. The main thing the Bible emphasizes is the incorruptible holy spirit that resides in these temporary temples called bodies that people believe is all to existence. Those that believe in them self like that are foolish and disregard the role in their life. That's the true hypocrisy.
Dude, I cant agree with you on this one. About 90% of the questions and criticisms in this thread have been legitimate and deserving of a proper answer. I mean, I dont know what sports Jesus played as a kid or what color his jewfro was, but some people have really solid points. In terms of the thread falling off track, I honestly think the only time it has was when you posted. For some reason that really got to people and it was like a page of people attacking you personally while you did the same. A concept like divine will deserves an explanation beyond it is what it is. Most of the people here arent foolish, theyre agnostic and want a reasonable answer - hence the creation of this thread. Its understandable that somebody wont just accept a concept like Jesus because you tell them to in the same way that you wont accept Atheism because they tell you to. And honestly, how are you gonna be so emotional and hateful in your posts while calling THEM emotional and hypocrites... You claim to be part of a relgion thats not suppossed to judge, so stop doing it man and answer the quetions logically. It might take you a while to think of the answer, but w/e its better than saying the first thing that comes to mind (ie. it is what it is).
I dont mean to be harsh and it looks like your intentions are good but you have to consider that how you go about it can ultimately determine if its effective or if youre being counterproductive. Nothing personal.
Originally Posted by Magik ink 23
I don't know... it seems to me that the title of "logical religious person" is an oxymoron (as touched on earlier). You say you believe in the Big Bang but maybe "God" was the cause, but that's just illogical. The LOGICAL answer is (and always has been) we just don't know how it happened (yet). What I don't get is why can't people just be comfortable in the fact that they don't know? Isn't THAT the logical answer at this point in time? Isn't choosing your religion over the many others illogical? Isn't choosing a religion at all illogical? Perhaps you are as logical as you possibly can be as a Christian? If everyone just went with the logical truth as we currently know it (which is that we really don't know), and devoted the time and effort to help find the truth (instead of a default, blind leap of faith) we could be that much closer to actually figuring it out. Just totally illogical to me... you agree with science to a point that the Big Bang happened, at which point you have to have an answer, and that answer is Christianity's God.
On a side note: Why does it HAVE to be "God" in a sense that most religions portray him? That's illogical! If there HAS to be a "God", or better yet, if everyone absoluetly HAS to believe in something, why can't it be something that we know actually exists and provides? If we have to have some sort of faith or "pray" to something to wouldn't it be more logical if that thing IS the Big Bang, or the sun, or the Earth, or ourselves? (You know, something that does not appear to be the actual orchestrator of ALL creation, but is an actual thing and provides us with life). Just to be clear I'm not saying "paganism" is the way to go, or anything like it. I'm not convinced we actually have a need to pray or believe in something bigger, but for those of you that do, I ask why can't it be toward something we actually know exists and is actually proven to be a great deal responsible for our creation (isn't that God?). Logic is my exact problem with religion.
The fact that I said that it MIGHT be God doesnt make it illogical. The logical term for what is did is called abductive reasoning or "inference to the best explanation". It means that if you dont have a better answer, it is logically acceptable to accept the next best answer as being valid. Think about it this way - say youre lost in the woods and you honestly have NO idea how to get out. Youre friend says - hey man, I think its this way (points in a random direction). You say: NO WAY MAN, YOURE BEING ILLOGICAL. THE ONLY LOGICAL ANSWER IS THAT WE DONT KNOW WHICH WAY TO GO. Well... kind of. I mean, yeah we dont KNOW and nobody here is saying that there is no way we can be wrong, but to say that im illogical using abductive reasoning? Its basically the cornerstone of decision theory.
Saying that I'm as logical as I can possibly be as a Christian (and thus implying that Id be more logical if I wasnt) does two things. 1) Ironically, you commit a logical fallacy called the Ad Hominem fallacy. Its when you criticize an individual on self merit rather than on the ideas at hand. Wiki it if you want. 2) Funny enough, I wasnt always a Christian. For like 5 years I was a hardcore atheist, arguing just as militantly as I do no for the atheistic side. After considering every element thoroughly, I came to accept this ideology independently.
You say that we shouldnt have our beliefs in a God given that we do not have irrefutable proof and dedicate our time and collective efforts to finding the truth. Are you serious man? You think if everybody just got together and wanted to solve the Problem of God and just find out if God is real or not, they could do it..? And you call me illogical.
Another thing that you arent fully grasping is the notion that many people have irrefutable proof. Many people claim to have had God speak to them through prayer or another way and have felt God's presence. To them, they have all the proof that they'll ever need. Simply because its indemonstrable, you cant claim that it doesnt exist and anybody that says that this has happened to them is a liar? Once again, assuming that people dont know what they feel (so knowledge by introspection) is inductively illogical. This is because all day, every day, people have emotions, thoughts, feelings, etc and they, for the most part, understand and interpret them correctly. So the logical reasoning if you reject the claim by others that they have felt God would be assuming that they can correctly understand their thoughts and emotions all the time, EXCEPT for when it comes to God. Again, I'm not saying that theyre all right or even if some of them are, but the point is that it is neither unreasonable nor illogical to conclude that some of them may be correct.
Originally Posted by
blackxme
Originally Posted by
Theta
Originally Posted by
blackxme
Originally Posted by
Theta
Originally Posted by blackxme
Well first I'd like to ask what compels you to believe in a diety? You stated that you've looked at all the arguments and counter arguments but
what specifically brought to the point where you said I'm going to be a Christian?
And kudos to you for making this thread.
Alright so two things compel me to believe in a deity: causation and creation. First, I operate on the premise that every action has to have a cause. From this we start going back in history and time. We go back hundreds, thousands, millions of years retracing evolution (which I believe in.. lol) and we get to the creation. The scientific explanation is the big bang theory - the notion that the universe was a hot dense mass that expanded (and continute to expand). I was unsatisfied with this based on the simple question of "Where did this dense mass or atom or w/e come from?" Answer: "Well it was just there...". Ok, well based on the premise of causation that im operating on, this doesnt fly. The creationist explanation of a divine being (who, by nature, doesnt need a cause and exists on its own accord) seemed just as, if not more plausable. In fact, accepting the big bang theory as the sole explanation of the universe's origin requires just as much faith as the creationist argument. The leap of faith here would lie with the fact that you assume this mysterious ball of mass just exists and always had existed and no further questioning. Logically, when deciding between these two aspects, I moved towards the existence of a deity since it addressed the causal issue (since, it needs no cause) and the origin issue (in my opinion, equal to or better than the big bang theory).
On a sidenote, I, in no way, reject the big bang theory. I believe that they actually compliment each other. That the "Let there be light" could have easily been the big bang itself.
First off you say you believe in the big bang, ok, and you also believe in evolution, fine. But these two very ideas go completely against what is said within the bible. I mean according to the bible the Earth isn't billions of years old. And we certainly aren't descendants of apes, so being the rational person that you are, you can see why it's hard for a logical person to believe things within the bible.
And it's funny that you say that we as atheists assume that this hot dense point has always existed when in fact we don't. Physicists certainly don't believe that, in fact they've never said such a thing. There is undeniable proof that long ago a huge expansion happened giving birth to our universe, but even I know that we don't have the whole story when it comes to the big bang. We know that it happened but we don't know why or what was before the big bang. It is a very tough question to answer I'll admit but it isn't out of the realm of possibility that we may one day know what exactly caused the big bang. Physicists are working hard at answering this very same question, and I commend them for trying because it isn't an easy task.
But as someone who believes in God, you believe that this being has always exists. If there is a God he must be extremely complex, but how can such a complex being come out of nowhere? Does not seem plausible to you?
I've used this quote once on NT and I'll use it again because the great Richard Dawkins puts it better than I could.
[Quote removed to save space]
Alright then, first off, I apologize if I misrepresented the standard physist's understanding of the big bang theory - It was by no means intentional. The Dawkins quote you brought up is very good, very interesting - especially the first half of it. It does have its drawbacks, however. Basically the major tenet of the passage is that due to God's inconceivably complex nature, its more plausible that something simpler (ie matter) existed on its own accord rather than he.
if the alternative to that is a divine intelligence, a creator which would have to have been complicated, statistically improbable
What Darwinism does is to raise our consciousness to the power of science to explain the existence of complex things and intelligences, and creative intelligences are above all complex things, they’re statistically improbable.
