Christianity &c

[Guest godthedog]

i think he was saying that the existence of a higher power doesn't automatically imply the existence of the soul or an afterlife.

[Guest Cancer Marney]

And the idea of an original mover has been thoroughly discredited in philosophical, theological, and scientific terms, not to mention the extremely silly argument that a given result must have a like cause.

[Guest Jobber of the Week]

What do you have against liberals?

What do you have against fundamentalists?

 

Your question has been solved.

[Guest EL BRUJ0]

Fucking hell, sign me up to the "this thread is Gh3y" line of thinking.  Its hyper-quadro-spazzmodic ghey.

THE HAMBURGLAR!

*would mark out even more if he changed his name to Teh Burglar of Ham*

 

I've come to the stunning conclusion that religious arguments are both horrificially boring and also as painful as being skullfucked by a man with a molten-hot, lava-jizz dripping razor sharp penis.  All the cock-gobbling only enhances the effect to levels of outstanding twattery.

Hey, now! There are people out there who can only get off to a sexual skull thumping session involving a thorn-headed prick. I've been told that lava loin lubricant makes for a most potent aphrodisiac. So don't knock it 'till you tried it.

[Guest godthedog]

And the idea of an original mover has been thoroughly discredited in philosophical, theological, and scientific terms, not to mention the extremely silly argument that a given result must have a like cause.

well, the real question is not, "how did the first thing exist?" the real question is, "why does anything exist at all?"

 

i'm not sure what that has to do with anything, i just wanted to say it.

[Guest JMA]

What do you have against fundamentalists?

They're intolerant and want to set up laws based on religion.

[Your Paragon of Virtue 0]

And the idea of an original mover has been thoroughly discredited in philosophical, theological, and scientific terms, not to mention the extremely silly argument that a given result must have a like cause.

Can't the idea of there being no God be just as easily discredited? It just seems to me personally that there seems to be more of a chance of God existing than for no God to exist at all, so that's what I believe, in addition to Jesus Christ and what my feelings are on that. Until it's actually proven that there is no God, I will stick with the argument of there being a higher power. I'm also waiting for Marney to respond to my last post

 

As for GTD, I don't think anyone can find out the reason as to why any of us exist at all.

[Guest Big Poppa Popick]

Read Kiekergard, or those like him

 

The idea of a "god" has not been thoroughly discredited

 

Both sides are at an impasse, neither can prove the other right or wrong

 

It's a matter of faith, in something or in nothing

 

Take your pick

[Guest godthedog]

Read Kiekergard, or those like him

 

The idea of a "god" has not been thoroughly discredited

 

Both sides are at an impasse, neither can prove the other right or wrong

 

It's a matter of faith, in something or in nothing

 

Take your pick

that's not what dangerous k said. that's more akin to william james, and his "will to believe" and all that good stuff.

 

As for GTD, I don't think anyone can find out the reason as to why any of us exist at all.

the question speaks more to the *cause* of us all than the *reason*.

[Your Paragon of Virtue 0]

Oh, my bad, I thought you were going for a meaning of life thing. I pretty much agree with Popick in the sense that you take your pick, and I've made mine. I think it's impossible to prove either case. Even if science is constantly evolving, I still believe that this will never be solved and that people will be forced to leave their decision up to faith. After all, I doubt science will ever prove that there IS a God.

[rising up out of the back seat-nuh 0]

And the idea of an original mover has been thoroughly discredited in philosophical, theological, and scientific terms, not to mention the extremely silly argument that a given result must have a like cause.

Discredited but not disproved.

 

And having come out of 4 years of a biology degree, I can safely state that much less is known than is assumed to be known.

[Guest RavishingRickRudo]

You know, by the standards of "true" Christians, only 1% of the overall world population are followers of christ.

 

I just don't buy that. You don't have to take responsibility for the actions of other followers under your faith, but dammit, your faith should take a blow. There should be something said about the divinity of the bible when so many of its readers get it "wrong".

[Guest RavishingRickRudo]

Did I say 1%? I mean 0.00002%

[LaParkaYourCar 0]

You know, by the standards of "true" Christians, only 1% of the overall world population are followers of christ.

 

I just don't buy that. You don't have to take responsibility for the actions of other followers under your faith, but dammit, your faith should take a blow. There should be something said about the divinity of the bible when so many of its readers get it "wrong".

Usually when people get it "wrong" it's not a problem with the Bible, but more people just not wanting to follow what they read because it's "unpopular" so they make up elaborate excuses to explain why they don't have to do it. Or why it doesn't apply.

 

Well no one ever said that what we do as Christians was always going to be "popular". If we only do the popular thing we'll end up not doing half the stuff we're asked to do.

[Guest RavishingRickRudo]

But the bible is "supposed to be" the word of God. It's supposed to have a divine nature. It's supposed to 'capture' people with its words (or so I have heard from various Alcoholics) and enchant them. Why doesn't this work with those 99.999998 other people in the world?? Why are only a select few "true" christians??? What about all those other people who think _they_ are true christians??? How do you know you are right and they are wrong? Why? People _all the time_ say "god works through his missionaries, blah blah blah, god is great" yet NEVER take responsibility for those who work in gods name who do harm as if God can only do good (the same god who believes in Genocide coughNoahsarkcough). These "true" christians are trying to have it both ways and that's bullshit. Take the good with the bad for crying out loud and don't just say "well, he's not with us", "he's not a true christian", "he doesn't represent the whole". Hell, if one of those missionaries that gets praised for helping out sick kids in africa, or whatever, is found to have commited a crime RIGHT AWAY "true christians" would separate themselves from him/her dispite being chummy with them before.

[Guest SP-1]

English translations can be imperfect. Whcih is why Pastors are brought up in the original Greek, Hebrew, and Aramaic texts, and given historic perspective to add to their understanding.

 

The Bible's words themselves are not responsible for the stirring of the heart. The Holy Spirit illuminates scripture, and that's God's doing.

[Guest Spicy McHaggis]

And the idea of an original mover has been thoroughly discredited in philosophical, theological, and scientific terms, not to mention the extremely silly argument that a given result must have a like cause.

Evidence, please.

[Guest JaKyL25]

i think he was saying that the existence of a higher power doesn't automatically imply the existence of the soul or an afterlife.

That's exactly what I was trying to say, thanks.

 

Of course the existence of a soul or an afterlife would imply the existence of a higher being, but the existence of a higher being doesn't imply the existence of a soul or an afterlife.

 

Speaking of Kierkegaard, I read his work and Nietzsche's at roughly the same time. Both highly recommended in regard to interesting takes on faith and religion, though Nietzsche is a tad more accessible, at least to me. Could be my religionless upbringing.

[Guest godthedog]

And the idea of an original mover has been thoroughly discredited in philosophical, theological, and scientific terms, not to mention the extremely silly argument that a given result must have a like cause.

Evidence, please.

idea of the "first mover" = thomas aquinas's cosmological argument. if you follow the link, only A is really relevant here.

 

from

http://www.york.ac.uk/student/su/essaybank...l_argument.html :

 

"Perhaps the most important flaw in the cosmological argument is what would appear to be a contradiction in the idea of everything having a cause for its existence, while at the same time holding that at the end of the chain there is a first-mover that is itself unmoved. Is there any reason to believe this idea? Why should everything expect God have a cause? If you say that God does not need a cause for existence, thatGod is a necessarily existing thing, then cannot this idea be used in favour of anything that exists not having a cause?

 

"If however you choose to say that everything does have a prior cause, then surely this shouldn't have exceptions. On this basis there will be an infinite regress with no first-mover. To say that everything that exists must have a prior cause and that God is a first-mover, himself uncaused seems to be an inescapable contradiction. Why can't there be an infinite regress which Aquinas claims is impossible?

 

"It is suggested by philosophers such as Russell that the existence of the universe should simply be accepted as a brute fact. We cannot hope to understand the reason for its existence so should not attempt to do so. However, I do not find this argument convincing as it is a similar sort of argument to saying that we cannot reach an understanding of God through reason and that we must rely on faith. This notion of God, like Russell's suggestion about the universe is in effect just dodging the issue.

 

"Overall the most convincing attack on the cosmological argument is that which point out the contradiction contained within it of having everything caused, but at the same time having an uncaused first-mover. There appears to be no convincing reason for believing this to my mind and it appears to be simply saying that God is the first mover because God must be. This seems to be leading back to the argument that God must exist due to the very idea of God (theontological argument). The cosmological argument does not therefore appear to be a very plausible argument for the existence of God, but at the same time it doesn't automatically follow from this that God doesn't exist, just that the cosmological argument is not an adequate way of proving God's existence."

 

obviously written by a college kid, but that pretty much sums it up. nobody really buys the "first mover" argument anymore, although i think the argument from contingency is compelling.

 

Speaking of Kierkegaard, I read his work and Nietzsche's at roughly the same time. Both highly recommended in regard to interesting takes on faith and religion, though Nietzsche is a tad more accessible, at least to me. Could be my religionless upbringing.

eh...he's fun to quote, but nothing to live by. what i've read of nietzsche is glorified philosophical wanking, often putting spacey, overblown generalizations in place of actual arguments. he's a great writer, but i think he's dangerous to the male teenage audience he usually appeals to, because the strength of his writing is so seductive, and he'll often trick you into thinking that being rhetorically clever somehow proves that he's right. dangerous k is harder to read, but he's just as clever as nietzsche and he knows how to back his shit up a lot better.

Edited July 14, 2003 by godthedog

[Guest ShooterJay]

If I wasn't on such a CM Punk kick, that'd so be my signature.

 

So for now, CM Punk > Marney, but next week, who knows?

CM Punk > everyone but G-d.

 

All hail Punk.

[Guest IDrinkRatsMilk]

I think people misinterpret what the Bible says about who's going to be saved. It says narrow is the way, and it says that on judgement day, many will say to God that they prophesied in his name but God will send them to Hell. Jesus also said a camel will pass through the eye of a needle before a rich man enters the kingdom of heaven.

Now, a camel is not going to ever pass through the eye of a needle, but whether Jesus is saying no rich man will ever be saved, or just that it's really hard, I don't know. There were a couple of rich men the Bible seems to describe as righteous (Joseph of Arimathea is the only one I can think of, but I'm sure there were a couple more), but the message of all this seems to be that a very small percentage of people are going to get it right.

[Guest TheGame2705]

I think he was talking more along the lines of the rich people being wicked. Yes it is somewhat stereotypical but, I'm pretty sure it's just to say that the rich are wicked.

[Guest Spicy McHaggis]

"Perhaps the most important flaw in the cosmological argument is what would appear to be a contradiction in the idea of everything having a cause for its existence, while at the same time holding that at the end of the chain there is a first-mover that is itself unmoved. Is there any reason to believe this idea?"

The idea of a prime mover is a much lesser logical leap than that of Christ having both divine and human natures in one body.

[Guest cue_meanie]

"he" didn''t say shit. The bible was written WELL after Jesus died, and knowing the way stories get told know a days i think its safe to say that theres a shit load thats wrong in the bible....even if you believe in god, you must know that the Bible is not his true gospel.

[Guest Spicy McHaggis]

If you believe in the Holy Spirit, you must know that the core messages and teachings of the Bible (i.e. the important stuff) are, and will remain, God's true gospel.

[Guest Jobber of the Week]

The Bible's words themselves are not responsible for the stirring of the heart. The Holy Spirit illuminates scripture, and that's God's doing.

I hope that by quoting this example you may understand what we all mean when people say that you spew bullshit that makes little sense.

 

If you're going to post something pseudo-supernatural, at least provide some meaning to it and don't just leave a weird, airy statement for the rest of us to decode.

[Guest Fallen Angel]

$5 to the first person to throw the word "truncated" into this thread, because God or the lack thereof knows that this bad boy isn't wordy enough. Yeesh. You guys need a Circle of Protection: Talking Way the Fuck Too Much, or something.

 

(omg clue)

 

I do have to admit, though, that I too marked out for the Hamburgalur.

[Guest godthedog]

"Perhaps the most important flaw in the cosmological argument is what would appear to be a contradiction in the idea of everything having a cause for its existence, while at the same time holding that at the end of the chain there is a first-mover that is itself unmoved.  Is there any reason to believe this idea?"

The idea of a prime mover is a much lesser logical leap than that of Christ having both divine and human natures in one body.

but it doesn't do what aquinas (and others who cite him) want it to do, which is prove something. if you accept the idea of a first mover, divinity isn't a necessary part of that definition at all. citing god as the first mover is no more plausible than citing the big band as the first mover.

[Guest SP-1]

The Bible's words themselves are not responsible for the stirring of the heart.  The Holy Spirit illuminates scripture, and that's God's doing.

I hope that by quoting this example you may understand what we all mean when people say that you spew bullshit that makes little sense.

 

If you're going to post something pseudo-supernatural, at least provide some meaning to it and don't just leave a weird, airy statement for the rest of us to decode.

Don't complain about supernatural statements when you're in a dicussion about religion, specifically about God. He's a supernatural being, He does supernatural things, and operates in supernatural ways alot of the time. I don't say that in anger or to be condescending, don't take it that way, but it's to be expected in a discussion involving God.

 

To expand on the Spirit: Active throughout biblical History, the Holy Spirit now dwells within every saved Christian. Jesus called it a 'Counselor,' and that's a great part of what The Spirit does. It tends to act as a supernatural "6th Sense" of sorts, communicating with us constantly God's will. Not as some schizophrenic audible voice, but, again, in more of a "sense" kind of way. Some say that's a simple change in thought/behavior, but the Spirit tends to run parallel, but very seperate from what one normally thinks, in my experience. Often, it's there to nudge me when I find myself thinking sinfully, contemplating doing something, etc. The Spirit, as it tends to operate now, was witnessed at the Baptism of Christ, and arrived again at Pentecost to kick off the current way of things. Part of the Trinity, the Spirit is it's own side of God, distinctly part of the whole, and regarded in the same Sovereign view as Jesus and the Father.

[Guest Spicy McHaggis]

"Perhaps the most important flaw in the cosmological argument is what would appear to be a contradiction in the idea of everything having a cause for its existence, while at the same time holding that at the end of the chain there is a first-mover that is itself unmoved.  Is there any reason to believe this idea?"

The idea of a prime mover is a much lesser logical leap than that of Christ having both divine and human natures in one body.

but it doesn't do what aquinas (and others who cite him) want it to do, which is prove something. if you accept the idea of a first mover, divinity isn't a necessary part of that definition at all. citing god as the first mover is no more plausible than citing the big band as the first mover.

Argument C essentially answers that. It is impossible to go from nothing in existence to things in existence. An existing body has to be created by another existing body. Infinite regress IS impossible because you can't create something from nothing. Even the Big Bang had to be set in motion.