|
I mean there's absolutely no reason to believe in one religion over any other and none of them have any reason to believe them in the first place. Religions are pretty much around for three reasons
1: Peoples fear of death which they want assuaged.
Heaven-->NP you don't actually really die its just a fake death into an even better life.
2: Peoples hate of other people who are jerks to them and get ahead in life especially through unfair or criminal means.
That dudes a jerk? Don't worry he's totally gonna burn bro hahahaha rekt
3: Gaining power/money through control of peoples emotions through 1 and 2. The more stupid rules that you make people follow the more people distain people not following those rules its the us vs them club and its very powerful.
|
On August 01 2014 03:12 jcarlsoniv wrote:Show nested quote +On August 01 2014 03:08 mordek wrote:On August 01 2014 03:07 jcarlsoniv wrote:On August 01 2014 03:01 mordek wrote:On August 01 2014 02:29 jcarlsoniv wrote:dat formatting mord I'm confused about the "now you have to choose" point. You are always making this choice. This is an active choice being made by everyone all the time. I was going back more to the question I posed before regarding people who were previously unaware of this religion and belief set. They have now been informed of something that others believe, and because they now have the knowledge, they are "forced" to make a choice, and if they don't choose the new stuff, then it will suck for them. It's irrelevant what this isolated group believed before (or didn't believe, if that may be the case), but in the eyes of the believers, the isolated will now be judged by God if they don't choose to follow him since they now know of him, even though they wouldn't have been judged if the believers never spread the word? Even if the believers have the best of intentions (to spread happiness), they've now burdened this isolated group with their own belief system and perceived punishments/benefits. Whoops, I didn't even notice I mis-copied. They're judged based on their knowledge. I would argue in these isolated groups there are those that are acknowledging this unknown god (God) and there are those choosing their own wickedness. They are still making the choice. Spreading the gospel is to convince those choosing sin/iniquity/wickedness to repent by explaining who God is and His salvation. Since I'm not God I couldn't tell you how he makes certain distinctions but we trust he judges fairly. I EXPECT YOU TO KNOW THESE THINGS DAMNIT <3 Thanks for entertaining my questions. For me, belief in a deity would have to come from some sort of empirical and physical evidence - I've never been one to blindly trust in anything. But if there were indisputable proof that some sort of god/afterlife exists, then I'd be a fool and a hypocrite not to acknowledge it. How seriously are you pursuing empirical/physical evidence and what would it take for something to be indisputable. I'm not pursuing it at all as I have no particular desire or need/wish to believe in something "greater". For it to be indisputable, it would have to be something that could be tested and proven. It would have to go through the same principles of science that anything that I know to be fact would have gone through.
So if we for just a minute say God is real and the Bible is true, what would have to be tested and proven. How would you accept him proving his existence?
|
On August 01 2014 03:22 mordek wrote:Show nested quote +On August 01 2014 03:12 jcarlsoniv wrote:On August 01 2014 03:08 mordek wrote:On August 01 2014 03:07 jcarlsoniv wrote:On August 01 2014 03:01 mordek wrote:On August 01 2014 02:29 jcarlsoniv wrote:dat formatting mord I'm confused about the "now you have to choose" point. You are always making this choice. This is an active choice being made by everyone all the time. I was going back more to the question I posed before regarding people who were previously unaware of this religion and belief set. They have now been informed of something that others believe, and because they now have the knowledge, they are "forced" to make a choice, and if they don't choose the new stuff, then it will suck for them. It's irrelevant what this isolated group believed before (or didn't believe, if that may be the case), but in the eyes of the believers, the isolated will now be judged by God if they don't choose to follow him since they now know of him, even though they wouldn't have been judged if the believers never spread the word? Even if the believers have the best of intentions (to spread happiness), they've now burdened this isolated group with their own belief system and perceived punishments/benefits. Whoops, I didn't even notice I mis-copied. They're judged based on their knowledge. I would argue in these isolated groups there are those that are acknowledging this unknown god (God) and there are those choosing their own wickedness. They are still making the choice. Spreading the gospel is to convince those choosing sin/iniquity/wickedness to repent by explaining who God is and His salvation. Since I'm not God I couldn't tell you how he makes certain distinctions but we trust he judges fairly. I EXPECT YOU TO KNOW THESE THINGS DAMNIT <3 Thanks for entertaining my questions. For me, belief in a deity would have to come from some sort of empirical and physical evidence - I've never been one to blindly trust in anything. But if there were indisputable proof that some sort of god/afterlife exists, then I'd be a fool and a hypocrite not to acknowledge it. How seriously are you pursuing empirical/physical evidence and what would it take for something to be indisputable. I'm not pursuing it at all as I have no particular desire or need/wish to believe in something "greater". For it to be indisputable, it would have to be something that could be tested and proven. It would have to go through the same principles of science that anything that I know to be fact would have gone through. So if we for just a minute say God is real and the Bible is true, what would have to be tested and proven. How would you accept him proving his existence?
He'd actually have to stop by and say hi, to start.
|
On August 01 2014 03:33 Gahlo wrote:Show nested quote +On August 01 2014 03:22 mordek wrote:On August 01 2014 03:12 jcarlsoniv wrote:On August 01 2014 03:08 mordek wrote:On August 01 2014 03:07 jcarlsoniv wrote:On August 01 2014 03:01 mordek wrote:On August 01 2014 02:29 jcarlsoniv wrote:dat formatting mord I'm confused about the "now you have to choose" point. You are always making this choice. This is an active choice being made by everyone all the time. I was going back more to the question I posed before regarding people who were previously unaware of this religion and belief set. They have now been informed of something that others believe, and because they now have the knowledge, they are "forced" to make a choice, and if they don't choose the new stuff, then it will suck for them. It's irrelevant what this isolated group believed before (or didn't believe, if that may be the case), but in the eyes of the believers, the isolated will now be judged by God if they don't choose to follow him since they now know of him, even though they wouldn't have been judged if the believers never spread the word? Even if the believers have the best of intentions (to spread happiness), they've now burdened this isolated group with their own belief system and perceived punishments/benefits. Whoops, I didn't even notice I mis-copied. They're judged based on their knowledge. I would argue in these isolated groups there are those that are acknowledging this unknown god (God) and there are those choosing their own wickedness. They are still making the choice. Spreading the gospel is to convince those choosing sin/iniquity/wickedness to repent by explaining who God is and His salvation. Since I'm not God I couldn't tell you how he makes certain distinctions but we trust he judges fairly. I EXPECT YOU TO KNOW THESE THINGS DAMNIT <3 Thanks for entertaining my questions. For me, belief in a deity would have to come from some sort of empirical and physical evidence - I've never been one to blindly trust in anything. But if there were indisputable proof that some sort of god/afterlife exists, then I'd be a fool and a hypocrite not to acknowledge it. How seriously are you pursuing empirical/physical evidence and what would it take for something to be indisputable. I'm not pursuing it at all as I have no particular desire or need/wish to believe in something "greater". For it to be indisputable, it would have to be something that could be tested and proven. It would have to go through the same principles of science that anything that I know to be fact would have gone through. So if we for just a minute say God is real and the Bible is true, what would have to be tested and proven. How would you accept him proving his existence? He'd actually have to stop by and say hi, to start.
To you personally? And what is "stop by"? Physically manifest himself? Have you asked him to do that? I feel like you're just making a snarky remark though 
|
On August 01 2014 03:22 mordek wrote:Show nested quote +On August 01 2014 03:12 jcarlsoniv wrote:On August 01 2014 03:08 mordek wrote:On August 01 2014 03:07 jcarlsoniv wrote:On August 01 2014 03:01 mordek wrote:On August 01 2014 02:29 jcarlsoniv wrote:dat formatting mord I'm confused about the "now you have to choose" point. You are always making this choice. This is an active choice being made by everyone all the time. I was going back more to the question I posed before regarding people who were previously unaware of this religion and belief set. They have now been informed of something that others believe, and because they now have the knowledge, they are "forced" to make a choice, and if they don't choose the new stuff, then it will suck for them. It's irrelevant what this isolated group believed before (or didn't believe, if that may be the case), but in the eyes of the believers, the isolated will now be judged by God if they don't choose to follow him since they now know of him, even though they wouldn't have been judged if the believers never spread the word? Even if the believers have the best of intentions (to spread happiness), they've now burdened this isolated group with their own belief system and perceived punishments/benefits. Whoops, I didn't even notice I mis-copied. They're judged based on their knowledge. I would argue in these isolated groups there are those that are acknowledging this unknown god (God) and there are those choosing their own wickedness. They are still making the choice. Spreading the gospel is to convince those choosing sin/iniquity/wickedness to repent by explaining who God is and His salvation. Since I'm not God I couldn't tell you how he makes certain distinctions but we trust he judges fairly. I EXPECT YOU TO KNOW THESE THINGS DAMNIT <3 Thanks for entertaining my questions. For me, belief in a deity would have to come from some sort of empirical and physical evidence - I've never been one to blindly trust in anything. But if there were indisputable proof that some sort of god/afterlife exists, then I'd be a fool and a hypocrite not to acknowledge it. How seriously are you pursuing empirical/physical evidence and what would it take for something to be indisputable. I'm not pursuing it at all as I have no particular desire or need/wish to believe in something "greater". For it to be indisputable, it would have to be something that could be tested and proven. It would have to go through the same principles of science that anything that I know to be fact would have gone through. So if we for just a minute say God is real and the Bible is true, what would have to be tested and proven. How would you accept him proving his existence?
I have no idea 
It would have to be something continuously observable and testable, but I admit that I don't know the contents of the Bible well enough to pick an example there that would be good here.
But let's take a polytheistic religion, for example. The different gods serve different purposes (rain god, sun god, goddess of fertility, etc.), and they were used to explain things that people didn't understand. As technology advances, we have been better able to explain and discover the scientific backings, causes, and effects of all of these different types of previously inexplicable things. And so it's difficult to imagine something being scientifically provable while simultaneously being religious in backing. But I won't say it's impossible because something could come along in the future that ends up proving some sort of deity (or deities) to exist.
|
Czech Republic11293 Posts
On August 01 2014 02:39 Duvon wrote:
Sometimes I wish I had faith, and comfort from it.
Then I remember "wrong" things, and despair.
I live by my own rules, as well as I can. I don't do perfectly, but good enough that I'd consider myself a good person (lol, who doesn't).
I believe in love, hardship, acceptance, yada yada, but I also believe in the importance of.. not individualism as an -ism, but the principal sense of persons being individuals, who are more or less unique, but still unique enough that labels are close to worthless.
<confusing>I'm an anti-labeler. Including labels such as what religion you believe in, what sex you are interested in, and so on.
Yes, labels can be good for science, but they must be absent when we are talking about specific people, you or me, our friends and groups we find ourselves in.
</confusing>
Depending on your faith system the worries it brings might be a lot worse than the comfort.
I am somewhat of an extreme example, but when I was old enough to think I worried about not having any religious experiences others supposedly had (seeing angels/fairies/other shit, strange "feelings" things of that nature) and later because I had kinda hard time making myself believe in worldly effects of shit like fairies or karma (what makes the things change in such a way that they reward/punish good/evil?). Then the sexual frustration from not masturbating, man, that was the worst. I never actually confirmed with my family that according to our god masturbating is bad, but I knew porn was bad and I knew that "mind infidelity" or w/e you call it is a thing, so I thought imagining stuff counted too. Add some violent fetishes that clearly are "not ok" in the mix and you have a frustrated teenager at hand.
hardcore cults man, not even once
|
scip was excommunicated for being a furry
|
On August 01 2014 03:35 mordek wrote:Show nested quote +On August 01 2014 03:33 Gahlo wrote:On August 01 2014 03:22 mordek wrote:On August 01 2014 03:12 jcarlsoniv wrote:On August 01 2014 03:08 mordek wrote:On August 01 2014 03:07 jcarlsoniv wrote:On August 01 2014 03:01 mordek wrote:On August 01 2014 02:29 jcarlsoniv wrote:dat formatting mord I'm confused about the "now you have to choose" point. You are always making this choice. This is an active choice being made by everyone all the time. I was going back more to the question I posed before regarding people who were previously unaware of this religion and belief set. They have now been informed of something that others believe, and because they now have the knowledge, they are "forced" to make a choice, and if they don't choose the new stuff, then it will suck for them. It's irrelevant what this isolated group believed before (or didn't believe, if that may be the case), but in the eyes of the believers, the isolated will now be judged by God if they don't choose to follow him since they now know of him, even though they wouldn't have been judged if the believers never spread the word? Even if the believers have the best of intentions (to spread happiness), they've now burdened this isolated group with their own belief system and perceived punishments/benefits. Whoops, I didn't even notice I mis-copied. They're judged based on their knowledge. I would argue in these isolated groups there are those that are acknowledging this unknown god (God) and there are those choosing their own wickedness. They are still making the choice. Spreading the gospel is to convince those choosing sin/iniquity/wickedness to repent by explaining who God is and His salvation. Since I'm not God I couldn't tell you how he makes certain distinctions but we trust he judges fairly. I EXPECT YOU TO KNOW THESE THINGS DAMNIT <3 Thanks for entertaining my questions. For me, belief in a deity would have to come from some sort of empirical and physical evidence - I've never been one to blindly trust in anything. But if there were indisputable proof that some sort of god/afterlife exists, then I'd be a fool and a hypocrite not to acknowledge it. How seriously are you pursuing empirical/physical evidence and what would it take for something to be indisputable. I'm not pursuing it at all as I have no particular desire or need/wish to believe in something "greater". For it to be indisputable, it would have to be something that could be tested and proven. It would have to go through the same principles of science that anything that I know to be fact would have gone through. So if we for just a minute say God is real and the Bible is true, what would have to be tested and proven. How would you accept him proving his existence? He'd actually have to stop by and say hi, to start. To you personally? And what is "stop by"? Physically manifest himself? Have you asked him to do that? I feel like you're just making a snarky remark though
My biggest issue with a higher power(s) is the lack of a physical presence. At the very least, that is the first thing I'd require.
|
On August 01 2014 03:35 jcarlsoniv wrote:Show nested quote +On August 01 2014 03:22 mordek wrote:On August 01 2014 03:12 jcarlsoniv wrote:On August 01 2014 03:08 mordek wrote:On August 01 2014 03:07 jcarlsoniv wrote:On August 01 2014 03:01 mordek wrote:On August 01 2014 02:29 jcarlsoniv wrote:dat formatting mord I'm confused about the "now you have to choose" point. You are always making this choice. This is an active choice being made by everyone all the time. I was going back more to the question I posed before regarding people who were previously unaware of this religion and belief set. They have now been informed of something that others believe, and because they now have the knowledge, they are "forced" to make a choice, and if they don't choose the new stuff, then it will suck for them. It's irrelevant what this isolated group believed before (or didn't believe, if that may be the case), but in the eyes of the believers, the isolated will now be judged by God if they don't choose to follow him since they now know of him, even though they wouldn't have been judged if the believers never spread the word? Even if the believers have the best of intentions (to spread happiness), they've now burdened this isolated group with their own belief system and perceived punishments/benefits. Whoops, I didn't even notice I mis-copied. They're judged based on their knowledge. I would argue in these isolated groups there are those that are acknowledging this unknown god (God) and there are those choosing their own wickedness. They are still making the choice. Spreading the gospel is to convince those choosing sin/iniquity/wickedness to repent by explaining who God is and His salvation. Since I'm not God I couldn't tell you how he makes certain distinctions but we trust he judges fairly. I EXPECT YOU TO KNOW THESE THINGS DAMNIT <3 Thanks for entertaining my questions. For me, belief in a deity would have to come from some sort of empirical and physical evidence - I've never been one to blindly trust in anything. But if there were indisputable proof that some sort of god/afterlife exists, then I'd be a fool and a hypocrite not to acknowledge it. How seriously are you pursuing empirical/physical evidence and what would it take for something to be indisputable. I'm not pursuing it at all as I have no particular desire or need/wish to believe in something "greater". For it to be indisputable, it would have to be something that could be tested and proven. It would have to go through the same principles of science that anything that I know to be fact would have gone through. So if we for just a minute say God is real and the Bible is true, what would have to be tested and proven. How would you accept him proving his existence? I have no idea It would have to be something continuously observable and testable, but I admit that I don't know the contents of the Bible well enough to pick an example there that would be good here. But let's take a polytheistic religion, for example. The different gods serve different purposes (rain god, sun god, goddess of fertility, etc.), and they were used to explain things that people didn't understand. As technology advances, we have been better able to explain and discover the scientific backings, causes, and effects of all of these different types of previously inexplicable things. And so it's difficult to imagine something being scientifically provable while simultaneously being religious in backing. But I won't say it's impossible because something could come along in the future that ends up proving some sort of deity (or deities) to exist.
The polytheism of the Greeks/Romans are just people making up stuff to explain things. I understand if you think that's exactly what I'm doing. But I'm saying if God is the creator of the universe and revealed himself through Jesus and different points in time in the Old Testament, then quite simply he created "science". Everything works the way it does because he made it so. He's outside of time, space, matter but has chosen to reveal himself in different ways and most importantly as Himself in the person of Jesus. Once again, I understand that can sound crazy and I'm just repeating some made up garbage but I also don't understand why people feel like there is such a dichotomy between those who believe in concrete "science" and those who work in the supposed imaginary realm of "religion". I mean, I could care less about Christianity beyond what Jesus has taught and God has commanded. You take away whatever baggage away that has occurred because flawed humans used religion for purposes other than bringing God glory. Just look at your body. Just think about it. I personally find it unfathomable that I'm the product of random chance over millions of billions of years. I just don't get it when I step back why that should be my default belief.
|
On August 01 2014 02:50 Requizen wrote:Show nested quote +On August 01 2014 02:39 Duvon wrote:
Sometimes I wish I had faith, and comfort from it.
Then I remember "wrong" things, and despair.
I live by my own rules, as well as I can. I don't do perfectly, but good enough that I'd consider myself a good person (lol, who doesn't).
I believe in love, hardship, acceptance, yada yada, but I also believe in the importance of.. not individualism as an -ism, but the principal sense of persons being individuals, who are more or less unique, but still unique enough that labels are close to worthless.
<confusing>I'm an anti-labeler. Including labels such as what religion you believe in, what sex you are interested in, and so on.
Yes, labels can be good for science, but they must be absent when we are talking about specific people, you or me, our friends and groups we find ourselves in.
</confusing> You make it sounds like everyone who believes lives a saintly life. Not at all, everyone messes up, even the Pope goes to confession. The point is to try, with the help of whatever deity you believe in, to be as good of a person as you can, and (at least in Christianity) to not worry about failing because if you're truly, completely repentful in your soul, God forgives.
Not at all, I know people with faith are messed up as well, but the happiest people who believe that I've met are those who find reassurance in their faith.
And I don't need some-(dusty old fart)-one to tell me to be good, that I can be on my own. When I need reassurance though, I must rely on my friends.
I also don't like pretense, so the step would be very hard for me to take to even begin trying to believe.
|
On August 01 2014 03:22 mordek wrote:Show nested quote +On August 01 2014 03:12 jcarlsoniv wrote:On August 01 2014 03:08 mordek wrote:On August 01 2014 03:07 jcarlsoniv wrote:On August 01 2014 03:01 mordek wrote:On August 01 2014 02:29 jcarlsoniv wrote:dat formatting mord I'm confused about the "now you have to choose" point. You are always making this choice. This is an active choice being made by everyone all the time. I was going back more to the question I posed before regarding people who were previously unaware of this religion and belief set. They have now been informed of something that others believe, and because they now have the knowledge, they are "forced" to make a choice, and if they don't choose the new stuff, then it will suck for them. It's irrelevant what this isolated group believed before (or didn't believe, if that may be the case), but in the eyes of the believers, the isolated will now be judged by God if they don't choose to follow him since they now know of him, even though they wouldn't have been judged if the believers never spread the word? Even if the believers have the best of intentions (to spread happiness), they've now burdened this isolated group with their own belief system and perceived punishments/benefits. Whoops, I didn't even notice I mis-copied. They're judged based on their knowledge. I would argue in these isolated groups there are those that are acknowledging this unknown god (God) and there are those choosing their own wickedness. They are still making the choice. Spreading the gospel is to convince those choosing sin/iniquity/wickedness to repent by explaining who God is and His salvation. Since I'm not God I couldn't tell you how he makes certain distinctions but we trust he judges fairly. I EXPECT YOU TO KNOW THESE THINGS DAMNIT <3 Thanks for entertaining my questions. For me, belief in a deity would have to come from some sort of empirical and physical evidence - I've never been one to blindly trust in anything. But if there were indisputable proof that some sort of god/afterlife exists, then I'd be a fool and a hypocrite not to acknowledge it. How seriously are you pursuing empirical/physical evidence and what would it take for something to be indisputable. I'm not pursuing it at all as I have no particular desire or need/wish to believe in something "greater". For it to be indisputable, it would have to be something that could be tested and proven. It would have to go through the same principles of science that anything that I know to be fact would have gone through. So if we for just a minute say God is real and the Bible is true, what would have to be tested and proven. How would you accept him proving his existence?
Except you could ask the same questions for an infinite amount of gods and an infinite amount of holy books that havent been written or theorized yet so essentially with zero evidence god is a statistical impossibility
|
Hey guys what's goin on in this thread.
*Sees religious talk*
Whelp I'm going to go do anything else at all because that sound like more fun than pulling teeth.
That's basically how I feel in reguards to any sort of religious "debate". In fact I feel that way mostly about any sort of debates at all. It's all just drama people didn't get out of their systems in high school.
|
On August 01 2014 03:43 mordek wrote:Show nested quote +On August 01 2014 03:35 jcarlsoniv wrote:On August 01 2014 03:22 mordek wrote:On August 01 2014 03:12 jcarlsoniv wrote:On August 01 2014 03:08 mordek wrote:On August 01 2014 03:07 jcarlsoniv wrote:On August 01 2014 03:01 mordek wrote:On August 01 2014 02:29 jcarlsoniv wrote:dat formatting mord I'm confused about the "now you have to choose" point. You are always making this choice. This is an active choice being made by everyone all the time. I was going back more to the question I posed before regarding people who were previously unaware of this religion and belief set. They have now been informed of something that others believe, and because they now have the knowledge, they are "forced" to make a choice, and if they don't choose the new stuff, then it will suck for them. It's irrelevant what this isolated group believed before (or didn't believe, if that may be the case), but in the eyes of the believers, the isolated will now be judged by God if they don't choose to follow him since they now know of him, even though they wouldn't have been judged if the believers never spread the word? Even if the believers have the best of intentions (to spread happiness), they've now burdened this isolated group with their own belief system and perceived punishments/benefits. Whoops, I didn't even notice I mis-copied. They're judged based on their knowledge. I would argue in these isolated groups there are those that are acknowledging this unknown god (God) and there are those choosing their own wickedness. They are still making the choice. Spreading the gospel is to convince those choosing sin/iniquity/wickedness to repent by explaining who God is and His salvation. Since I'm not God I couldn't tell you how he makes certain distinctions but we trust he judges fairly. I EXPECT YOU TO KNOW THESE THINGS DAMNIT <3 Thanks for entertaining my questions. For me, belief in a deity would have to come from some sort of empirical and physical evidence - I've never been one to blindly trust in anything. But if there were indisputable proof that some sort of god/afterlife exists, then I'd be a fool and a hypocrite not to acknowledge it. How seriously are you pursuing empirical/physical evidence and what would it take for something to be indisputable. I'm not pursuing it at all as I have no particular desire or need/wish to believe in something "greater". For it to be indisputable, it would have to be something that could be tested and proven. It would have to go through the same principles of science that anything that I know to be fact would have gone through. So if we for just a minute say God is real and the Bible is true, what would have to be tested and proven. How would you accept him proving his existence? I have no idea It would have to be something continuously observable and testable, but I admit that I don't know the contents of the Bible well enough to pick an example there that would be good here. But let's take a polytheistic religion, for example. The different gods serve different purposes (rain god, sun god, goddess of fertility, etc.), and they were used to explain things that people didn't understand. As technology advances, we have been better able to explain and discover the scientific backings, causes, and effects of all of these different types of previously inexplicable things. And so it's difficult to imagine something being scientifically provable while simultaneously being religious in backing. But I won't say it's impossible because something could come along in the future that ends up proving some sort of deity (or deities) to exist. The polytheism of the Greeks/Romans are just people making up stuff to explain things. I understand if you think that's exactly what I'm doing. But I'm saying if God is the creator of the universe and revealed himself through Jesus and different points in time in the Old Testament, then quite simply he created "science". Everything works the way it does because he made it so. He's outside of time, space, matter but has chosen to reveal himself in different ways and most importantly as Himself in the person of Jesus. Once again, I understand that can sound crazy and I'm just repeating some made up garbage but I also don't understand why people feel like there is such a dichotomy between those who believe in concrete "science" and those who work in the supposed imaginary realm of "religion". I mean, I could care less about Christianity beyond what Jesus has taught and God has commanded. You take away whatever baggage away that has occurred because flawed humans used religion for purposes other than bringing God glory. Just look at your body. Just think about it. I personally find it unfathomable that I'm the product of random chance over millions of billions of years. I just don't get it when I step back why that should be my default belief.
Oh, I know you're not just pulling shit out of your ass, I was raised Christian (and have actually gone through confirmation and all that fun stuff). But supposing science is the product of God's creation, I would think that he would be able to physically manifest himself in a way to prove to the non-believers that he exists. Would an omnipotent, omniscient, omnipresent, benevolent god not want to reveal himself and end conflict and suffering for those he created? (that's a VERY loaded question)
You might find it unfathomable, but I find it completely awesome that we are products of random chance. What I do find hard to believe is that we could be the only instance of random chance prospering in this potentially infinite universe (/multiverse/etc). I personally don't need a belief in a higher being to accept that these scientific properties worked out in our favor, and I also know there is still so much about everything that we do now know and have barely scratched the surface on.
|
On August 01 2014 03:50 Slayer91 wrote:Show nested quote +On August 01 2014 03:22 mordek wrote:On August 01 2014 03:12 jcarlsoniv wrote:On August 01 2014 03:08 mordek wrote:On August 01 2014 03:07 jcarlsoniv wrote:On August 01 2014 03:01 mordek wrote:On August 01 2014 02:29 jcarlsoniv wrote:dat formatting mord I'm confused about the "now you have to choose" point. You are always making this choice. This is an active choice being made by everyone all the time. I was going back more to the question I posed before regarding people who were previously unaware of this religion and belief set. They have now been informed of something that others believe, and because they now have the knowledge, they are "forced" to make a choice, and if they don't choose the new stuff, then it will suck for them. It's irrelevant what this isolated group believed before (or didn't believe, if that may be the case), but in the eyes of the believers, the isolated will now be judged by God if they don't choose to follow him since they now know of him, even though they wouldn't have been judged if the believers never spread the word? Even if the believers have the best of intentions (to spread happiness), they've now burdened this isolated group with their own belief system and perceived punishments/benefits. Whoops, I didn't even notice I mis-copied. They're judged based on their knowledge. I would argue in these isolated groups there are those that are acknowledging this unknown god (God) and there are those choosing their own wickedness. They are still making the choice. Spreading the gospel is to convince those choosing sin/iniquity/wickedness to repent by explaining who God is and His salvation. Since I'm not God I couldn't tell you how he makes certain distinctions but we trust he judges fairly. I EXPECT YOU TO KNOW THESE THINGS DAMNIT <3 Thanks for entertaining my questions. For me, belief in a deity would have to come from some sort of empirical and physical evidence - I've never been one to blindly trust in anything. But if there were indisputable proof that some sort of god/afterlife exists, then I'd be a fool and a hypocrite not to acknowledge it. How seriously are you pursuing empirical/physical evidence and what would it take for something to be indisputable. I'm not pursuing it at all as I have no particular desire or need/wish to believe in something "greater". For it to be indisputable, it would have to be something that could be tested and proven. It would have to go through the same principles of science that anything that I know to be fact would have gone through. So if we for just a minute say God is real and the Bible is true, what would have to be tested and proven. How would you accept him proving his existence? Except you could ask the same questions for an infinite amount of gods and an infinite amount of holy books that havent been written or theorized yet so essentially with zero evidence god is a statistical impossibility
I get that, I'm trying to understand what is needed to convince him but more so I want him to know what it would take so he knows what questions to ask. The real travesty is if you just decide not to examine it.
@soniv I would consider Jesus to be the very literal physical manifestation of God.
|
yeah we've seen only like 0.000000000000001% of our universe no chance we gonna detect the other aliens anytime soon
even if they found our sun with a telescope no chance they gonna find earth and even if they do they won't be able to see shit
the off chance of a radiation signal
On August 01 2014 03:53 mordek wrote:Show nested quote +On August 01 2014 03:50 Slayer91 wrote:On August 01 2014 03:22 mordek wrote:On August 01 2014 03:12 jcarlsoniv wrote:On August 01 2014 03:08 mordek wrote:On August 01 2014 03:07 jcarlsoniv wrote:On August 01 2014 03:01 mordek wrote:On August 01 2014 02:29 jcarlsoniv wrote:dat formatting mord I'm confused about the "now you have to choose" point. You are always making this choice. This is an active choice being made by everyone all the time. I was going back more to the question I posed before regarding people who were previously unaware of this religion and belief set. They have now been informed of something that others believe, and because they now have the knowledge, they are "forced" to make a choice, and if they don't choose the new stuff, then it will suck for them. It's irrelevant what this isolated group believed before (or didn't believe, if that may be the case), but in the eyes of the believers, the isolated will now be judged by God if they don't choose to follow him since they now know of him, even though they wouldn't have been judged if the believers never spread the word? Even if the believers have the best of intentions (to spread happiness), they've now burdened this isolated group with their own belief system and perceived punishments/benefits. Whoops, I didn't even notice I mis-copied. They're judged based on their knowledge. I would argue in these isolated groups there are those that are acknowledging this unknown god (God) and there are those choosing their own wickedness. They are still making the choice. Spreading the gospel is to convince those choosing sin/iniquity/wickedness to repent by explaining who God is and His salvation. Since I'm not God I couldn't tell you how he makes certain distinctions but we trust he judges fairly. I EXPECT YOU TO KNOW THESE THINGS DAMNIT <3 Thanks for entertaining my questions. For me, belief in a deity would have to come from some sort of empirical and physical evidence - I've never been one to blindly trust in anything. But if there were indisputable proof that some sort of god/afterlife exists, then I'd be a fool and a hypocrite not to acknowledge it. How seriously are you pursuing empirical/physical evidence and what would it take for something to be indisputable. I'm not pursuing it at all as I have no particular desire or need/wish to believe in something "greater". For it to be indisputable, it would have to be something that could be tested and proven. It would have to go through the same principles of science that anything that I know to be fact would have gone through. So if we for just a minute say God is real and the Bible is true, what would have to be tested and proven. How would you accept him proving his existence? Except you could ask the same questions for an infinite amount of gods and an infinite amount of holy books that havent been written or theorized yet so essentially with zero evidence god is a statistical impossibility I get that, I'm trying to understand what is needed to convince him but more so I want him to know what it would take so he knows what questions to ask. The real travesty is if you just decide not to examine it.
tbh even if Christian god was real he'd be a massive cock for allowing most life to endure massive suffering if he's not malevolent he's definitely not omnipotent
|
On August 01 2014 03:53 Slayer91 wrote:
yeah we've seen only like 0.000000000000001% of our universe no chance we gonna detect the other aliens anytime soon
even if they found our sun with a telescope no chance they gonna find earth and even if they do they won't be able to see shit
the off chance of a radiation signal
Oh, I completely agree with you. I'd be shocked if humanity even lives long enough to ever encounter an alien species. But if there's one thing that I blindly believe, it's that we're not alone in the universe - but that belief is only held because of the absurd diversity in the universe we HAVE seen, the statistics are in my favor. And it's not even a belief that has any influence on my behavior at all.
@mordek - well it's very hard for me to believe that Jesus was a one time gig over 2000 years ago for the chance to physically observe that God exists
|
On August 01 2014 03:52 jcarlsoniv wrote:Show nested quote +On August 01 2014 03:43 mordek wrote:On August 01 2014 03:35 jcarlsoniv wrote:On August 01 2014 03:22 mordek wrote:On August 01 2014 03:12 jcarlsoniv wrote:On August 01 2014 03:08 mordek wrote:On August 01 2014 03:07 jcarlsoniv wrote:On August 01 2014 03:01 mordek wrote:On August 01 2014 02:29 jcarlsoniv wrote:dat formatting mord I'm confused about the "now you have to choose" point. You are always making this choice. This is an active choice being made by everyone all the time. I was going back more to the question I posed before regarding people who were previously unaware of this religion and belief set. They have now been informed of something that others believe, and because they now have the knowledge, they are "forced" to make a choice, and if they don't choose the new stuff, then it will suck for them. It's irrelevant what this isolated group believed before (or didn't believe, if that may be the case), but in the eyes of the believers, the isolated will now be judged by God if they don't choose to follow him since they now know of him, even though they wouldn't have been judged if the believers never spread the word? Even if the believers have the best of intentions (to spread happiness), they've now burdened this isolated group with their own belief system and perceived punishments/benefits. Whoops, I didn't even notice I mis-copied. They're judged based on their knowledge. I would argue in these isolated groups there are those that are acknowledging this unknown god (God) and there are those choosing their own wickedness. They are still making the choice. Spreading the gospel is to convince those choosing sin/iniquity/wickedness to repent by explaining who God is and His salvation. Since I'm not God I couldn't tell you how he makes certain distinctions but we trust he judges fairly. I EXPECT YOU TO KNOW THESE THINGS DAMNIT <3 Thanks for entertaining my questions. For me, belief in a deity would have to come from some sort of empirical and physical evidence - I've never been one to blindly trust in anything. But if there were indisputable proof that some sort of god/afterlife exists, then I'd be a fool and a hypocrite not to acknowledge it. How seriously are you pursuing empirical/physical evidence and what would it take for something to be indisputable. I'm not pursuing it at all as I have no particular desire or need/wish to believe in something "greater". For it to be indisputable, it would have to be something that could be tested and proven. It would have to go through the same principles of science that anything that I know to be fact would have gone through. So if we for just a minute say God is real and the Bible is true, what would have to be tested and proven. How would you accept him proving his existence? I have no idea It would have to be something continuously observable and testable, but I admit that I don't know the contents of the Bible well enough to pick an example there that would be good here. But let's take a polytheistic religion, for example. The different gods serve different purposes (rain god, sun god, goddess of fertility, etc.), and they were used to explain things that people didn't understand. As technology advances, we have been better able to explain and discover the scientific backings, causes, and effects of all of these different types of previously inexplicable things. And so it's difficult to imagine something being scientifically provable while simultaneously being religious in backing. But I won't say it's impossible because something could come along in the future that ends up proving some sort of deity (or deities) to exist. The polytheism of the Greeks/Romans are just people making up stuff to explain things. I understand if you think that's exactly what I'm doing. But I'm saying if God is the creator of the universe and revealed himself through Jesus and different points in time in the Old Testament, then quite simply he created "science". Everything works the way it does because he made it so. He's outside of time, space, matter but has chosen to reveal himself in different ways and most importantly as Himself in the person of Jesus. Once again, I understand that can sound crazy and I'm just repeating some made up garbage but I also don't understand why people feel like there is such a dichotomy between those who believe in concrete "science" and those who work in the supposed imaginary realm of "religion". I mean, I could care less about Christianity beyond what Jesus has taught and God has commanded. You take away whatever baggage away that has occurred because flawed humans used religion for purposes other than bringing God glory. Just look at your body. Just think about it. I personally find it unfathomable that I'm the product of random chance over millions of billions of years. I just don't get it when I step back why that should be my default belief. Oh, I know you're not just pulling shit out of your ass, I was raised Christian (and have actually gone through confirmation and all that fun stuff). But supposing science is the product of God's creation, I would think that he would be able to physically manifest himself in a way to prove to the non-believers that he exists. Would an omnipotent, omniscient, omnipresent, benevolent god not want to reveal himself and end conflict and suffering for those he created? (that's a VERY loaded question) You might find it unfathomable, but I find it completely awesome that we are products of random chance. What I do find hard to believe is that we could be the only instance of random chance prospering in this potentially infinite universe (/multiverse/etc). I personally don't need a belief in a higher being to accept that these scientific properties worked out in our favor, and I also know there is still so much about everything that we do now know and have barely scratched the surface on.
He did manifest himself, if you believe the New Testament. Of course, the people of the time sure did a bang-up job with that.
Faith and the higher concepts of science aren't interconnected, nor are they conflicting. Just because our world is a veritable needle in the haystack as far as the universe is concerned doesn't mean God doesn't exist, and just because God exists (if He does) doesn't mean that we should stop caring about being in awe of the amazing feats of science and nature in our world.
On August 01 2014 03:53 Slayer91 wrote:yeah we've seen only like 0.000000000000001% of our universe no chance we gonna detect the other aliens anytime soon even if they found our sun with a telescope no chance they gonna find earth and even if they do they won't be able to see shit the off chance of a radiation signal Show nested quote +On August 01 2014 03:53 mordek wrote:On August 01 2014 03:50 Slayer91 wrote:On August 01 2014 03:22 mordek wrote:On August 01 2014 03:12 jcarlsoniv wrote:On August 01 2014 03:08 mordek wrote:On August 01 2014 03:07 jcarlsoniv wrote:On August 01 2014 03:01 mordek wrote:On August 01 2014 02:29 jcarlsoniv wrote:dat formatting mord I'm confused about the "now you have to choose" point. You are always making this choice. This is an active choice being made by everyone all the time. I was going back more to the question I posed before regarding people who were previously unaware of this religion and belief set. They have now been informed of something that others believe, and because they now have the knowledge, they are "forced" to make a choice, and if they don't choose the new stuff, then it will suck for them. It's irrelevant what this isolated group believed before (or didn't believe, if that may be the case), but in the eyes of the believers, the isolated will now be judged by God if they don't choose to follow him since they now know of him, even though they wouldn't have been judged if the believers never spread the word? Even if the believers have the best of intentions (to spread happiness), they've now burdened this isolated group with their own belief system and perceived punishments/benefits. Whoops, I didn't even notice I mis-copied. They're judged based on their knowledge. I would argue in these isolated groups there are those that are acknowledging this unknown god (God) and there are those choosing their own wickedness. They are still making the choice. Spreading the gospel is to convince those choosing sin/iniquity/wickedness to repent by explaining who God is and His salvation. Since I'm not God I couldn't tell you how he makes certain distinctions but we trust he judges fairly. I EXPECT YOU TO KNOW THESE THINGS DAMNIT <3 Thanks for entertaining my questions. For me, belief in a deity would have to come from some sort of empirical and physical evidence - I've never been one to blindly trust in anything. But if there were indisputable proof that some sort of god/afterlife exists, then I'd be a fool and a hypocrite not to acknowledge it. How seriously are you pursuing empirical/physical evidence and what would it take for something to be indisputable. I'm not pursuing it at all as I have no particular desire or need/wish to believe in something "greater". For it to be indisputable, it would have to be something that could be tested and proven. It would have to go through the same principles of science that anything that I know to be fact would have gone through. So if we for just a minute say God is real and the Bible is true, what would have to be tested and proven. How would you accept him proving his existence? Except you could ask the same questions for an infinite amount of gods and an infinite amount of holy books that havent been written or theorized yet so essentially with zero evidence god is a statistical impossibility I get that, I'm trying to understand what is needed to convince him but more so I want him to know what it would take so he knows what questions to ask. The real travesty is if you just decide not to examine it. tbh even if god was real he'd be a massive cock for allowing most life to endure massive suffering if he's not malevolent he's definitely not omnipotent
God gave Free Will to humans. Would it have been better if we were physically incapable of making choices? That would mean that we could not do horrible things or hurt one another, but we also would not be masters of our own fate. God doesn't want automatons to praise Him for no reason, He created life for the same reason people have children: because He loves them and wants to see them prosper.
If you ever have kids, it's similar. You put down rules, you try to teach them right, but in the end it's their own choice to do what they want and make their own fate, even if you think it's horrible and wrong. You just keep trying to help them as you can.
|
On August 01 2014 04:04 Requizen wrote:Show nested quote +On August 01 2014 03:52 jcarlsoniv wrote:On August 01 2014 03:43 mordek wrote:On August 01 2014 03:35 jcarlsoniv wrote:On August 01 2014 03:22 mordek wrote:On August 01 2014 03:12 jcarlsoniv wrote:On August 01 2014 03:08 mordek wrote:On August 01 2014 03:07 jcarlsoniv wrote:On August 01 2014 03:01 mordek wrote:On August 01 2014 02:29 jcarlsoniv wrote:
dat formatting mord
[quote]
I was going back more to the question I posed before regarding people who were previously unaware of this religion and belief set. They have now been informed of something that others believe, and because they now have the knowledge, they are "forced" to make a choice, and if they don't choose the new stuff, then it will suck for them. It's irrelevant what this isolated group believed before (or didn't believe, if that may be the case), but in the eyes of the believers, the isolated will now be judged by God if they don't choose to follow him since they now know of him, even though they wouldn't have been judged if the believers never spread the word?
Even if the believers have the best of intentions (to spread happiness), they've now burdened this isolated group with their own belief system and perceived punishments/benefits. Whoops, I didn't even notice I mis-copied. They're judged based on their knowledge. I would argue in these isolated groups there are those that are acknowledging this unknown god (God) and there are those choosing their own wickedness. They are still making the choice. Spreading the gospel is to convince those choosing sin/iniquity/wickedness to repent by explaining who God is and His salvation. Since I'm not God I couldn't tell you how he makes certain distinctions but we trust he judges fairly. I EXPECT YOU TO KNOW THESE THINGS DAMNIT <3 Thanks for entertaining my questions. For me, belief in a deity would have to come from some sort of empirical and physical evidence - I've never been one to blindly trust in anything. But if there were indisputable proof that some sort of god/afterlife exists, then I'd be a fool and a hypocrite not to acknowledge it. How seriously are you pursuing empirical/physical evidence and what would it take for something to be indisputable. I'm not pursuing it at all as I have no particular desire or need/wish to believe in something "greater". For it to be indisputable, it would have to be something that could be tested and proven. It would have to go through the same principles of science that anything that I know to be fact would have gone through. So if we for just a minute say God is real and the Bible is true, what would have to be tested and proven. How would you accept him proving his existence? I have no idea It would have to be something continuously observable and testable, but I admit that I don't know the contents of the Bible well enough to pick an example there that would be good here. But let's take a polytheistic religion, for example. The different gods serve different purposes (rain god, sun god, goddess of fertility, etc.), and they were used to explain things that people didn't understand. As technology advances, we have been better able to explain and discover the scientific backings, causes, and effects of all of these different types of previously inexplicable things. And so it's difficult to imagine something being scientifically provable while simultaneously being religious in backing. But I won't say it's impossible because something could come along in the future that ends up proving some sort of deity (or deities) to exist. The polytheism of the Greeks/Romans are just people making up stuff to explain things. I understand if you think that's exactly what I'm doing. But I'm saying if God is the creator of the universe and revealed himself through Jesus and different points in time in the Old Testament, then quite simply he created "science". Everything works the way it does because he made it so. He's outside of time, space, matter but has chosen to reveal himself in different ways and most importantly as Himself in the person of Jesus. Once again, I understand that can sound crazy and I'm just repeating some made up garbage but I also don't understand why people feel like there is such a dichotomy between those who believe in concrete "science" and those who work in the supposed imaginary realm of "religion". I mean, I could care less about Christianity beyond what Jesus has taught and God has commanded. You take away whatever baggage away that has occurred because flawed humans used religion for purposes other than bringing God glory. Just look at your body. Just think about it. I personally find it unfathomable that I'm the product of random chance over millions of billions of years. I just don't get it when I step back why that should be my default belief. Oh, I know you're not just pulling shit out of your ass, I was raised Christian (and have actually gone through confirmation and all that fun stuff). But supposing science is the product of God's creation, I would think that he would be able to physically manifest himself in a way to prove to the non-believers that he exists. Would an omnipotent, omniscient, omnipresent, benevolent god not want to reveal himself and end conflict and suffering for those he created? (that's a VERY loaded question) You might find it unfathomable, but I find it completely awesome that we are products of random chance. What I do find hard to believe is that we could be the only instance of random chance prospering in this potentially infinite universe (/multiverse/etc). I personally don't need a belief in a higher being to accept that these scientific properties worked out in our favor, and I also know there is still so much about everything that we do now know and have barely scratched the surface on. He did manifest himself, if you believe the New Testament. Of course, the people of the time sure did a bang-up job with that. Faith and the higher concepts of science aren't interconnected, nor are they conflicting. Just because our world is a veritable needle in the haystack as far as the universe is concerned doesn't mean God doesn't exist, and just because God exists (if He does) doesn't mean that we should stop caring about being in awe of the amazing feats of science and nature in our world. Show nested quote +On August 01 2014 03:53 Slayer91 wrote:yeah we've seen only like 0.000000000000001% of our universe no chance we gonna detect the other aliens anytime soon even if they found our sun with a telescope no chance they gonna find earth and even if they do they won't be able to see shit the off chance of a radiation signal On August 01 2014 03:53 mordek wrote:On August 01 2014 03:50 Slayer91 wrote:On August 01 2014 03:22 mordek wrote:On August 01 2014 03:12 jcarlsoniv wrote:On August 01 2014 03:08 mordek wrote:On August 01 2014 03:07 jcarlsoniv wrote:On August 01 2014 03:01 mordek wrote:On August 01 2014 02:29 jcarlsoniv wrote:
dat formatting mord
[quote]
I was going back more to the question I posed before regarding people who were previously unaware of this religion and belief set. They have now been informed of something that others believe, and because they now have the knowledge, they are "forced" to make a choice, and if they don't choose the new stuff, then it will suck for them. It's irrelevant what this isolated group believed before (or didn't believe, if that may be the case), but in the eyes of the believers, the isolated will now be judged by God if they don't choose to follow him since they now know of him, even though they wouldn't have been judged if the believers never spread the word?
Even if the believers have the best of intentions (to spread happiness), they've now burdened this isolated group with their own belief system and perceived punishments/benefits. Whoops, I didn't even notice I mis-copied. They're judged based on their knowledge. I would argue in these isolated groups there are those that are acknowledging this unknown god (God) and there are those choosing their own wickedness. They are still making the choice. Spreading the gospel is to convince those choosing sin/iniquity/wickedness to repent by explaining who God is and His salvation. Since I'm not God I couldn't tell you how he makes certain distinctions but we trust he judges fairly. I EXPECT YOU TO KNOW THESE THINGS DAMNIT <3 Thanks for entertaining my questions. For me, belief in a deity would have to come from some sort of empirical and physical evidence - I've never been one to blindly trust in anything. But if there were indisputable proof that some sort of god/afterlife exists, then I'd be a fool and a hypocrite not to acknowledge it. How seriously are you pursuing empirical/physical evidence and what would it take for something to be indisputable. I'm not pursuing it at all as I have no particular desire or need/wish to believe in something "greater". For it to be indisputable, it would have to be something that could be tested and proven. It would have to go through the same principles of science that anything that I know to be fact would have gone through. So if we for just a minute say God is real and the Bible is true, what would have to be tested and proven. How would you accept him proving his existence? Except you could ask the same questions for an infinite amount of gods and an infinite amount of holy books that havent been written or theorized yet so essentially with zero evidence god is a statistical impossibility I get that, I'm trying to understand what is needed to convince him but more so I want him to know what it would take so he knows what questions to ask. The real travesty is if you just decide not to examine it. tbh even if god was real he'd be a massive cock for allowing most life to endure massive suffering if he's not malevolent he's definitely not omnipotent God gave Free Will to humans. Would it have been better if we were physically incapable of making choices? That would mean that we could not do horrible things or hurt one another, but we also would not be masters of our own fate. God doesn't want automatons to praise Him for no reason, He created life for the same reason people have children: because He loves them and wants to see them prosper. If you ever have kids, it's similar. You put down rules, you try to teach them right, but in the end it's their own choice to do what they want and make their own fate, even if you think it's horrible and wrong. You just keep trying to help them as you can.
Correct me if I'm wrong since it's been a long time, but didn't "the devil" give humans free will by tricking Eve into eating from the tree of knowledge which god specifically forbade humans to do?
|
On August 01 2014 04:04 Requizen wrote:Show nested quote +On August 01 2014 03:52 jcarlsoniv wrote:On August 01 2014 03:43 mordek wrote:On August 01 2014 03:35 jcarlsoniv wrote:On August 01 2014 03:22 mordek wrote:On August 01 2014 03:12 jcarlsoniv wrote:On August 01 2014 03:08 mordek wrote:On August 01 2014 03:07 jcarlsoniv wrote:On August 01 2014 03:01 mordek wrote:On August 01 2014 02:29 jcarlsoniv wrote:
dat formatting mord
[quote]
I was going back more to the question I posed before regarding people who were previously unaware of this religion and belief set. They have now been informed of something that others believe, and because they now have the knowledge, they are "forced" to make a choice, and if they don't choose the new stuff, then it will suck for them. It's irrelevant what this isolated group believed before (or didn't believe, if that may be the case), but in the eyes of the believers, the isolated will now be judged by God if they don't choose to follow him since they now know of him, even though they wouldn't have been judged if the believers never spread the word?
Even if the believers have the best of intentions (to spread happiness), they've now burdened this isolated group with their own belief system and perceived punishments/benefits. Whoops, I didn't even notice I mis-copied. They're judged based on their knowledge. I would argue in these isolated groups there are those that are acknowledging this unknown god (God) and there are those choosing their own wickedness. They are still making the choice. Spreading the gospel is to convince those choosing sin/iniquity/wickedness to repent by explaining who God is and His salvation. Since I'm not God I couldn't tell you how he makes certain distinctions but we trust he judges fairly. I EXPECT YOU TO KNOW THESE THINGS DAMNIT <3 Thanks for entertaining my questions. For me, belief in a deity would have to come from some sort of empirical and physical evidence - I've never been one to blindly trust in anything. But if there were indisputable proof that some sort of god/afterlife exists, then I'd be a fool and a hypocrite not to acknowledge it. How seriously are you pursuing empirical/physical evidence and what would it take for something to be indisputable. I'm not pursuing it at all as I have no particular desire or need/wish to believe in something "greater". For it to be indisputable, it would have to be something that could be tested and proven. It would have to go through the same principles of science that anything that I know to be fact would have gone through. So if we for just a minute say God is real and the Bible is true, what would have to be tested and proven. How would you accept him proving his existence? I have no idea It would have to be something continuously observable and testable, but I admit that I don't know the contents of the Bible well enough to pick an example there that would be good here. But let's take a polytheistic religion, for example. The different gods serve different purposes (rain god, sun god, goddess of fertility, etc.), and they were used to explain things that people didn't understand. As technology advances, we have been better able to explain and discover the scientific backings, causes, and effects of all of these different types of previously inexplicable things. And so it's difficult to imagine something being scientifically provable while simultaneously being religious in backing. But I won't say it's impossible because something could come along in the future that ends up proving some sort of deity (or deities) to exist. The polytheism of the Greeks/Romans are just people making up stuff to explain things. I understand if you think that's exactly what I'm doing. But I'm saying if God is the creator of the universe and revealed himself through Jesus and different points in time in the Old Testament, then quite simply he created "science". Everything works the way it does because he made it so. He's outside of time, space, matter but has chosen to reveal himself in different ways and most importantly as Himself in the person of Jesus. Once again, I understand that can sound crazy and I'm just repeating some made up garbage but I also don't understand why people feel like there is such a dichotomy between those who believe in concrete "science" and those who work in the supposed imaginary realm of "religion". I mean, I could care less about Christianity beyond what Jesus has taught and God has commanded. You take away whatever baggage away that has occurred because flawed humans used religion for purposes other than bringing God glory. Just look at your body. Just think about it. I personally find it unfathomable that I'm the product of random chance over millions of billions of years. I just don't get it when I step back why that should be my default belief. Oh, I know you're not just pulling shit out of your ass, I was raised Christian (and have actually gone through confirmation and all that fun stuff). But supposing science is the product of God's creation, I would think that he would be able to physically manifest himself in a way to prove to the non-believers that he exists. Would an omnipotent, omniscient, omnipresent, benevolent god not want to reveal himself and end conflict and suffering for those he created? (that's a VERY loaded question) You might find it unfathomable, but I find it completely awesome that we are products of random chance. What I do find hard to believe is that we could be the only instance of random chance prospering in this potentially infinite universe (/multiverse/etc). I personally don't need a belief in a higher being to accept that these scientific properties worked out in our favor, and I also know there is still so much about everything that we do now know and have barely scratched the surface on. He did manifest himself, if you believe the New Testament. Of course, the people of the time sure did a bang-up job with that. Faith and the higher concepts of science aren't interconnected, nor are they conflicting. Just because our world is a veritable needle in the haystack as far as the universe is concerned doesn't mean God doesn't exist, and just because God exists (if He does) doesn't mean that we should stop caring about being in awe of the amazing feats of science and nature in our world. Show nested quote +On August 01 2014 03:53 Slayer91 wrote:yeah we've seen only like 0.000000000000001% of our universe no chance we gonna detect the other aliens anytime soon even if they found our sun with a telescope no chance they gonna find earth and even if they do they won't be able to see shit the off chance of a radiation signal On August 01 2014 03:53 mordek wrote:On August 01 2014 03:50 Slayer91 wrote:On August 01 2014 03:22 mordek wrote:On August 01 2014 03:12 jcarlsoniv wrote:On August 01 2014 03:08 mordek wrote:On August 01 2014 03:07 jcarlsoniv wrote:On August 01 2014 03:01 mordek wrote:On August 01 2014 02:29 jcarlsoniv wrote:
dat formatting mord
[quote]
I was going back more to the question I posed before regarding people who were previously unaware of this religion and belief set. They have now been informed of something that others believe, and because they now have the knowledge, they are "forced" to make a choice, and if they don't choose the new stuff, then it will suck for them. It's irrelevant what this isolated group believed before (or didn't believe, if that may be the case), but in the eyes of the believers, the isolated will now be judged by God if they don't choose to follow him since they now know of him, even though they wouldn't have been judged if the believers never spread the word?
Even if the believers have the best of intentions (to spread happiness), they've now burdened this isolated group with their own belief system and perceived punishments/benefits. Whoops, I didn't even notice I mis-copied. They're judged based on their knowledge. I would argue in these isolated groups there are those that are acknowledging this unknown god (God) and there are those choosing their own wickedness. They are still making the choice. Spreading the gospel is to convince those choosing sin/iniquity/wickedness to repent by explaining who God is and His salvation. Since I'm not God I couldn't tell you how he makes certain distinctions but we trust he judges fairly. I EXPECT YOU TO KNOW THESE THINGS DAMNIT <3 Thanks for entertaining my questions. For me, belief in a deity would have to come from some sort of empirical and physical evidence - I've never been one to blindly trust in anything. But if there were indisputable proof that some sort of god/afterlife exists, then I'd be a fool and a hypocrite not to acknowledge it. How seriously are you pursuing empirical/physical evidence and what would it take for something to be indisputable. I'm not pursuing it at all as I have no particular desire or need/wish to believe in something "greater". For it to be indisputable, it would have to be something that could be tested and proven. It would have to go through the same principles of science that anything that I know to be fact would have gone through. So if we for just a minute say God is real and the Bible is true, what would have to be tested and proven. How would you accept him proving his existence? Except you could ask the same questions for an infinite amount of gods and an infinite amount of holy books that havent been written or theorized yet so essentially with zero evidence god is a statistical impossibility I get that, I'm trying to understand what is needed to convince him but more so I want him to know what it would take so he knows what questions to ask. The real travesty is if you just decide not to examine it. tbh even if god was real he'd be a massive cock for allowing most life to endure massive suffering if he's not malevolent he's definitely not omnipotent God gave Free Will to humans. Would it have been better if we were physically incapable of making choices? That would mean that we could not do horrible things or hurt one another, but we also would not be masters of our own fate. God doesn't want automatons to praise Him for no reason, He created life for the same reason people have children: because He loves them and wants to see them prosper. If you ever have kids, it's similar. You put down rules, you try to teach them right, but in the end it's their own choice to do what they want and make their own fate, even if you think it's horrible and wrong. You just keep trying to help them as you can.
But by your belief, we're not the masters of our own fate. Ultimately, your fate ends up being in your god's hands.
It also seems odd to compare having kids to God creating man. As is evident, humans are completely fallible. However, is it not portrayed that God is infallible (legit question, I don't know)? Cuz giving people free will and then being like "don't do this shit" seems like an idiotic thing to do.
|
On August 01 2014 03:58 jcarlsoniv wrote:Show nested quote +On August 01 2014 03:53 Slayer91 wrote:
yeah we've seen only like 0.000000000000001% of our universe no chance we gonna detect the other aliens anytime soon
even if they found our sun with a telescope no chance they gonna find earth and even if they do they won't be able to see shit
the off chance of a radiation signal Oh, I completely agree with you. I'd be shocked if humanity even lives long enough to ever encounter an alien species. But if there's one thing that I blindly believe, it's that we're not alone in the universe - but that belief is only held because of the absurd diversity in the universe we HAVE seen, the statistics are in my favor. And it's not even a belief that has any influence on my behavior at all. @mordek - well it's very hard for me to believe that Jesus was a one time gig over 2000 years ago for the chance to physically observe that God exists
I'd be shocked if I manage to live to see people on Mars. We're such a long shot removed from that it's not even funny.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
