Escape Artists

The Lounge at the End of the Universe => Gallimaufry => Topic started by: Windup on January 08, 2008, 01:46:37 AM

Title: How do you get to heaven split from EP129
Post by: Windup on January 08, 2008, 01:46:37 AM
Quote
The belief that we have a very short time to secure our eternity has always seemed funny to me. That in less than 100 years we have to do/say all the right things in order to secure the next 100,000,000,000,000,000... I know first impressions are important, but WOW.
Also the wide spread belief that after you get in to the after life, that's it. From then on there are no more questions, no more answers, no more challenges, obstacles; just infinity. What happened to “The only thing constant in life is change?"

I currently find CS Lewis' explanation from Mere Christianity the most compelling: We are immortal, regardless of whether we like it or not. The only question is what sort of immortals we choose to be.  Flaws in our character that would be relatively minor if we only had threescore and ten to work with will make us monsters (or demons) if let run over the course of many millenia.  And possibly, eternity is not infinite stretches of time, but the complete absence of time: a never-ending and never-beginning Now in which all things have always come to their fruition, and all things begin, at precisely the same moment.

'Course, Lewis hasn't got much in the way of scriptural support for this viewpoint, so as another poster said, "Just good advice..."  Or perhaps an explanation that works in this age, for something we aren't even reasonably close to getting our collective heads around. 


Moderator:  Fixed quoting
Title: How do you get to heaven split from EP129
Post by: eytanz on January 08, 2008, 09:47:14 AM
Quote
The belief that we have a very short time to secure our eternity has always seemed funny to me. That in less than 100 years we have to do/say all the right things in order to secure the next 100,000,000,000,000,000... I know first impressions are important, but WOW.
Also the wide spread belief that after you get in to the after life, that's it. From then on there are no more questions, no more answers, no more challenges, obstacles; just infinity. What happened to “The only thing constant in life is change?"

I currently find CS Lewis' explanation from Mere Christianity the most compelling: We are immortal, regardless of whether we like it or not. The only question is what sort of immortals we choose to be.  Flaws in our character that would be relatively minor if we only had threescore and ten to work with will make us monsters (or demons) if let run over the course of many millenia.  And possibly, eternity is not infinite stretches of time, but the complete absence of time: a never-ending and never-beginning Now in which all things have always come to their fruition, and all things begin, at precisely the same moment.

'Course, Lewis hasn't got much in the way of scriptural support for this viewpoint, so as another poster said, "Just good advice..."  Or perhaps an explanation that works in this age, for something we aren't even reasonably close to getting our collective heads around. 

Um, I can't see how that's an explanation of anything - it's a restatement of the Christian position in relatively simple, accessible terms, but it's still just a restatement.
Title: How do you get to heaven split from EP129
Post by: Windup on January 08, 2008, 03:04:05 PM
Quote
The belief that we have a very short time to secure our eternity has always seemed funny to me. That in less than 100 years we have to do/say all the right things in order to secure the next 100,000,000,000,000,000... I know first impressions are important, but WOW.
Also the wide spread belief that after you get in to the after life, that's it. From then on there are no more questions, no more answers, no more challenges, obstacles; just infinity. What happened to “The only thing constant in life is change?"

I currently find CS Lewis' explanation from Mere Christianity the most compelling: We are immortal, regardless of whether we like it or not. The only question is what sort of immortals we choose to be.  Flaws in our character that would be relatively minor if we only had threescore and ten to work with will make us monsters (or demons) if let run over the course of many millenia.  And possibly, eternity is not infinite stretches of time, but the complete absence of time: a never-ending and never-beginning Now in which all things have always come to their fruition, and all things begin, at precisely the same moment.

'Course, Lewis hasn't got much in the way of scriptural support for this viewpoint, so as another poster said, "Just good advice..."  Or perhaps an explanation that works in this age, for something we aren't even reasonably close to getting our collective heads around. 

Um, I can't see how that's an explanation of anything - it's a restatement of the Christian position in relatively simple, accessible terms, but it's still just a restatement.

I understood the original questions to be, "Why do we have such a short number of years to determine our status for a long number of years?" and "Why does change stop with death?"  And the "answer" is along the lines of, "Wrong question; what we are is immortals with the temporary gift of time.  During our sojourn in sequential time, we can decide what to do when we enter a state in which we 'become what we are' without the benefit of time. Without time, the concept of 'change' is meaningless."   

Or do you see the question as more along the lines of, "Why did God set it up this way in the first place?"  In which case, you're right, all I've got to say is, "I don't know." 
Title: How do you get to heaven split from EP129
Post by: Czhorat on January 09, 2008, 10:21:32 PM
I understood the original questions to be, "Why do we have such a short number of years to determine our status for a long number of years?" and "Why does change stop with death?"  And the "answer" is along the lines of, "Wrong question; what we are is immortals with the temporary gift of time.  During our sojourn in sequential time, we can decide what to do when we enter a state in which we 'become what we are' without the benefit of time. Without time, the concept of 'change' is meaningless."  

Or do you see the question as more along the lines of, "Why did God set it up this way in the first place?"  In which case, you're right, all I've got to say is, "I don't know." 

It's a whole system that fails at even casual obervation. What about infants who die very young of genetic diseases, for example? Do they not get souls, or are they supposed to have perfected them before they learn how to even roll over onto their backs? I find it very hard to imagine any way in which the idea of an immortal life based on your performance in this life.
Title: How do you get to heaven split from EP129
Post by: Windup on January 10, 2008, 01:32:40 AM
I understood the original questions to be, "Why do we have such a short number of years to determine our status for a long number of years?" and "Why does change stop with death?"  And the "answer" is along the lines of, "Wrong question; what we are is immortals with the temporary gift of time.  During our sojourn in sequential time, we can decide what to do when we enter a state in which we 'become what we are' without the benefit of time. Without time, the concept of 'change' is meaningless."  

Or do you see the question as more along the lines of, "Why did God set it up this way in the first place?"  In which case, you're right, all I've got to say is, "I don't know." 

It's a whole system that fails at even casual obervation. What about infants who die very young of genetic diseases, for example? Do they not get souls, or are they supposed to have perfected them before they learn how to even roll over onto their backs? I find it very hard to imagine any way in which the idea of an immortal life based on your performance in this life.

I'm unclear -- is it that you reject the notion of any sort of survival of the personality after death, or that you don't believe that there is any possible relationship between the physical life and whatever comes next?
Title: How do you get to heaven split from EP129
Post by: Czhorat on January 10, 2008, 11:32:32 AM
I understood the original questions to be, "Why do we have such a short number of years to determine our status for a long number of years?" and "Why does change stop with death?"  And the "answer" is along the lines of, "Wrong question; what we are is immortals with the temporary gift of time.  During our sojourn in sequential time, we can decide what to do when we enter a state in which we 'become what we are' without the benefit of time. Without time, the concept of 'change' is meaningless."   

Or do you see the question as more along the lines of, "Why did God set it up this way in the first place?"  In which case, you're right, all I've got to say is, "I don't know." 

It's a whole system that fails at even casual obervation. What about infants who die very young of genetic diseases, for example? Do they not get souls, or are they supposed to have perfected them before they learn how to even roll over onto their backs? I find it very hard to imagine any way in which the idea of an immortal life based on your performance in this life.

I'm unclear -- is it that you reject the notion of any sort of survival of the personality after death, or that you don't believe that there is any possible relationship between the physical life and whatever comes next?

I reject the notion of an "eternal reward" for what we consider to be good behavior here in this world. It strikes me as purely fanciful wish fulfillment. So far as the survival of the personality after death, it's a nice idea but there is no reason to believe in it other than that we would like to.
Title: How do you get to heaven split from EP129
Post by: Windup on January 10, 2008, 09:22:51 PM
I understood the original questions to be, "Why do we have such a short number of years to determine our status for a long number of years?" and "Why does change stop with death?"  And the "answer" is along the lines of, "Wrong question; what we are is immortals with the temporary gift of time.  During our sojourn in sequential time, we can decide what to do when we enter a state in which we 'become what we are' without the benefit of time. Without time, the concept of 'change' is meaningless."   

Or do you see the question as more along the lines of, "Why did God set it up this way in the first place?"  In which case, you're right, all I've got to say is, "I don't know." 

It's a whole system that fails at even casual obervation. What about infants who die very young of genetic diseases, for example? Do they not get souls, or are they supposed to have perfected them before they learn how to even roll over onto their backs? I find it very hard to imagine any way in which the idea of an immortal life based on your performance in this life.

I'm unclear -- is it that you reject the notion of any sort of survival of the personality after death, or that you don't believe that there is any possible relationship between the physical life and whatever comes next?

I reject the notion of an "eternal reward" for what we consider to be good behavior here in this world. It strikes me as purely fanciful wish fulfillment. So far as the survival of the personality after death, it's a nice idea but there is no reason to believe in it other than that we would like to.

OK, I understand where you are coming from, now.  I agree that there's no ironclad proof that would pass muster as a controlled experiment.  I think C.S. Lewis makes the case as well as it can be made for most modern, Western people in Mere Christianity.  But, when he's all done, it comes down to circumstantial evidence.  Albiet circumstantial evidence, combined with personal experiences, that Lewis, I and many others have found persuasive over the years. 

However, since our respective systems rest on conflicting and "unprovable" premises, there isn't much of anyplace for this discussion to go. 
Title: How do you get to heaven split from EP129
Post by: Mr. Tweedy on January 12, 2008, 08:06:50 PM
I reject the notion of an "eternal reward" for what we consider to be good behavior here in this world. It strikes me as purely fanciful wish fulfillment. So far as the survival of the personality after death, it's a nice idea but there is no reason to believe in it other than that we would like to.

If Heaven and Hell were merely reward and punishment for good and bad behavior, then I would have to agree.  But I have never understood either in that light.  Heaven is where God is king.  Those who want God for a king get their wish.  Those who don't want God for a king are not forced to be His subjects.  It's all about free will, really.

That is a simplified explanation.  Yes, Heaven is a reward and Hell is a punishment in the sense that they are places that are pleasant and unpleasant for human habitation, and there are some scriptures which allude to different degrees of reward and punishment based on behavior (although the Biblical understanding is that behavior expresses the heart), but as for the big question of "who gets in," good and bad behavior are not particularly relevant, and there is certainly no Biblical idea of a balance or quota of good or evil deeds to go to either place.  Take the thief on the cross for an example.  He presumably lived a life full of evil deeds and had no chance to do any penance, yet Jesus promises him that he would be in Heaven when he died.  Contrast this with the Pharisees, who Jesus called "sons of hell" despite their pedantically religious lifestyles.  Going to Heaven or Hell is a matter of whether or not one loves God and wants to be with Him, not of how many points one has accumulated over their lives.

I'm pretty sure Muslims believe in a kind of points system, but it isn't a Christian idea (that is, not based on the Bible or the teachings of Christ therein).

What about babies?  I don't know, and it bugs me sometimes.  My little Clara does not have the mental capacity to choose or want anything.  My understanding is that one must sin in order to turn away from God, and I'm pretty sure my Clara hasn't sinned, but she hasn't chosen to love God either.  So I'm kind of hazy about it.  I'm not worried, though: God is good and I trust that He's got a good way of dealing with such situations, even thought I'm not real clear on what that way is.
Title: How do you get to heaven split from EP129
Post by: Czhorat on January 12, 2008, 08:27:58 PM
I reject the notion of an "eternal reward" for what we consider to be good behavior here in this world. It strikes me as purely fanciful wish fulfillment. So far as the survival of the personality after death, it's a nice idea but there is no reason to believe in it other than that we would like to.

If Heaven and Hell were merely reward and punishment for good and bad behavior, then I would have to agree.  But I have never understood either in that light.  Heaven is where God is king.  Those who want God for a king get their wish.  Those who don't want God for a king are not forced to be His subjects.  It's all about free will, really.

I think you're splitting hairs here, especially as you later admit that heaven is consistently described as a pleasant place to be and hell is consistently described as eternal torture.

Quote
That is a simplified explanation.  Yes, Heaven is a reward and Hell is a punishment in the sense that they are places that are pleasant and unpleasant for human habitation, and there are some scriptures which allude to different degrees of reward and punishment based on behavior (although the Biblical understanding is that behavior expresses the heart), but as for the big question of "who gets in," good and bad behavior are not particularly relevant, and there is certainly no Biblical idea of a balance or quota of good or evil deeds to go to either place.  Take the thief on the cross for an example.  He presumably lived a life full of evil deeds and had no chance to do any penance, yet Jesus promises him that he would be in Heaven when he died.  Contrast this with the Pharisees, who Jesus called "sons of hell" despite their pedantically religious lifestyles.  Going to Heaven or Hell is a matter of whether or not one loves God and wants to be with Him, not of how many points one has accumulated over their lives.

I still have trouble with the morality of this belief system. The majority of people follow the religion taught to them by their parents and those in their community. If one grows up in India, for example, and is raised to believe in dharma and karma and that your reward for doing well in this life is to be reincarnated to a better position next time until your soul is somehow complete then you're unlikely to love the Christian God. If you believe the Christian religion to be literally true then the deck is heavily stacked in favor of those born into Christian cultures and families and against those not. Can you give a moral justification for this? In our earlier discussion of good and evil you stopped well short of saying that people who do not follow your faith are evil, but made later comments that seemed to me to contradict that idea. Now you seem to be saying that anyone who doesn't believe as you do is due for some kind of eternal punishment, or at the very least long-term suffering. Am I reading you correctly, or did I miss something?
Title: Re: How do you get to heaven split from EP129
Post by: Mr. Tweedy on January 12, 2008, 09:26:50 PM
I think you're splitting hairs here, especially as you later admit that heaven is consistently described as a pleasant place to be and hell is consistently described as eternal torture.

Hmm...

Well, first, what's your idea of torture?  If I posit that God is the source of all good things, then separation from God would mean separation from all that makes life enjoyable.  Understand that the image of sinners impaled on stakes with demons poking them is not found in the Bible.  Hell isn't really given much description at all, save metaphorically, and even those are pretty rare.  As I understand it (others may dispute) the reason Hell is unpleasant is primarily because God isn't there.

For there to be no Hell, you'd have to have a situation where God could somehow provide a pleasant environment while at the same time being wholly absent and having no influence.  I don't think even God can pull of a paradox like that.

Under such circumstances, does God absenting Himself make God a torturer?

I still have trouble with the morality of this belief system. The majority of people follow the religion taught to them by their parents and those in their community. If one grows up in India, for example, and is raised to believe in dharma and karma and that your reward for doing well in this life is to be reincarnated to a better position next time until your soul is somehow complete then you're unlikely to love the Christian God. If you believe the Christian religion to be literally true then the deck is heavily stacked in favor of those born into Christian cultures and families and against those not. Can you give a moral justification for this? In our earlier discussion of good and evil you stopped well short of saying that people who do not follow your faith are evil, but made later comments that seemed to me to contradict that idea.

Well, I'd have to wonder where your getting an idea of morality with which to judge my belief system.  If there isn't any black and white good and evil, then what do you use as a point of reference from which to judge my God?  Are you saying you don't personally care for my beliefs or that they don't measure up to some standard?  I would have to understand that to understand and answer your question about "moral justification."

If you are simply concerned with the issue of fairness, well no, it isn't fair.  Nothing is fair, ever.  No one ever gets an perfectly equal shot at anything.  Why is that?  Because the world is fucked up by sin and everything sucks to some degree.  I don't like it, but I can't point a finger of blame at God: He isn't the one teaching kids bogus ideas.

But it isn't as unfair as you might think.  For one thing, no one is saved or damned based on what religion they practice.  Church pews are filled with Bible-toting, cross-wearing people who will someday be shocked and stunned to discover that they are going to Hell.  That isn't my opinion: Jesus said so explicitly; see Matthew 25.  God does not judge people by categories: He judges individuals.

The salient question is not "What category does this person place their-self in?"  It is "Does this person love God?"  Is it possible to know all about God and hate Him?  Certainly.  Is it possible to love God without knowing His proper name?  I think so, although I don't suppose it is common.

Now you seem to be saying that anyone who doesn't believe as you do is due for some kind of eternal punishment, or at the very least long-term suffering. Am I reading you correctly, or did I miss something?

Depends on what you mean by "believe as you do."  I do not suffer under the delusion that my religion is perfect or that I understand everything.  But I do love God and seek to live as a citizen of His Kingdom.  As long as another person also does those things, then I can call him/her brother/sister, even if the specifics of our beliefs diverge in some ways.
Title: Re: How do you get to heaven split from EP129
Post by: stePH on January 13, 2008, 02:09:02 AM
But it isn't as unfair as you might think.  For one thing, no one is saved or damned based on what religion they practice.  Church pews are filled with Bible-toting, cross-wearing people who will someday be shocked and stunned to discover that they are going to Hell.  That isn't my opinion: Jesus said so explicitly; see Matthew 25.  God does not judge people by categories: He judges individuals.
My understanding of Christianity, as everybody I've ever met who professes to be a Christian tells me, is that only belief in Jesus as the Son of God and acceptance of him as the Savior will get one into Heaven -- as it says in John 14:6 ...
Quote
Jesus saith unto him, I am the way, the truth, and the life: no man cometh unto the Father, but by me.

So it seems to me that one is saved or damned based on what religion they practice.  The most moral and "good" person is still damned to hell if he believes Jesus was just a man, or entirely mythical, or anything at all other than the Son of God and the Savior of Mankind.  Am I wrong?
Title: Re: How do you get to heaven split from EP129
Post by: Tango Alpha Delta on January 13, 2008, 02:22:05 AM
Heaven, Hell... meh.   I think the recurring concept of reward/punishment is the key to understanding what this is really about. 

MY belief (and mine only... thus no sources) is that we're organisms with a relatively unique trait: intelligence. 

The best simple, working definition of "intelligence" for MY belief system (and mine only... under a Creative Commons religious license) Is:

Quote from: TAD
Self-awareness combined with a varied toolbox of reasoning, logic, and instinct or intuition.

We were clever social animals who figured out ways to acquire and pass along knowledge as a cooperative group.  The old survival instinct of "cooperate with your neighbor" competes with the other old survival instinct of "fear the Other" constantly, and technology is our answer for everything (just not always the best answer). 

The best way to overcome the fear of your neighbor long enough to cooperate with him is to make sure it's in his self-interest to look out for you.  We've come up with countless ways to do that... family groups, clans, tribes, kingdoms, empires, nations... chat rooms, newsgroups, forums...

Ahem.

But, by far, the most successful technique for intimidating others (or convincing those who are on your side to drive them out) has been to convince someone that their "immortal soul" is in peril if they cross you... er, I mean God.  Don't cross God.

Me, I have my moral code just where I want it.  I don't need a threat of eternal damnation to behave myself; I will take care of my kids, drive safely, perform hygiene for the sake of public safety... without worrying about having my ghoulies roasted over a sulphur pit for the next gajillion years.  If you need to convince yourself that God is pleased in order to accomplish those things, I certainly don't want to take that away from you, but...

But so much of this argument sounds like someone in the fuedal system trying to explain why it's so much better to have a King.  As long as the king doesn't tell you to mess with me, you're more than welcome to be his subject.  But I'VE got a blog to write.  :)
Title: Re: How do you get to heaven split from EP129
Post by: eytanz on January 13, 2008, 02:25:47 AM
But it isn't as unfair as you might think.  For one thing, no one is saved or damned based on what religion they practice.  Church pews are filled with Bible-toting, cross-wearing people who will someday be shocked and stunned to discover that they are going to Hell.  That isn't my opinion: Jesus said so explicitly; see Matthew 25.  God does not judge people by categories: He judges individuals.
My understanding of Christianity, as everybody I've ever met who professes to be a Christian tells me, is that only belief in Jesus as the Son of God and acceptance of him as the Savior will get one into Heaven -- as it says in John 14:6 ...
Quote
Jesus saith unto him, I am the way, the truth, and the life: no man cometh unto the Father, but by me.

So it seems to me that one is saved or damned based on what religion they practice.  The most moral and "good" person is still damned to hell if he believes Jesus was just a man, or entirely mythical, or anything at all other than the Son of God and the Savior of Mankind.  Am I wrong?

While what you describe is certainly a very common view shared by many branches of Christianity, it's not the only possible Christian view. There are plenty openings for different interpretations.

One is that there may be more than one way to accept Jesus into your life. One view is that it is possible to accept Jesus without realizing it. The view then is that if someone acts in a moral way, it is *because* he has accepted Jesus in the relevant sense. It is impossible, under this view, to be moral without being a Christian; but it's possible to be a moral, yet deluded Christian who thinks they belong to another religion.

Another view - held by several Chritstians I know who belong to Catholic churches - is that you need to accept Jesus not in life, but at the moment of judging. Whether or not you will be given the opportunity to do so depends on how you lived your life, allowing for leeway - a good person who did not actively believe in Jesus in life may be given an opportunity to reconsider at the moment of his death.

It is also possible to interpret this verse in a totally different manner - it may simply mean that Jesus is the arbitrator of who goes to heaven, and that it is his judgement that counts.

Anyway, these are just a few examples. Note that I'm not a Christian, but I have discussed this matter extensively with Christians back in the day, and all three views above are my paraphrases of actual positions that Christians took. Again, I think the view you are taking is a very common one, but I don't think Christians are limited to it.
Title: Re: How do you get to heaven split from EP129
Post by: Mr. Tweedy on January 13, 2008, 03:59:47 AM
But it isn't as unfair as you might think.  For one thing, no one is saved or damned based on what religion they practice.  Church pews are filled with Bible-toting, cross-wearing people who will someday be shocked and stunned to discover that they are going to Hell.  That isn't my opinion: Jesus said so explicitly; see Matthew 25.  God does not judge people by categories: He judges individuals.
My understanding of Christianity, as everybody I've ever met who professes to be a Christian tells me, is that only belief in Jesus as the Son of God and acceptance of him as the Savior will get one into Heaven -- as it says in John 14:6 ...
Quote
Jesus saith unto him, I am the way, the truth, and the life: no man cometh unto the Father, but by me.

So it seems to me that one is saved or damned based on what religion they practice.  The most moral and "good" person is still damned to hell if he believes Jesus was just a man, or entirely mythical, or anything at all other than the Son of God and the Savior of Mankind.  Am I wrong?

No, you're not wrong, and that precisely illustrates my point about loving God.  The most moral person in the world can go to Hell, because going to Heaven or Hell is not a matter of how moral one is (which addresses what TAD was saying).  Anyone can follow rules: God isn't please by simply following a set of rules, as illustrated by the numerous times in the prophets (ex: Isaiah 1) when God declares that the Jews' observance of the religious ceremonies and festivals–which God ordained–are disgusting to Him unless they are motivated by love for God and accompanied by love for neighbors.

As for needing to know the name "Jesus" to be saved, I can see that angle, and I can't confidently declare that it is wrong.  But what about Rahab in Joshua?  Ruth in Ruth?  What about Cornelius in Acts?  There are examples of people in the Bible who were called righteous or God-fearing before they became Jews or Christians (although they always converted immediately when they encountered the Gospel).

I'm pretty sure that particular question is outside of our scope here, since most here are not Christians and dissecting it would probably just be me talking to myself.  Save to say I, in my admittedly imperfect understanding, do not think it is strictly necessary to know the name "Jesus."  Jesus is the only way, but I think you can walk down a road without knowing it's name.
Title: Re: How do you get to heaven split from EP129
Post by: Darwinist on January 13, 2008, 04:56:18 AM
When I attended Catholic school <shudders> I was informed that if you died without confessing a mortal sin you had an automatic ticket to hell.   If I remember correctly, mortal sins were basically sins which went against the ten commandments.  Included under the 6th commandment (adultery) was fornication, masturbation, pornography, rape, incest, homosexuality, etc.  So anyone committing this mortal sins was off to hell, unless you cleared it up with a Catholic priest first.     
Title: Re: How do you get to heaven split from EP129
Post by: Mr. Tweedy on January 13, 2008, 05:18:11 AM
Okay, I'm really curious: Did the person who told you that give you any rationale or basis for believing it?  They obviously weren't citing the Bible, since there is a complete dearth of Catholic Priests therein.  Where does that stuff come from?
Title: Re: How do you get to heaven split from EP129
Post by: stePH on January 13, 2008, 05:27:38 AM
Included under the 6th commandment (adultery) was fornication, masturbation, pornography, rape, incest, homosexuality, etc. 
I know there are verses of the Bible that make its anti-homosexuality stance quite clear, but I don't think masturbation is mentioned even once.

And eytanz, it is not me taking that view; it is simply the view that I've heard expressed by everybody I've ever known who professed to be a Christian (as I said before).  I do not profess to be a Christian (nor do I play one on TV  ;D) so in their view, I am most assuredly damned to hell.
Title: Re: How do you get to heaven split from EP129
Post by: Darwinist on January 13, 2008, 06:03:50 AM
Okay, I'm really curious: Did the person who told you that give you any rationale or basis for believing it?  They obviously weren't citing the Bible, since there is a complete dearth of Catholic Priests therein.  Where does that stuff come from?

I don't recall having getting much rationale for these things......just that we "better not do this".   I'm sure it was their (nuns holding rulers) interpretation of the commandment(s).   
Title: Re: How do you get to heaven split from EP129
Post by: DDog on January 13, 2008, 07:10:30 AM
Okay, I'm really curious: Did the person who told you that give you any rationale or basis for believing it?  They obviously weren't citing the Bible, since there is a complete dearth of Catholic Priests therein.  Where does that stuff come from?
I don't know the exact ratio, but a lot of Catholic rationale comes from Catholic tradition and not necessarily from the Bible at all.
Title: Re: How do you get to heaven split from EP129
Post by: sirana on January 13, 2008, 11:00:38 AM
Included under the 6th commandment (adultery) was fornication, masturbation, pornography, rape, incest, homosexuality, etc. 
I know there are verses of the Bible that make its anti-homosexuality stance quite clear, but I don't think masturbation is mentioned even once.

While not explicitly about masturbation the story of  Onan  (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Onan) has been interpreted by christian scholars to mean that masturbation is bad, because of the "useless" spilling of his seed.
Title: Re: How do you get to heaven split from EP129
Post by: eytanz on January 13, 2008, 11:55:20 AM
Included under the 6th commandment (adultery) was fornication, masturbation, pornography, rape, incest, homosexuality, etc. 
I know there are verses of the Bible that make its anti-homosexuality stance quite clear, but I don't think masturbation is mentioned even once.

And eytanz, it is not me taking that view; it is simply the view that I've heard expressed by everybody I've ever known who professed to be a Christian (as I said before).  I do not profess to be a Christian (nor do I play one on TV  ;D) so in their view, I am most assuredly damned to hell.

I meant the view you are taking of Christianity, not the view you are taking of what it actually takes to get to heaven.
Title: Re: How do you get to heaven split from EP129
Post by: Thaurismunths on January 13, 2008, 01:52:36 PM
Okay, I'm really curious: Did the person who told you that give you any rationale or basis for believing it?  They obviously weren't citing the Bible, since there is a complete dearth of Catholic Priests therein.  Where does that stuff come from?
Roman Catholicism.
Title: Re: How do you get to heaven split from EP129
Post by: Czhorat on January 13, 2008, 02:19:42 PM
Included under the 6th commandment (adultery) was fornication, masturbation, pornography, rape, incest, homosexuality, etc. 
I know there are verses of the Bible that make its anti-homosexuality stance quite clear, but I don't think masturbation is mentioned even once.

Not really true. It's as much a stress to make the Bible anti-homosexuality as it is anything else.


No, you're not wrong, and that precisely illustrates my point about loving God.  The most moral person in the world can go to Hell, because going to Heaven or Hell is not a matter of how moral one is (which addresses what TAD was saying).  Anyone can follow rules: God isn't please by simply following a set of rules, as illustrated by the numerous times in the prophets (ex: Isaiah 1) when God declares that the Jews' observance of the religious ceremonies and festivals–which God ordained–are disgusting to Him unless they are motivated by love for God and accompanied by love for neighbors.

I've always thought this seemed to indicate a God with a very fragile sense of self-worth. The most important standard for someone to live by is to love and worship him? That's part of my problem with the morality of the monotheistic faiths; it seems very self-serving on God's part.

My bigger question, and one that we might not be able to answer here, is why one should think that one religion is "right" and the others are wrong? Why accept Jesus and not Mohammed? Why not Islam or Buddhism? When it comes down to it religious faith is, almost by definition, things one believes without proof.

Okay, I'm really curious: Did the person who told you that give you any rationale or basis for believing it?  They obviously weren't citing the Bible, since there is a complete dearth of Catholic Priests therein.  Where does that stuff come from?

Not to be argumentative, but why is the Bible a legitimate rationale for believing something to be true? How did you decide the Bible to be the answer?

I fear that we're wandering into areas in which there are no real answers. If anyone wants to say that that's what they believe without proof and that other people's beliefs have equal chances to be true or false then I'll respect that. Where I have an issue is when people declare their system to be "the only way" without any evidence.
Title: Re: How do you get to heaven split from EP129
Post by: Tango Alpha Delta on January 13, 2008, 03:20:55 PM

My bigger question, and one that we might not be able to answer here, is why one should think that one religion is "right" and the others are wrong? Why accept Jesus and not Mohammed? Why not Islam or Buddhism? When it comes down to it religious faith is, almost by definition, things one believes without proof.


This is the real question, isn't it?  I came to the thread late, but if the title is "How do you get to Heaven", then the answer is, "Figure out which group has THE answer, and join it."  That's not MY answer*, of course, but it is why they all mistrust and fight each other.  And since they are all based on faith, and not on verifiable fact, you will always have conflict between the groups because of that old, instinctual fear of the Other.

In my experience, every group - no matter how ecumenical they claim to be - HAVE to identify some trait that separates them from the general population.  Look at all the arguing about the differences between "science fiction" and "fantasy" that used to go one here before PodCastle, for example.  Some groups take their arguing to extremes, others are more accepting of differences of opinion.  Groups that base their criteria for membership on the Bible have a LOT of litmus tests they can choose from, depending on how they interpret the "instructions". 

Someone asked earlier what the Catholics based their definitions of Mortal Sin on.  There are loads of examples in the scriptures of either specific acts or general "immorality" being called an abomination to God, worthy of death; Catholic doctrines evolved from a process of catholic thinkers coming up with interpretations of those scriptures and putting them through a kind of "peer review" that would eventually get to the Pope, who would decide whether it was true or not.  (You could almost claim they invented scientific method, eh?)  The problem with this method is the passage of time; even assuming a) the original texts were actually the recorded Words of God, and b) accurate copies of the original texts were really passed down -- two assumptions I don't hold to be true -- later interpretations are bound to be flawed due to cultural and linguistic drift, changing the meaning and context of the words.

Protestant thought came from a rejection of that human fallibility that they felt had corrupted the authority of the church, and a desire to make their own rules based on common sense interpretations of the scripture.  The problem there is that they also based their interpretations on new translations (translations from the original Hebrew/Aramaic/Greek, into Latin, and then into English or German, usually), which adds a significant amount of noise to the God Signal.

Mormons will tell you that their personal conviction of the validity of their beliefs IS proof ... sort of the "15 million Elvis fans can't be wrong" theory.  Muslims will tell you that anyone who believes in The Book (referring to the Bible) is okay... but that expressing any doubt in the Quran or Muhammed is punishable by death and eternal damnation (so saith the Koran for Dummies, amen).  I could go on with examples, because I was raised Southern Baptist, and our hobby was identifying what was "wrong" with any other given group, and explaining to members of that group why they were going to Hell.

Even the most accepting of groups... Unitarians, Taoists, etc. ... have their own hang-ups.  Every Unitarian Universalist I have met has described hirself as a "recovering" something, be it Catholic, Baptist, whatever.  (But they are a lot of fun to spend time with.)  Their purpose is to get people in their group to stop fearing the other groups, though, which I find to be a very noble pursuit.

So, if you need a group to keep you in line and prevent you from being an amoral jerk, please do pick one.  I'd rather you pick one that is more tolerant and accepting of others; stay away from evangelism, because they will send you to my door to bother me.  If you don't need a group to feel safe, more power to you.  I can tell you it can be awkward to think of things to say when someone sneezes, and it makes for some uncomfortable dinners with your religious family members, but it makes life generally much more enjoyable.

*MY answer is: f*&k 'em all; to get to Heaven, take the second star to the left, and head straight on 'til morning.
Title: Re: How do you get to heaven split from EP129
Post by: stePH on January 13, 2008, 03:30:46 PM
When it comes down to it religious faith is, almost by definition, things one believes without proof.
No "almost" about it.  Belief in the absence of evidence is the very definition of faith.


If you don't need a group to feel safe, more power to you.  I can tell you it can be awkward to think of things to say when someone sneezes, and it makes for some uncomfortable dinners with your religious family members,...
... to say nothing of what to exclaim when you're having an orgasm  ;D
Title: Re: How do you get to heaven split from EP129
Post by: Czhorat on January 13, 2008, 03:36:43 PM
If you don't need a group to feel safe, more power to you.  I can tell you it can be awkward to think of things to say when someone sneezes, and it makes for some uncomfortable dinners with your religious family members,...
... to say nothing of what to exclaim when you're having an orgasm  ;D

Names are OK, so long as you remember to use the name of the right lover.
Title: Re: How do you get to heaven split from EP129
Post by: Tango Alpha Delta on January 13, 2008, 03:41:45 PM
If you don't need a group to feel safe, more power to you.  I can tell you it can be awkward to think of things to say when someone sneezes, and it makes for some uncomfortable dinners with your religious family members,...
... to say nothing of what to exclaim when you're having an orgasm  ;D
[/quote]

I don't recommend (unless you are trying to guarantee no repeat visits):
* By the beard of Odin!!
* Kali, Kali, Kali!!  (either they get the reference, or they want to know just WTF "Callie" is!)
* Oh, Buddha!!

Do recommend:
* Sweet Goddess!
Title: Re: How do you get to heaven split from EP129
Post by: eytanz on January 13, 2008, 03:44:29 PM
When it comes down to it religious faith is, almost by definition, things one believes without proof.
No "almost" about it.  Belief in the absence of evidence is the very definition of faith.

We had this discussion already, where it was pointed out that whether or not that is true depends a lot on what you mean when you say "evidence". If you mean "Belief in the absence of objective facts that can be pointed out to other people is the very definition of faith" I agree with you, but if you mean "Belief in the absence of cause to believe" I think that's a mistaken view of faith.

Quote
If you don't need a group to feel safe, more power to you.  I can tell you it can be awkward to think of things to say when someone sneezes, and it makes for some uncomfortable dinners with your religious family members,...
... to say nothing of what to exclaim when you're having an orgasm  ;D

Heh :)

That said, I've never had trouble thinking of what to tell people when they sneeze - I'm perfectly content to say "God bless you" (though normally I'd just say "bless you"), precisely because that string of words is pretty meaningless to me. It always surprised me that people who believe in that sort of thing would be able to say that, since doesn't that count as using God's name in vain?
Title: Re: How do you get to heaven split from EP129
Post by: eytanz on January 13, 2008, 03:45:40 PM
Names are OK, so long as you remember to use the name of the right lover.

What if you are an atheist having sex with someone named Jesus? That might get awkwardly ambiguous.
Title: Re: How do you get to heaven split from EP129
Post by: Czhorat on January 13, 2008, 03:48:48 PM
Names are OK, so long as you remember to use the name of the right lover.

What if you are an atheist having sex with someone named Jesus? That might get awkwardly ambiguous.

That's why I avoid having sex with people named Jesus. Well, that and that my wife would most likely not understand.
Title: Re: How do you get to heaven split from EP129
Post by: Czhorat on January 13, 2008, 03:52:44 PM
When it comes down to it religious faith is, almost by definition, things one believes without proof.
No "almost" about it.  Belief in the absence of evidence is the very definition of faith.

We had this discussion already, where it was pointed out that whether or not that is true depends a lot on what you mean when you say "evidence". If you mean "Belief in the absence of objective facts that can be pointed out to other people is the very definition of faith" I agree with you, but if you mean "Belief in the absence of cause to believe" I think that's a mistaken view of faith.

Most likely true, but I'm not sure what the cause to believe is in most cases. I know it probably comes across as argumentative, but this is a legitimate gap in understanding. Why, for instance, does Mr. Tweedy believe the Bible while rejecting the teachings of the Catholic church, the Koran, or the Buddha? Why does a Muslim accept the Koran but reject the book of Mormon? And, more to the point, what makes you so sure that you're right and everyone else is wrong?
Title: Re: How do you get to heaven split from EP129
Post by: eytanz on January 13, 2008, 04:19:07 PM
Most likely true, but I'm not sure what the cause to believe is in most cases. I know it probably comes across as argumentative, but this is a legitimate gap in understanding. Why, for instance, does Mr. Tweedy believe the Bible while rejecting the teachings of the Catholic church, the Koran, or the Buddha? Why does a Muslim accept the Koran but reject the book of Mormon? And, more to the point, what makes you so sure that you're right and everyone else is wrong?

Good questions all. And all but the last one questions I can't answer since my own beliefs include a rejection of all those teachings. As for the last question - I'm not. I believe what feels right to me. As long as other people believe what they feel is right (as opposed to people who make themselves believe something that does not come naturally to them), I have no reason to believe that they are wrong. If we don't agree, I have no explanation of that, but I also don't particularly care. It's not my problem what other people believe (as long as they don't try to impose it on me), nor do I care about being right or wrong in any sort of absolute objective sense. I care about being true to myself.

Of course, that doesn't mean I don't have issues with specific faiths and their philosophies. I have major issues with Christianity, for example, even though I occasionally try to defend it here from what I consider spurious criticism. But I can't say with any sort of certainty that I am more right than any Christian on these issues.
Title: Re: How do you get to heaven split from EP129
Post by: Thaurismunths on January 13, 2008, 04:52:13 PM
I don't mean to put down anyones views, or support any particular religion, faith, or creed, but why are you all doing this?
The fine points differ, but this is the same argument that's happened on this forum a half dozen times already. It never goes well and it never ends. It's amazingly frustrating for me to see another religion discussion firing up again. What is it you're getting out if it?

I know, I know; If I don't like it, I don't have to read it. What harm is it doing me? None.
But what good is it doing the forums? Aren't their whole forums dedicated to this kind of discussion?
Title: Re: How do you get to heaven split from EP129
Post by: eytanz on January 13, 2008, 05:09:42 PM
I think the answer to why we keep on doing this is simple, actually. It's because these questions are important questions in our culture, and they arise again and again - sometimes directly and sometime indirectly - from the actual stories. And note that while a lot of the same people (including myself) keep getting involved in these issues, there are a lot of relatively new people to the forums, who have not previously participated in these threads, who not only got involved but, in this particular thread, are really the ones who started the discussion. What that means is that it's a topic that a lot of people want to keep debating.

As for myself, I'm fine with not discussing them, but if there is a discussion, I will participate, at least as long as the discussion hasn't devolved into personal attacks. Which this one hasn't, and hopefully won't.
Title: Re: How do you get to heaven split from EP129
Post by: Tango Alpha Delta on January 13, 2008, 05:12:47 PM
I don't mean to put down anyones views, or support any particular religion, faith, or creed, but why are you all doing this?
The fine points differ, but this is the same argument that's happened on this forum a half dozen times already. It never goes well and it never ends. It's amazingly frustrating for me to see another religion discussion firing up again. What is it you're getting out if it?

I know, I know; If I don't like it, I don't have to read it. What harm is it doing me? None.
But what good is it doing the forums? Aren't their whole forums dedicated to this kind of discussion?

Good question; I asked it after spending twenty minutes writing a treatise on the difference between "proof" and "evidence" for this thread...

But the answer to your question (at least my answer) is that we judge the things people say based on what we know about them.  Or think we know.  This comes up a lot because our chosen passion touches on a lot of these questions anyway.  The place where science and the unknown join is turbulent and muddy... and it's a heck of a lot of fun to charge in and splash.

The attraction for me is that, like eytanz, I have rejected organized religion; not many people can take a pragmatic view of this, so I don't have a "group" to identify with.  Since I don't have a church to go to and talk about this stuff, I tend to get drawn in wherever I see the discussion taking place.

Not only that (and I mean no disrespect to any of you, but this is always in the back of my mind) religion IS a kind of science fiction.  There is world building, suspension of disbelief, and an interplay of character types wrestling with problems of varying depth; all the elements of good speculative fiction.  The fact that there are people who believe it is real complicates things (try explaining to a REAL Trekkie that there are no transporters), but to me, it's all good clean fun.
Title: Re: How do you get to heaven split from EP129
Post by: DDog on January 13, 2008, 05:56:35 PM
Every Unitarian Universalist I have met has described hirself as a "recovering" something, be it Catholic, Baptist, whatever.  (But they are a lot of fun to spend time with.)
Something my very existence can refute! ;) UU born and raised, if you count chatting around each other on a web forum as meeting. (Also I must compliment you on your use of "hirself.")

Quote from: Tango Alpha Delta
I can tell you it can be awkward to think of things to say when someone sneezes
Gesundheit.

Quote from: Tango Alpha Delta
* Kali, Kali, Kali!!  (either they get the reference, or they want to know just WTF "Callie" is!)
Ouch. You might soon find tornado, flood, and fire on your house to boot. She's more inclined toward giving you exactly what you asked for than your average god.
Title: Re: How do you get to heaven split from EP129
Post by: Mr. Tweedy on January 13, 2008, 09:28:01 PM
No, you're not wrong, and that precisely illustrates my point about loving God.  The most moral person in the world can go to Hell, because going to Heaven or Hell is not a matter of how moral one is (which addresses what TAD was saying).  Anyone can follow rules: God isn't please by simply following a set of rules, as illustrated by the numerous times in the prophets (ex: Isaiah 1) when God declares that the Jews' observance of the religious ceremonies and festivals–which God ordained–are disgusting to Him unless they are motivated by love for God and accompanied by love for neighbors.

I've always thought this seemed to indicate a God with a very fragile sense of self-worth. The most important standard for someone to live by is to love and worship him? That's part of my problem with the morality of the monotheistic faiths; it seems very self-serving on God's part.

If God were (like Philip Pullman's Authority) just some really big guy, then you'd be spot on.  But if God is the ultimate cause of the Universe and inventor of all the good things in it, then it's a very different story.  In that case, not only is God completely justified in expecting love and worship, it is also the only rational thing for His creations to do.  Loving and worshiping God is not a matter of massaging His ego so He'll like you and do you favors, it's a matter of appreciating, respecting, integrating with and ultimately enjoying Reality.  Conversely, failure to love and worship God constitutes the ultimate rejection of Reality.

Does God's status as ultimate Reality make God self-serving?  I don't know; maybe.  I don't think it's a relevant question.  If God is, then that is an ontological fact to be dealt with, a fact which has nothing to do with God's sense of self-worth.  The situation is what it is.

The idea that God is self-serving also strikes me as odd because loving and worshipping God is the surest route to fulfillment and happiness that I have personally witnessed or experienced.  If my worship makes God feel good, that's great; if I can return to God some of the benefit He's given me, I am eager to do so.

My bigger question, and one that we might not be able to answer here, is why one should think that one religion is "right" and the others are wrong? Why accept Jesus and not Mohammed? Why not Islam or Buddhism? When it comes down to it religious faith is, almost by definition, things one believes without proof.

Well, I've got lots of reasons.  Convergent lines of evidence, you might say.  I'm not going to enumerate them here for the simple reason that doing so would start its own debate as to their validity.

As to the general question: One must believe something, mustn't one?  As humans, we don't really have to option of having no beliefs in the same way that worms and toads do.  The universe does not permit contradictions: Two things cannot both be true if they oppose each other.  If a person is intellectually honest, they are forced to make an exclusive choice at some point.  You can't have both Jesus and Mohammed.  (This does not, of course remove from other the ability to make their own exclusive choices.)
Title: Re: How do you get to heaven split from EP129
Post by: DDog on January 13, 2008, 10:48:16 PM
As to the general question: One must believe something, mustn't one?  As humans, we don't really have to option of having no beliefs in the same way that worms and toads do.  The universe does not permit contradictions: Two things cannot both be true if they oppose each other.  If a person is intellectually honest, they are forced to make an exclusive choice at some point.  You can't have both Jesus and Mohammed.  (This does not, of course remove from other the ability to make their own exclusive choices.)
Do you mean, you can't be both Christian and Muslim? I believe the Qur'an mentions Jesus and many other prophets held in esteem by Judaism and Christianity. In the case of Christianity and Islam, you're probably right, since their terms of membership tend to be mutually exclusive. There are, however, nonexclusive religions and systems of faith that don't necessarily subscribe to the XOR brand of logic.

I also have a question for you about Pascal's Wager--does the motive matter? Do you "lose points" or whatever for loving Adonai out of the selfish desire to stay out of Hell, or just in case he really is the one calling the shots, instead of out of genuinely "appreciating, respecting, integrating with and ultimately enjoying Reality"?
Title: Re: How do you get to heaven split from EP129
Post by: Tango Alpha Delta on January 14, 2008, 12:54:37 AM

One must believe something, mustn't one?  As humans, we don't really have to option of having no beliefs in the same way that worms and toads do.  The universe does not permit contradictions: Two things cannot both be true if they oppose each other.  If a person is intellectually honest, they are forced to make an exclusive choice at some point.  You can't have both Jesus and Mohammed.

1) I don't lack beliefs "in the same way that worms and toads do;" I reject what I see as flawed human understanding of the way things are.  I noticed that the world did not end when I renounced my childhood faith, so I ran with it.

2) The universe is not fully understood; it just might permit all kinds of contradictions that we don't grasp yet.  In my own worldview, the universe IS "God" - and vice versa - and has little or nothing to do with the belief systems that humans come up with to explain its nature.  There is a lot of room for explanations, and yours just might be the right one in the end... but God hasn't said anything to me about it.  (Sending messages through humans doesn't strike me as a reliable medium for communication.)

3) If a person is intellectually honest, they can recognize the possibility that both Jesus and Mohammed existed, both said the things they are credited with saying, and both have been horribly, horribly misunderstood by 1500+ centuries worth of followers.

Do you mean, you can't be both Christian and Muslim? I believe the Qur'an mentions Jesus and many other prophets held in esteem by Judaism and Christianity. In the case of Christianity and Islam, you're probably right, since their terms of membership tend to be mutually exclusive. There are, however, nonexclusive religions and systems of faith that don't necessarily subscribe to the XOR brand of logic.

I believe in Boolean Faith; and yea, my scriptures are filled with wild-cards.  I can't tell whether or not there is a God, but I can tell you what's wrong with your faith; therefore, I am di-agnostic.
Title: Re: How do you get to heaven split from EP129
Post by: Thaurismunths on January 14, 2008, 04:29:20 AM
I'm just done with all the god threads on this forum. Every time one falls asleep another one gets fired up. They're just isotopes of the god/no god argument, a discussion that has no end. This isn't a comparative religions board and I think that allowing these kinds of arguments to be so prevalent (what is this, the 8th? 9th?) is hurting the forums.
I truly understand the allure of a debate where you can't be wrong and there isn't one better than over the existence and nature of Allah. It's quite seductive to be be in a argument where you are steadfast in your opinion, sure in your convictions, and know that your opponent can never prove you wrong. It's also immature and pointless. No matter how relevant to the human condition it may be, I don't think that a SF Forum is the appropriate place for it to happen.
I stopped posting for a while because I couldn't stand seeing these topics come up and try to "open peoples eyes". But I came back because I love the EP stories, and truly enjoy the depth and breadth of individuals who post here. Although there will always be friction between people with different views, why is it so often about religion here? Am I ignorant of how often these debates go on in other forums?
This time around I've been trying to watch what I say because I don't want to be the next spark in the next pointless ID debate, or be the object of intense scrutiny for my personal decisions but I still want to be a part of the forums. Discussion is great, I'm a pretty open person, but how many threads have been spun off from Episode Comments in to Gallmaufry? How many were religiously based? A disproportionate number I'd bet. Though I've yet to see a show of hands, I know Shwankie avoids the forums for the same reasons and I'm sure there are others.
Is there a solution to this?
Am I the only person who sees this as a bad thing?
Title: Re: How do you get to heaven split from EP129
Post by: Czhorat on January 14, 2008, 06:00:16 AM

If God were (like Philip Pullman's Authority) just some really big guy, then you'd be spot on.  But if God is the ultimate cause of the Universe and inventor of all the good things in it, then it's a very different story.  In that case, not only is God completely justified in expecting love and worship, it is also the only rational thing for His creations to do.  Loving and worshiping God is not a matter of massaging His ego so He'll like you and do you favors, it's a matter of appreciating, respecting, integrating with and ultimately enjoying Reality.  Conversely, failure to love and worship God constitutes the ultimate rejection of Reality.

Alternatively, one could see that there is good and bad within reality and that, if there were an original maker of the world, we owe thanks for the good things and are in turn owed a big explanation for that bad things. Not recognizing the existence of a maker without proof is not a rejection of reality; just of one possible explanation thereof. Not loving the creator is no more a rejection of reality than not loving ones parents is a rejection of ones own existence.

Quote
Well, I've got lots of reasons.  Convergent lines of evidence, you might say.  I'm not going to enumerate them here for the simple reason that doing so would start its own debate as to their validity.

As to the general question: One must believe something, mustn't one?  As humans, we don't really have to option of having no beliefs in the same way that worms and toads do.  The universe does not permit contradictions: Two things cannot both be true if they oppose each other.  If a person is intellectually honest, they are forced to make an exclusive choice at some point.  You can't have both Jesus and Mohammed.  (This does not, of course remove from other the ability to make their own exclusive choices.)

How convenient. You do realize that saying "I have reasons but I'll not share them with you" is essentially the same as saying that you have no reasons at all. Tango Alpha Delta said it very well - to reject religion is not to lower oneself to the level of a worm or a toad. You've not answered why you find it necessary to believe in a holy book at all, much less the choice of one particular holy book. If you choose not to answer I'll respect that. If you think there is a legitimate reason to consider the bible to be the ultimate truth, then please share it. The only reason I opened this can of worms in the first place is that I grow tired of seeing people state their religious beliefs as if they are facts. The fact that someone so intellectually backward that he publicly stated that he does not believe in evolution actually won a Presidential primary makes me a bit touchy on the topic.

Am I the only person who sees this as a bad thing?

Most likely not. I'll admit that I started this one. The particular story we were discussing was religiously based so this one, unlike the discussion of "Me and My Shadow" for example, was almost appropriate to the story. I am offended and annoyed by people who state religious beliefs as if they are facts. I feel that it is demeaning to people who believe differently or not at all. I most likely should let it slide in the future to avoid going back over the same path again and again.
Title: Re: How do you get to heaven split from EP129
Post by: eytanz on January 14, 2008, 07:03:19 AM
I believe in Boolean Faith; and yea, my scriptures are filled with wild-cards.  I can't tell whether or not there is a God, but I can tell you what's wrong with your faith; therefore, I am di-agnostic.

Bravo :)
Title: Re: How do you get to heaven split from EP129
Post by: Simon on January 14, 2008, 10:40:35 AM
I'm just done with all the god threads on this forum. Every time one falls asleep another one gets fired up. They're just isotopes of the god/no god argument, a discussion that has no end. This isn't a comparative religions board and I think that allowing these kinds of arguments to be so prevalent (what is this, the 8th? 9th?) is hurting the forums.
I truly understand the allure of a debate where you can't be wrong and there isn't one better than over the existence and nature of Allah. It's quite seductive to be be in a argument where you are steadfast in your opinion, sure in your convictions, and know that your opponent can never prove you wrong. It's also immature and pointless. No matter how relevant to the human condition it may be, I don't think that a SF Forum is the appropriate place for it to happen.
I stopped posting for a while because I couldn't stand seeing these topics come up and try to "open peoples eyes". But I came back because I love the EP stories, and truly enjoy the depth and breadth of individuals who post here. Although there will always be friction between people with different views, why is it so often about religion here? Am I ignorant of how often these debates go on in other forums?
This time around I've been trying to watch what I say because I don't want to be the next spark in the next pointless ID debate, or be the object of intense scrutiny for my personal decisions but I still want to be a part of the forums. Discussion is great, I'm a pretty open person, but how many threads have been spun off from Episode Comments in to Gallmaufry? How many were religiously based? A disproportionate number I'd bet. Though I've yet to see a show of hands, I know Shwankie avoids the forums for the same reasons and I'm sure there are others.
Is there a solution to this?
Am I the only person who sees this as a bad thing?

I would like to say seconded to everything written above... Many of youl know me and my opinions, so I don't really feel the need to bang my head against this wall.  I would be a lot happier if all this god stuff went away.

I'm also a bit baffled that there is the idea that this is a science fiction type discussion.. I've always thought that SF tends to reject any view of an interventionist superior being (too much of science is based on observation of the present, where the divine hand isn't visible, as key to the past).  So banging on about any of these intensely human faiths always strike me as bizarre.

I will admit my heart fell when I saw yet another god/no god thread on this place...  Ah well.
Title: Re: How do you get to heaven split from EP129
Post by: eytanz on January 14, 2008, 11:15:01 AM
I'm also a bit baffled that there is the idea that this is a science fiction type discussion.. I've always thought that SF tends to reject any view of an interventionist superior being (too much of science is based on observation of the present, where the divine hand isn't visible, as key to the past).  So banging on about any of these intensely human faiths always strike me as bizarre.

But if SF does that, it's taking an opinion, isn't it? And the point isn't "SF = religious literature", but "SF often plays with themes of religion", even if it does so by rejecting them.

And besides, this discussion didn't stem out of a general SF talk - it arose out of the thread for EP129, which is a story explicitly about the notions of afterlife, judgement, and the place of religion in a man's life. So even if it were true that most SF was religion free, the SF that shows up in Escape Pod isn't always.

That said, I think this meta-discussion of the threads and their place in the forums is a far bigger danger than the actual threads. It serves no purpose other than pit forumites against each other as they argue about what sort of threads they want here. So, while I'm happy to discuss the place of religion in SF (which perhaps is a more interesting discussion than the place of religion in the lives of forum members), I'm not going to discuss the implications of that on the place of religion on these forums, or indeed any sort of discussion about whether these threads are good or bad, anymore.
Title: Re: How do you get to heaven split from EP129
Post by: Russell Nash on January 14, 2008, 11:46:56 AM
If anyone has anything to say about this thread not belonging here, just send me a PM.  I split it off as soon as I saw it would have a life of it's own.  I checked and the last straight out religion thread died back in October.  I don't think one of these threads evey few months is all that bad. 

If you're sick and tired of them, go start your own amusing non-religious thread.  I will be far more likely to post there than here.  That's probably why I try to start so many silly threads myself.

If we do get another religious thread in the near future, I'll probably just merge it into this one and rename it "Warning: Religious Discussion Thread".
Title: Re: How do you get to heaven split from EP129
Post by: stePH on January 14, 2008, 01:57:40 PM
I'm just done with all the god threads on this forum.
Don't read or post to them, is my suggestion.
Title: Re: How do you get to heaven split from EP129
Post by: Mr. Tweedy on January 14, 2008, 02:38:37 PM
If God were (like Philip Pullman's Authority) just some really big guy, then you'd be spot on.  But if God is the ultimate cause of the Universe and inventor of all the good things in it, then it's a very different story.  In that case, not only is God completely justified in expecting love and worship, it is also the only rational thing for His creations to do.  Loving and worshiping God is not a matter of massaging His ego so He'll like you and do you favors, it's a matter of appreciating, respecting, integrating with and ultimately enjoying Reality.  Conversely, failure to love and worship God constitutes the ultimate rejection of Reality.

Alternatively, one could see that there is good and bad within reality and that, if there were an original maker of the world, we owe thanks for the good things and are in turn owed a big explanation for that bad things. Not recognizing the existence of a maker without proof is not a rejection of reality; just of one possible explanation thereof. Not loving the creator is no more a rejection of reality than not loving ones parents is a rejection of ones own existence.

Okay, you've got to realize the difference of perspective here.  You aren't a Christian, so of course the idea that rejecting God is rejecting reality is absurd to you.  We have different idea of what the Universe looks like.  Take my statements in the context of "if God is, then..."  If God is, then rejecting God is rejecting reality.

How convenient. You do realize that saying "I have reasons but I'll not share them with you" is essentially the same as saying that you have no reasons at all.

Yeah, that does sound like a cop-out doesn't it?  Bad on me.  I'd would be glad to share my reasons, but time and tangents are the concern.  For instance, if I told you that I think biology points the existence of God, you'd say "Posh!  Biology points to blind evolution!" and that would be it's own (probably ugly) tangent.  If I told you that I think God has directly communicated with me on at least two occasions, you'd want to psychoanalyze me and figure out the "rational explanation" for my experience.  If I told I find Christianity to be eminently logical, we'd have to hash out logic.  If I we were going to spend the next three hours nursing drinks, that would be just fine (even fun), but I don't think it would work well here and now.

That sounds like a cop-out too.  Crap.   :(

Tango Alpha Delta said it very well - to reject religion is not to lower oneself to the level of a worm or a toad.

NO NO NO!!  I didn't say that rejecting religion makes you a toad!  Nothing of the sort!  I said that toads and worms have no beliefs.  Humans are not like toads because humans must believe something.  Complete non-belief isn't an option for us.  Rejecting God does not make you a toad: Toads can't reject God.  Only people can.

You've not answered why you find it necessary to believe in a holy book at all, much less the choice of one particular holy book. If you choose not to answer I'll respect that. If you think there is a legitimate reason to consider the bible to be the ultimate truth, then please share it.

Argh!  I'm at work.  I have work to do.  Curse work!

As concise as possible: If God exists and if God wants to tell people about Himself, then a Book is really the only viable option for doing that.  Any other method you can think of has prohibitive drawbacks.  Personal revelation?  Anybody could lie about their revelation and there'd be no way to tell who was telling the truth.  Revelation to everybody?  Negates free will.  If God said to everyone "Here I am, in the room!  It's me, God!  See!" then the option to disbelieve would not be viable.  We'd be back to being toads.  Endless succession of prophets?  Works to an extent, but a prophet can only speak to so many people, and you've got to watch out for false ones.  A Book that anyone can read for themselves is pretty much a necessity if God wants to communicate with people at large.

Why the Bible?  Again, the cop-out "lots of reasons."  But I will admit that it is not primarily objective, verifiable evidence that convinces me on this front.

Alas, now I must earn some salary.

But I'm not calling anybody a toad!  Please don't misunderstand that!
Title: Re: How do you get to heaven split from EP129
Post by: Russell Nash on January 14, 2008, 02:43:53 PM
I'm just done with all the god threads on this forum.
Don't read or post to them, is my suggestion.

OK, I'll try again.  There is no need to comment in the threads about the viability of threads and whether or not this is the right place for them.  This is also not the place to comment on the comments that were already here.  We are making a place here for this topic and the rest of the forums for every other topic.  If you have anything else to say on either side of this issue, say it to me in a PM. 

Both sides are right.  This isn't a topic for the whole forums.  If you don't like this topic, don't come here.  Done.

Now you can go back to arguing over superstitions.
Title: Re: How do you get to heaven split from EP129
Post by: Darwinist on January 14, 2008, 04:01:57 PM

As concise as possible: If God exists and if God wants to tell people about Himself, then a Book is really the only viable option for doing that.  Any other method you can think of has prohibitive drawbacks.  Personal revelation?  Anybody could lie about their revelation and there'd be no way to tell who was telling the truth.  Revelation to everybody?  Negates free will.  If God said to everyone "Here I am, in the room!  It's me, God!  See!" then the option to disbelieve would not be viable.  We'd be back to being toads.  Endless succession of prophets?  Works to an extent, but a prophet can only speak to so many people, and you've got to watch out for false ones.  A Book that anyone can read for themselves is pretty much a necessity if God wants to communicate with people at large.


Wouldn't it be more effective to perform some crazy visual miracle like writing his name on the moon or something?  That would do it for me.  A personal revealation of some sort would be great, but like you said, that only works for one person.  I was never sure about the Bible, there were some books left out of it and interpretations/ translations of it have been debated.   

I get a kick out of people who have weeping statues or see Mother Teresa in a sticky bun or on a dirty bank window.  Some people are just grasping for straws.   I can appreciate people that keep their faith personal and not try to make bombastic claims about their rosaries turning to gold or NFL quarterbacks (Kitna) claiming that God healed their concussion at halftime.  Pretty much everyone in my family has a strong belief in Christianity.  Maybe something will happen to me to get me back on board.   
Title: Re: How do you get to heaven split from EP129
Post by: Mr. Tweedy on January 14, 2008, 07:10:13 PM
On the surface of the moon, in huge letters legible to anyone with a pair of binoculars, the words "Yo, it's me, God.  This here is my autograph," suddenly appear.  What an interesting idea.  How would people react to that?  And how would people seeing the letters 1000 years after the event perceive the inscription?

Sounds like a story to me.....
Title: Re: How do you get to heaven split from EP129
Post by: Czhorat on January 14, 2008, 11:25:20 PM
Okay, you've got to realize the difference of perspective here.  You aren't a Christian, so of course the idea that rejecting God is rejecting reality is absurd to you.  We have different idea of what the Universe looks like.  Take my statements in the context of "if God is, then..."  If God is, then rejecting God is rejecting reality.

That doesn't follow. Let's assume for the sake of argument that the universe exists because your God created it. That means that in addition to everything nice in the universe that everything bad from cancer to poverty to the mess that is the human reproductive system also comes from God. One can appreciate the good in reality without worshiping its creator as perfect an all-knowing. Likewise, one could appreciate reality without an understanding or even with a misunderstanding of its origins.



You've not answered why you find it necessary to believe in a holy book at all, much less the choice of one particular holy book. If you choose not to answer I'll respect that. If you think there is a legitimate reason to consider the bible to be the ultimate truth, then please share it.

Argh!  I'm at work.  I have work to do.  Curse work!

As concise as possible: If God exists and if God wants to tell people about Himself, then a Book is really the only viable option for doing that.  Any other method you can think of has prohibitive drawbacks.  Personal revelation?  Anybody could lie about their revelation and there'd be no way to tell who was telling the truth.  Revelation to everybody?  Negates free will.  If God said to everyone "Here I am, in the room!  It's me, God!  See!" then the option to disbelieve would not be viable.  We'd be back to being toads.  Endless succession of prophets?  Works to an extent, but a prophet can only speak to so many people, and you've got to watch out for false ones.  A Book that anyone can read for themselves is pretty much a necessity if God wants to communicate with people at large.

Actually, in retrospect a book seems to be a spectacularly bad way of getting the message across. First of all, much of it is allegory which people are free to interpret or misinterpret to reflect their own prejudices (such as bias against homsexuality). Think of the myriad interpretations we have here over short fiction of two to five thousand words and multiply that by the difficulty of communicating much deeper and more important messages through a longer, more difficult work. Secondly, one has to deal with translations, mistranslations, and the mounting errors which occur with even copying - especially before the invention of movable type. Do you know, for instance, that the famous story ending with the line "Let he who is without sin cast the first stone" was added in transcription and not in the earliest texts? It certainly adds a different shade to the meaning of the phrase "gospel truth", does it not?

Also, how long did it take for the Bible to be translated into Chinese, Swahili, English, Navajo, Russian, Japanese, or any other language? If He really thought a book was the only viable way to spread his message, couldn't He have at least supplied simultaneous translations, or are we to believe that God cared more about spreading his word to semitic people than to Swedes, for example?

Why the Bible?  Again, the cop-out "lots of reasons."  But I will admit that it is not primarily objective, verifiable evidence that convinces me on this front.

I respect that and am perfectly willing to let the discussion end on this note if you don't care to argue the merits of various means of revelation aside from books. The only thought I'll add is that if it is not primarily objective, verifiable evidence that leads you to your conclusion than those following other traditions can be just as "right" as you are.
Title: Re: How do you get to heaven split from EP129
Post by: DDog on January 14, 2008, 11:59:29 PM
On the surface of the moon, in huge letters legible to anyone with a pair of binoculars, the words "Yo, it's me, God.  This here is my autograph," suddenly appear.  What an interesting idea.  How would people react to that?  And how would people seeing the letters 1000 years after the event perceive the inscription?

Sounds like a story to me.....
Isn't there something like that in a Douglas Adam's book? Only it's in giant neon letters...
Title: Re: How do you get to heaven split from EP129
Post by: Czhorat on January 15, 2008, 12:27:42 AM
On the surface of the moon, in huge letters legible to anyone with a pair of binoculars, the words "Yo, it's me, God.  This here is my autograph," suddenly appear.  What an interesting idea.  How would people react to that?  And how would people seeing the letters 1000 years after the event perceive the inscription?

Sounds like a story to me.....
Isn't there something like that in a Douglas Adam's book? Only it's in giant neon letters...

If I recall correctly it was God's final message to his creation which read "We apologize for the inconvenience".
Title: Re: How do you get to heaven split from EP129
Post by: Tango Alpha Delta on January 15, 2008, 02:10:02 AM
Apologies to Czhorat and Mr. Tweedy if I botched your quotes; apologies to Thaurismunths for continuing my participation at all (but I'd rather talk about this than do what I'm supposed to be doing right now):

...Loving and worshiping God is not a matter of massaging His ego so He'll like you and do you favors, it's a matter of appreciating, respecting, integrating with and ultimately enjoying Reality.
... Not recognizing the existence of a maker without proof is not a rejection of reality; just of one possible explanation thereof. Not loving the creator is no more a rejection of reality than not loving ones parents is a rejection of ones own existence.
   (and from another part of the thread)
Quote from: Mr. Tweedy
Okay, you've got to realize the difference of perspective here.  You aren't a Christian, so of course the idea that rejecting God is rejecting reality is absurd to you.  We have different idea of what the Universe looks like.  Take my statements in the context of "if God is, then..."  If God is, then rejecting God is rejecting reality.

I really like Mr. Tweedy's definition of "worship" -- appreciating (etc.) reality does not require a complete understanding of it, fortunately; nor does it require any particularly firm belief regarding the origin of Reality.  I perceive the world around me -- which is not proof that it exists -- and I get a kick out of it.  If there is a creator, and she feels compelled to reveal hirself to me, I'll say Thank you, I've really enjoyed your work.

But my "lack" of faith shouldn't have any bearing on your understanding or appreciation of Reality.  However...


Tango Alpha Delta said it very well - to reject religion is not to lower oneself to the level of a worm or a toad.
Quote from: Mr. Tweedy
NO NO NO!!  I didn't say that rejecting religion makes you a toad!  Nothing of the sort!  I said that toads and worms have no beliefs.  Humans are not like toads because humans must believe something.  Complete non-belief isn't an option for us.  Rejecting God does not make you a toad: Toads can't reject God.  Only people can.

I understood what you were getting at with the toad thing, but... (to use a phrase I heard once) I don't must nothing!  Many people of faith make the simple mistake of equating a polite "no thank you" to their proposed system of belief -- with all of the behavioral quid pro quos and associated doctrinal baggage -- with a rejection of God.  You've made the mistake of equating my reticence to buy into a particular lifestyle with non-belief.  Why do I need an explanation for Reality, anyway? 

And for those who hold to Atheism... that IS a form of belief.  I won't give them the satisfaction of joining their little club, either, but most of them are cool with that.

Quote from: Mr. Tweedy
... if I told you that I think biology points the existence of God, you'd say "Posh!  Biology points to blind evolution!" and that would be it's own (probably ugly) tangent.

I think biology does point to the existence of God.  And I think biology points to evolution.  "Points to" doesn't prove anything, though.  Evidence a few hundred years ago "pointed to" the body being controlled by a balance of Four Humours.  Then we figured out DNA.  Scientific method requires a lot more testing on the origin question, and no one can say for certain either way... there's no reason God couldn't have used evolution as the tool for creating everything; and there's no particular reason to believe in God based on the evidence at hand.  The ugly tangent comes in when people start jumping the gun and insisting on taking sides in the matter.

Quote from: Mr. Tweedy
But I'm not calling anybody a toad!  Please don't misunderstand that!

Seriously... my name is "Tad"... do you think I haven't been called a toad before?  And survived?   

I know you weren't calling anyone names, so no worries here.
Title: Re: How do you get to heaven split from EP129
Post by: Windup on January 15, 2008, 05:03:47 AM

While not explicitly about masturbation the story of  Onan  (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Onan) has been interpreted by christian scholars to mean that masturbation is bad, because of the "useless" spilling of his seed.


I don't like disagreeing with the Church Fathers, but I have to say that saying Onan is about masturbation seems to require an almost willful misreading of the text.

What Onan is supposed to be doing is impregnating the wife of his dead brother -- his father, Judah, has instructed him to do this as a duty, "...live with her and raise offspring for your brother."  The children of the union will be considered those of his brother, and will inherit his brother's property and name. At least, that's how it works out in the Law, when it gets articulated several books later.  (No word on how the widow feels about all this, though she's got to be socially better off with a son than without; just the way that part of the world worked at the time.)

So, faced with the possibility of raising children that literally aren't his, to inherit property that would otherwise go to his own children, Onan engages in a little Patriarchal-period birth control -- "spilling his seed."  ("Kids, ask your mother to explain...")

"...And the thing which he did displeased the Lord; therefore He slew him also." (Gen 38:10)

Now, which would logically seem like a bigger deal in the Old Testament moral framework:
1) Disobeying your father and cheating your dead brother and his widow out of their just inheritence,
OR
2) Making a small mess.

And, no matter HOW you look at this, it isn't masturbating...

(OK, got that out my system for a while...  It's just that those sort of widespread and widely-backed beliefs that aren't supported by the text really bug me.  Don't even get me started on the whole Sarah/Hagar/Jewish/Arab thing...)

(Apologies to the moderator for another potential thread split that probably shouldn't happen.)

(Off to seek forgiveness and rest...)
Title: Re: How do you get to heaven split from EP129
Post by: Mr. Tweedy on January 15, 2008, 06:21:05 PM
But, TAD, you do believe something concerning the nature and purpose the universe, don't you?  ("Something" doesn't have to be limited to the most famous or popular options.)

Before you say "not really," take a minute to think about why you do things, like, say, post in a forum.  If you really ask why and keep asking, you'll find it's really a pretty big question (as are all questions).  For instance, the fact that you bother to write words in response to me shows that you, in some way, care about what I think and feel.  Why do you care?  Probably because you consider understanding and appreciation of persons to be good and know that communication facilitates those things.  Why do you think those things are good?  Probably because you believe that people have inherent beauty and value.  And why do you believe that?  Because...

I would contend that any such line of inquiry, if pursued honestly, will very quickly lead to exclusive assertions about the purpose and nature of the Universe.  (Which is what I call "religion," but I know my use of the term is unorthodox.)  People don't always know that they have these assertions in the back of their minds, and the assertions often don't make any sense on examination, but they're always there.  Every human act stems from a worldview.  (Ayn Rand's got my back on that one, for whatever that's worth.  Smart woman, Ayn Rand.)

Let's assume for the sake of argument that the universe exists because your God created it. That means that in addition to everything nice in the universe that everything bad from cancer to poverty to the mess that is the human reproductive system also comes from God.

Well, no I'd say God is not to blame for the bad.  When God made the world, it was all good.  Since then things have gone south because of sin, whether because of the direct consequences of sin (destruction caused by human misdeeds) or because sin exerts some kind of corrosive ontological influence on the world.  Essentially, good is what God intended and bad is what has been perverted and turned away from His original purpose.  (That's what Christianity teaches; I'm not, at this time, offering evidence that it's true.  Just FYI.)

One can appreciate the good in reality without worshiping its creator as perfect an all-knowing. Likewise, one could appreciate reality without an understanding or even with a misunderstanding of its origins.

Do you have a wife?  Try appreciating the stuff she does for you without acknowledging its source.  Doesn't work very well.  You can certainly enjoy the good stuff she does for you without giving her thanks or acknowledgment, but 1.) that would be very rude and degrading and 2.) you'd miss out on a lot if you only recognized, for instance, sex as something fun for you and not also as an act of love and trust from her.  The ability to appreciate things is greatly limited by not knowing or caring why they are.  That goes for anything, not just God.

Actually, in retrospect a book seems to be a spectacularly bad way of getting the message across. First of all, much of it is allegory which people are free to interpret or misinterpret to reflect their own prejudices (such as bias against homsexuality). Think of the myriad interpretations we have here over short fiction of two to five thousand words and multiply that by the difficulty of communicating much deeper and more important messages through a longer, more difficult work.

I've got to disagree with you there.  People are jerks, but they don't like to admit it, so when they go about their evil deeds they like to attach some noble name to it.  ("I will kill you because doing so protects my personal power and social status!  Er, I mean, because God wills it.  Yeah, that sounds better.  God wills it!")  People will willfully misinterpret any message presented in any way to suit their biases and selfish interests.  (Just look at the Constitution.)  That doesn't mean the message is flawed.

If you actually read the Bible, you'll find almost none of the various evils carried out in God's name over the years find any justification therein.  People pull verses out of context or just make shit up (masturbators go to hell!) and then tack God's name on after the fact.  If you read the Bible, it's really pretty clear on a lot of things.  Like "love your enemies."  Yeah, lots of people supposedly doing God's will have forgotten that one over the years.  And some like to quote Ephesian 5 where it says that women should submit to their husbands while totally ignoring the very next paragraph where it says husbands should love their wives more than themselves.

You can't fault a book because people deliberately, maliciously take parts of it out of context or assign obviously stupid interpretations to it (masturbators go to hell!).

As for it being obscure and difficult: How would you go about creating a book that is intended to be relevant for all people of all cultures at all times and primarily concerns the infinite, the transcendent and the unfathomable?  It's going to be obscure and difficult.  If the Bible were in FAQ format, wouldn't that be proof positive that it was made up?  What you have is something that does not easily lend itself to misunderstanding (if taken as a whole), becomes increasingly comprehensible as one devotes time to understanding it, but retains elements of mystery no matter how much one understands.  Which, I think, is just what you'd expect if it were authentic.

Secondly, one has to deal with translations, mistranslations, and the mounting errors which occur with even copying - especially before the invention of movable type. Do you know, for instance, that the famous story ending with the line "Let he who is without sin cast the first stone" was added in transcription and not in the earliest texts? It certainly adds a different shade to the meaning of the phrase "gospel truth", does it not?

Yes, I did know that.  I learned it in church.  It also says so in my Bible: That particular passage is offset and has a disclaimer in the NIV and most other translations.  Ditto for the last few verses of Mark.  Those exceptions prove the rule, I think, that the text is generally quite faithful to what the originals said.

At any rate, my faith in the validity of the Bible (as I alluded to earlier) is not primarily dependent on empirical data.  I believe that God had His fingers in things, making sure the message was preserved accurately.  But that I obviously can't prove.

Boy, that got long...  You can tell today is a slow day at work.
Title: Re: How do you get to heaven split from EP129
Post by: Russell Nash on January 15, 2008, 06:38:31 PM
But, TAD, you do believe something concerning the nature and purpose the universe, don't you?  ("Something" doesn't have to be limited to the most famous or popular options.)

Before you say "not really," take a minute to think about why you do things, like, say, post in a forum.  If you really ask why and keep asking, you'll find it's really a pretty big question (as are all questions).  For instance, the fact that you bother to write words in response to me shows that you, in some way, care about what I think and feel.

I think he just likes a good arguement.

Let's assume for the sake of argument that the universe exists because your God created it. That means that in addition to everything nice in the universe that everything bad from cancer to poverty to the mess that is the human reproductive system also comes from God.

Well, no I'd say God is not to blame for the bad.  When God made the world, it was all good.  Since then things have gone south because of sin, whether because of the direct consequences of sin (destruction caused by human misdeeds) or because sin exerts some kind of corrosive ontological influence on the world.  Essentially, good is what God intended and bad is what has been perverted and turned away from His original purpose.  (That's what Christianity teaches; I'm not, at this time, offering evidence that it's true.  Just FYI.)

So people are born into poverty, because they have sinned?  Generations of families and communities have lived without clean water and enough to eat, because some ancestor told Yahweh to fuck off?  I've done that and live quite well.

One can appreciate the good in reality without worshiping its creator as perfect an all-knowing. Likewise, one could appreciate reality without an understanding or even with a misunderstanding of its origins.

Do you have a wife?  Try appreciating the stuff she does for you without acknowledging its source.  Doesn't work very well.  You can certainly enjoy the good stuff she does for you without giving her thanks or acknowledgment, but 1.) that would be very rude and degrading and 2.) you'd miss out on a lot if you only recognized, for instance, sex as something fun for you and not also as an act of love and trust from her.  The ability to appreciate things is greatly limited by not knowing or caring why they are.  That goes for anything, not just God.

So you run out to the curb and hug your garbage man?  Bake cupcakes for the local police?  How many visits have you made to the water treatment plant to thank the folks who give you clean water?  What about your noble Illinois corn growers?

Your examples are always picked just to prove your point, but they are always far narrower than your original statement.  If my wife did all of those things without ever talking to me and never acknowledged my exist, I just might treat her like that.
[/quote]
Title: Re: How do you get to heaven split from EP129
Post by: Mr. Tweedy on January 15, 2008, 08:18:08 PM
So people are born into poverty, because they have sinned?  Generations of families and communities have lived without clean water and enough to eat, because some ancestor told Yahweh to fuck off?  I've done that and live quite well.

If by "telling Yahweh to fuck off" you mean that people in their ancestral past made harmful choices, then yes.  Sin is a corrosive cycle and the sins of past generations continue to destroy us today.  If our collective ancestors had all loved their neighbors (as Christ commanded) then there would certainly be far fewer people in the world today without food and water.

If you mean that being born poor is God's vengeance against the children in question, then no.

Do you always tell fictional characters to fuck off?  Seems like an odd habit.   ;)

So you run out to the curb and hug your garbage man?  Bake cupcakes for the local police?  How many visits have you made to the water treatment plant to thank the folks who give you clean water?  What about your noble Illinois corn growers?

Eh?  Are you saying it would be bad for me to hug my garbage man or that I shouldn't be thankful to the people down at the treatment plant?  Seems like the world would be better if we all showed each other more appreciation.  Maybe I should thank my garbage man.

If my wife did all of those things without ever talking to me and never acknowledged my exist, I just might treat her like that.

Heh.  Um...  This is the same wife you've told to fuck off, right?

Nice iguana.
Title: Re: How do you get to heaven split from EP129
Post by: qwints on January 16, 2008, 12:59:18 AM
Wow, no south park reference? "Mormons, Mormons were the correct answer"

Philosophy and theology are fun discussion topics anywhere and anytime. That said, how much can really be said about how one gets to heaven. The Catholics are crystal clear (the sacraments), and most protestants are equally clear (No man comes to the Father except through me - Jesus.) The existence and nature of heaven and hell are much tougher questions, but any such talk requires common theological ground to go anywhere.

Mr. Tweedy, I don't think it's fair to say God revealed himself in a book for Christianity - that's Islam's thing. The Bible is a record of the actions of prophets and personal revelations, and only rarely the direct word of God.

"It's a funny thing, but why is it that the heathens and the barbarians seem to have the best places to go when they die"
"A bit of a poser, that. I s'pose it makes up for 'em ... enjoying themselves all the time when they're alive, too? "
Title: Re: How do you get to heaven split from EP129
Post by: DDog on January 16, 2008, 01:10:19 AM
"It's a funny thing, but why is it that the heathens and the barbarians seem to have the best places to go when they die"
"A bit of a poser, that. I s'pose it makes up for 'em ... enjoying themselves all the time when they're alive, too? "

And to that, all I have to say is:

Quote from: Taylor Mali, "Tony Steinberg: Brave Viking Warrior," http://www.taylormali.com/index.cfm?webid=31
He died with his sword in his hand and so went straight to heaven,
which the Vikings called Valhalla.

Mr. Mali, if that's true, that you would go straight to Valhalla
if you died with your sword in your hand,
then if you were an old Viking
and you were about to die of old age,
could you keep your sword right by your bed
so if you felt like you were going to die
you could reach out and grab it?


I don't know if their gods would fall for that,
but it sounds like a good idea to me.
Title: Re: How do you get to heaven split from EP129
Post by: Tango Alpha Delta on January 16, 2008, 02:14:46 AM
I was trying to be good and not bring the Mormons into this.  Though now you have me pondering Mormons (who allegedly believe we each get our own planet to populate if we sell enough Amway products) battling Vikings in the Afterworld.   :)   

And I won't even address the Divine Exhibitionism qwintz hinted at!

But, common ground being in short supply, I feel I have to call "bullshit" on a couple of things -

1) Just because I am arguing with someone doesn't logically mean I must believe in something in particular.  Think of it as a kind of "peer review"; if you put out a mathematical theorem, and I see a logical flaw in it, I will feel obligated to point it out to you.  That doesn't mean I have to have a better theorem to replace it.  (Don't worry... I do arithmetic about as well as I dance, so your theorems are actually safe from me.)

2) If God is infallible, and created a perfect place... then allowed "sin" to corrupt it... then God is guilty of the corruption.  Sorry.  I always hated it when I did something right and my adult caretakers (teachers, relatives, whatever) would insist on giving God the credit -- because He is the source of all good, and I should not be prideful -- but when I screwed up, it was all me, me, me.

Now, does this mean I think I am not flawed?  Far from it.  But my flaws don't give any human other than me (or my wife) the right to control me.   (SF ref: go here to read ...And Then There Were None by Eric Frank Russell (http://www.abelard.org/e-f-russell.htm); one of my all-time favorites.)

If it makes you feel any better, I am perfectly happy for you to believe in God or any other explanation for the universe.  As long as it doesn't require you to hurt anyone, or interfere with me in any way, you're more than welcome to explore the wildest reaches of imagination to find an answer that you like.  It's just that all too frequently, belief in any kind of religion tends to require one or both of those things, and a boy can't be too careful.  (Put that sword down, please... bad Viking.)

I want to make this clear, though: I am NOT trying to convert anyone to my worldview.  I'll concede that I must have one, if you adopt a loose definition, but it wouldn't be a "religious" belief, and I don't expect it to suffice for the average person.  (Russell nailed it, though, when he said I enjoy a good argument.)
Title: Re: How do you get to heaven split from EP129
Post by: Mr. Tweedy on January 16, 2008, 03:59:06 AM
Oh, no, of course you don't need a better explanation to critique someone else's.  My only point was that you've got to believe something.  Otherwise you're a toad...  Which you apparently are not, despite your name.

As for God being responsible for sin, would the world be considered perfect if you weren't free to make your own choices?  Even if the world were very pleasant, it would just be a guilded cage, wouldn't it?
Title: Re: How do you get to heaven split from EP129
Post by: eytanz on January 16, 2008, 09:13:09 AM
As for God being responsible for sin, would the world be considered perfect if you weren't free to make your own choices?  Even if the world were very pleasant, it would just be a guilded cage, wouldn't it?

Ok, let me chime in here.

First, if we didn't have free will, we wouldn't be able to find anything wrong with a gilded cage, right? So you really are comparing apples and oranges here. *We* would fine a world without free will unbearable, but that's because *we* have free will. Our free-will-less counterparts would probably find our world unbearable. Ultimately, whether or not giving us free will was the better choice cannot be judged from our point of view, since we are part of the system we would be judging. Whether or not it was a good idea depends on how well it satisfied God's purposes.

Which brings me to my second point: there's a difference between being responsible for something and causing something.

If my dog bites my neigbour's dog, I am responsible. It doesn't matter if I didn't want the dog to attack my neighbour's dog, or if I told him to stop. The dog has some degree of free will - not as free as mine, but it decides how to respond to events such as meeting the neighbour's dog. As his master, it's my responsbility to teach it how to make the right decision - to teach it that attacking another dog is not an acceptable action. But whether or not the dog follows my teaching is up to him.

Even so, I am responsible. If the dog does attack another dog, I can't just say "Oh, I tried telling him not to". If he did so it means that my teaching was not effective. Either because I didn't do it well, or because I should have known that this dog simply cannot be trusted to learn, and kept him away from other dogs.

Similarly with children. If my (hypothetical) 12 year old son sets fire to my neighbour's house, it's my responsibility. He has free will, and at that age he has the capacity to know right from wrong. But he's not independent of me either - I still hold authority over him. And being an authority figure, I am both morally and legally responsible for his actions. If he doesn't know right from wrong, or if he knows and chooses wrong anyway, that is my failure as his parent. That does not diminish his culpability - but I am not absolved because even though he is a rational being, he is still living under my authority.

So, how is the Chistian God not responsible for the evil? True, we have free will to defy Him. But He is the ultimate authority figure. It is from Him that the rules of right and wrong come. If we do evil, we are culpable - but He, as the one who is in charge, is also responsible. He either didn't do a good enough job of teaching right and wrong - which isn't to mean that He didn't try, but He didn't try well enough. Or, if someone is incorrigable and persists in doing evil despite all of God's teachings, that person should be kept apart from innocent victims.

You could say that this is exactly what happens in the afterlife - God seperates the good and the evil, preventing the evil from doing any more harm. But the fact remains that in this world, he does no such thing. Instead, according to your faith, he lets the evil perform evil, and induce others to perform evil, for as long as they are capable of breath. It is their own will - God doesn't make them do evil. But nonetheless, he is responsible for this evil, by permitting it to happen.

Title: Re: How do you get to heaven split from EP129
Post by: Russell Nash on January 16, 2008, 09:53:34 AM
So people are born into poverty, because they have sinned?  Generations of families and communities have lived without clean water and enough to eat, because some ancestor told Yahweh to fuck off?  I've done that and live quite well.
Do you always tell fictional characters to fuck off?  Seems like an odd habit.   ;)
Then you admit Yahweh is fictional.  Then discussion over.  I'll lock the thread.
So you run out to the curb and hug your garbage man?  Bake cupcakes for the local police?  How many visits have you made to the water treatment plant to thank the folks who give you clean water?  What about your noble Illinois corn growers?

Eh?  Are you saying it would be bad for me to hug my garbage man or that I shouldn't be thankful to the people down at the treatment plant?  Seems like the world would be better if we all showed each other more appreciation.  Maybe I should thank my garbage man.

You said it was rude to not say thanks to someone who does so much for you.  I was only asking if you say thanks to the people who do things for you everyday. 

I have thanked my garbage man.  He looked at me stunned and then said I was the only person in twenty years who had said that.  I don't remember my trash cans ever being anywhere other than set nicely back next to my mail box after that.  It means he must have told everyone, because the guy had to go on vacation sometime. 
Title: Re: How do you get to heaven split from EP129
Post by: Czhorat on January 16, 2008, 11:06:48 AM
Well, no I'd say God is not to blame for the bad.  When God made the world, it was all good.  Since then things have gone south because of sin, whether because of the direct consequences of sin (destruction caused by human misdeeds) or because sin exerts some kind of corrosive ontological influence on the world.  Essentially, good is what God intended and bad is what has been perverted and turned away from His original purpose.  (That's what Christianity teaches; I'm not, at this time, offering evidence that it's true.  Just FYI.)

This feels like a big cop-out. The Christian God was, if I recall correctly, omnipotent. Able to do anything. He is also supposed to be infinitely nice. So why, to take Russell's example, are there people starving in large parts of the world? Why are some people born into poverty? Why are some people born with horrific diseases dooming them to short, painful lives? If man's sinning changed the world to the extent of creating diseases then by what mechanism did this happen? If it did and God couldn't correct it, does that mean that God is less powerful than man? If he can but doesn't then does that mean he doesn't care?



Quote
Do you have a wife?  Try appreciating the stuff she does for you without acknowledging its source.  Doesn't work very well.  You can certainly enjoy the good stuff she does for you without giving her thanks or acknowledgment, but 1.) that would be very rude and degrading and 2.) you'd miss out on a lot if you only recognized, for instance, sex as something fun for you and not also as an act of love and trust from her.  The ability to appreciate things is greatly limited by not knowing or caring why they are.  That goes for anything, not just God.

It's different. My wife directly acknowledges my existence. All the time. She even acts as if she loves me and our child and doesn't demand some form of "worship". God is some mysterious force in the middle of the world who even you acknowledge can't be proven by empirical or verifiable means. He's also been very remote over the past couple thousand years. More like an absent parent than a wife, at least in His behavior to date. As an aside, not that it's relevant, sex is fun for my wife too.

Quote
I've got to disagree with you there.  People are jerks, but they don't like to admit it, so when they go about their evil deeds they like to attach some noble name to it.  ("I will kill you because doing so protects my personal power and social status!  Er, I mean, because God wills it.  Yeah, that sounds better.  God wills it!")  People will willfully misinterpret any message presented in any way to suit their biases and selfish interests.  (Just look at the Constitution.)  That doesn't mean the message is flawed.

I never said that the message is flawed. Well, I did, but that's not the argument against a book. You stated that if God exists and if God wants to tell people about Himself, then a Book is really the only viable option for doing that. I pointed out that there are plenty of drawbacks to using a book. It was narrowly focused on one small subset of the population. It is easily misinterpreted. It can be mistranslated. If you had a message that you thought was very important, wrote it in a book, and found that literally millions of people were misreading it (masturbation is bad! homosexuality is evil! Slavery is OK!) wouldn't you at least call a press conference to offer a correction? Perhaps write an updated version when society changed to the point that your original examples no longer really resonated? You could do those things without omnipotence. If you were omnipotent, you could simultaneously create translations, have the books annotate themselves to clear up misconceptions, have all of Christopher Hitchens' and Richard Dawkins' books change overnight into new improved Bibles... The sky isn't even the limit.

Quote
You can't fault a book because people deliberately, maliciously take parts of it out of context or assign obviously stupid interpretations to it (masturbators go to hell!).

I'm not faulting the Bible for that reason. I do think the message, especially in the old testament, leans too heavily on a theme of the virtue of blind subservience but that's another argument entirely. What I'm arguing here is the effectiveness of getting a message across through one book destined to become lost in a sea of competing holy books. As successful as Christianity is, there are literally millions of people who don't get the message and believe things directly contradictory. I'd think that an omnipotent being should be able to get his point across.

Quote
At any rate, my faith in the validity of the Bible (as I alluded to earlier) is not primarily dependent on empirical data.  I believe that God had His fingers in things, making sure the message was preserved accurately.  But that I obviously can't prove.

If we replaced the word "Bible" with "Koran" or "Book of Mormon" or any other holy book your entire argument would be the same. I asked once and don't think you answered - do you think those following a different faith are as "right" or as likely to be "right" as you are?

As for God being responsible for sin, would the world be considered perfect if you weren't free to make your own choices?  Even if the world were very pleasant, it would just be a guilded cage, wouldn't it?

True, but if sin is corroding the world to the point of causing all human suffering don't you think he should do something about that? If my daughter broke a neighbor's window it might be her fault and not mine because of her free will, but I'd still replace the window (I'd also be very surprised because she's still only one). It seems that your God is content to leave lots of windows broken.
Title: Re: How do you get to heaven split from EP129
Post by: Mr. Tweedy on January 16, 2008, 05:02:36 PM
Russell: I just think it's funny that you (and so many other atheists) seem so angry with someone you claim doesn't exist.  I mean, I'm not angry with Allah.  I don't feel any need to tell Odin to go screw himself.  I don't insist that Galactus keep his hands off me.  That a figment of someone else's imagination has the power to piss you off strikes me as humorous.  Like this:  :D

Your respect for the garbage man well illustrates my point about appreciation.  You 1.) recognize his important role in your life and 2.) express it to him.  This results in greater happiness, deeper understanding and smoother workings for everybody.  Respect is good.  I feel compelled to emulate your good example on this point.

--------------------

Eytanz & Czhorat (how do you pronounce "Czhorat"?), you guys have both got some really good insights here.  Kudos on really thinking about this; most people with opinions haven't.  Your points have a lot of overlap, so I'll address them as a group.

If God deliberately creates a world with the potential for evil, then isn't it His fault if evil occurs?  Isn't that like an engineer making bridge with a built-in potential for collapse?  I do have an answer to that question, but it isn't a strait up "yes" or "no".  Rather than try to explain it in a big messy paragraph, I ask to pose you a question that I think is a way-point on the way to the answer:

Do either of you have a solution to this problem?  You're God, with all the perks.  Can you conceive a design for a world that includes free will but does not permit evil?  To put the same problem another way, can you conceive of a being that that is incapable of doing evil and also has free will?

I think you'll find that any solution for getting rid of evil or suffering has prohibitive side-effects.

Czhorat and Russell, you both mentioned that God does not acknowledge your existence.  (What a jerk!)  To that, I can only say that I don't relate to your experience.  As silly as it probably sounds to you, I say that I have something of a relationship with God.  There is dialog.  I'm not a prophet: I don't get revelations or visions, but I do claim there is a subtle but very noticeable communication between myself and God.  Occasionally (very rarely) this has amounted to explicit instructions, which I have followed to good results.  I have never heard words.  I actually struggled for a long time because my experience of God was so much less dramatic than some of the stories I'd heard from other people, but I'm cool with it now.

You probably think that I am deluded, but that's my story and I'm sticking to it.  (And no, I can't prove to you that God has ever communicated with me.  The only evidence I can offer is my word.  A "rational" explanation might be that I have a subtle form of schizophrenia.  I have no empirical proof that that isn't the case.)

This relates directly to Czhorat's very valid complaints about the Bible as a means of communication.  I apologize here, because I think that in my attempt to be simple and concise I gave the impression that the Bible is the only means by which God communicates.  It isn't.  Obvious examples are the many people in the Bible with whom God communicated before there was a Bible.  The book of Romans speaks of nature and conscience being kinds of revelations, and God speaks to people through other means that are not restricted to any category.  The Bible is not the only place to learn about God.  What the Bible is is the authoritative place, and all other supposed information concerning Him has to measure up against it.  To say that the Bible is true and the Word of God does not mean that information cannot be gotten from any other source.  It means information from other sources has to be checked against it.

This probably isn't the best analogy, but my Olympus E-300 camera has a manual.  That manual is authoritative (I know manuals can have typos, but for the sake of argument).  I can learn about the Olypmus E-300 from places other than the manual, but I know that if something I see in the B&H Photographic Catalog conflicts with what it says in the manual, then B&H is the one that's got it wrong.  Conversely, by knowing the manual, I have insight and context with which to understand and interpret the other information I encounter.

The Japanese weren't screwed because they didn't have a Bible.  At a disadvantage, yes, but not screwed.

Again, I apologize, because I think I was unclear before.

And again, I want to disclaim that I'm not really offering much evidence here that any of this stuff is true.  I'm trying to explain what I believe and show that it makes logical sense, which I know is not the same as proving it.

I also want to say that I am really enjoying hearing some of the stuff you guys have to say.  I like to hear thought-out arguments for their own sake, and it keeps me thinking, which is something that can't be said of anything that happens at the office.
Title: Re: How do you get to heaven split from EP129
Post by: Russell Nash on January 16, 2008, 05:22:07 PM
Russell: I just think it's funny that you (and so many other atheists) seem so angry with someone you claim doesn't exist.  I mean, I'm not angry with Allah.  I don't feel any need to tell Odin to go screw himself.  I don't insist that Galactus keep his hands off me.  That a figment of someone else's imagination has the power to piss you off strikes me as humorous.  Like this:  :D

I can tell someone to fuck off without giving a rat's ass about them and do most everytime I say it.  If I'm telling someone to Fuck off, I'm telling them they are not worth more than two words and five seconds of thought.

I think it's also funny that you don't know that Allah is only Arab for God and that they are both Yahweh.  The funny thing is that most of the world's continuing violence comes from the three groups that worship Yahweh beating on one another.

Your respect for the garbage man well illustrates my point about appreciation.  You 1.) recognize his important role in your life and 2.) express it to him.  This results in greater happiness, deeper understanding and smoother workings for everybody.  Respect is good.  I feel compelled to emulate your good example on this point.

And this illustrates my point that you said we were somehow deficient for not saying thanks to someone who has done so much, but you don't say thanks to people you see every day.  I have great respect for people who really do things.  That's why Yahweh doesn't get anything from me and people who try to tell me I'm wrong get my scorn.
Title: Re: How do you get to heaven split from EP129
Post by: Mr. Tweedy on January 16, 2008, 05:30:15 PM
I asked once and don't think you answered - do you think those following a different faith are as "right" or as likely to be "right" as you are?

Well, no.  I mean, I'd be pretty stupid to devote my life to something that I was only 8% sure was right, wouldn't I?  Why would you bother with something that you think is only somewhat likely to be true?

Christianity says I will go to heaven.   :)  Islam says I'm going to hell.  :'(  Atheism says I will go nowhere.   :-\  Buddhism says I will be reincarnated.   ???  Can I believe that it is equally likely that I will go to heaven, hell, nowhere and be reincarnated?  Is that even possible?
Title: Re: How do you get to heaven split from EP129
Post by: Russell Nash on January 16, 2008, 06:52:33 PM
I asked once and don't think you answered - do you think those following a different faith are as "right" or as likely to be "right" as you are?

Well, no.  I mean, I'd be pretty stupid to devote my life to something that I was only 8% sure was right, wouldn't I?  Why would you bother with something that you think is only somewhat likely to be true?

Christianity says I will go to heaven.   :)  Islam says I'm going to hell.  :'(  Atheism says I will go nowhere.   :-\  Buddhism says I will be reincarnated.   ???  Can I believe that it is equally likely that I will go to heaven, hell, nowhere and be reincarnated?  Is that even possible?

So your parents weren't the same religion as you?  If they were, you started with a bias towards believing in Christianity.  Unless you have gone through the religious education provided by each of the other religions, how can you say you really understand what they believe.  Therefore I would say you have devoted your life to the religion you just happen to have been born into and choose to believe it is right. 

I'm sure most Jews, Muslims, and people from other branches of Christianity believe the same about their religion for exactly the same reasons.  No wonder you guys fight all the time.
Title: Re: How do you get to heaven split from EP129
Post by: Mr. Tweedy on January 16, 2008, 10:06:53 PM
Huh?  That was a total non-sequitur.  You should only use the "quote" feature if your condescension and belittlement are related to the words you're quoting.

Everyone here is already aware that you think I am the dumbest person in the universe.  Simply restating that opinion over and over in thinly veiled forms is not really achieving anything.  If the meaning of your message is nothing more than "Mr. Tweedy is a boob," then kindly write it out concisely: "Mr. Tweedy is a boob."  It would save everybody a little time.
Title: Re: How do you get to heaven split from EP129
Post by: Russell Nash on January 17, 2008, 08:16:18 AM
Huh?  That was a total non-sequitur.  You should only use the "quote" feature if your condescension and belittlement are related to the words you're quoting.

Then let me narrow what I quoted, so you can see the connection.

I asked once and don't think you answered - do you think those following a different faith are as "right" or as likely to be "right" as you are?
…I'd be pretty stupid to devote my life to something that I was only 8% sure was right, wouldn't I? …

So your parents weren't the same religion as you?  If they were, you started with a bias towards believing in Christianity.  Unless you have gone through the religious education provided by each of the other religions, how can you say you really understand what they believe.  Therefore I would say you have devoted your life to the religion you just happen to have been born into and choose to believe it is right. 

My point was that you choose to devote your life to one religion without shopping around.  You went with what you were given, because it's what you were given.  It's not a non-sequitor.  It was calling you out.  Just like I did with your showing appreciation comment, and just like I did when you claimed there was so much evidence against evolution. 

I don't care if you believe something, because it's what your family has always believed.  Just don't imply you believe it, because you have researched all of modern religion and have made an educated choice.
Title: Re: How do you get to heaven split from EP129
Post by: eytanz on January 17, 2008, 10:56:59 AM
If God deliberately creates a world with the potential for evil, then isn't it His fault if evil occurs?  Isn't that like an engineer making bridge with a built-in potential for collapse?  I do have an answer to that question, but it isn't a strait up "yes" or "no".  Rather than try to explain it in a big messy paragraph, I ask to pose you a question that I think is a way-point on the way to the answer:

I don't think the engineer analogy is very good. As far as I understand Christianity, God wasn't just involved in the creation of the world. God still influences the world. He just chooses to do it in a subtle way. He is both omnipresent and omnipotent. Why does he wait until people are dead for them to feel the consequences of their actions, rather than address those right away?

Sure, you can say that he's giving people a chance to refore, but it's not as simple as that, since he lets them affect other people. Imagine that there are two brothers. Both are sinners, refusing to accept Jesus into their lives/hearts, and they also are adulters, each of them sleeping with the other's wife (behind the other's back). Lets call them Bill and Fred. After a few years, Bill catches Fred in bed with his wife. He is enraged, pulls out his gun, and shoots them both. He manages to convince the police it was a burglar, marries Fred's widow, and nothing much happens to him. Much later in life, he discovers Christ, becoming a true believer. He repents his past misdeeds, confesses them to the authorities of his own accord, goes to jail but is pardoned, and spends the rest of his life committing acts of charity.

Now, I don't know if you believe that Bill will go to heaven or to hell. He dies a reformed man and true Christian, but he was also a murderer. But that's not the important part. The important part is Fred - he died without accepting Christ, and so is doomed to go to hell. But if he was not shot by his brother, he may also have reformed in his old age. Bill sinned, but he did not deny himself the opportunity to accept Christ, he denied it to his brother.

As Windup pointed out, Christianity argues that we have but a limited time to determine the status of our eternal soul. Why is this time not granted equally? Why is it that God allows murderers to condemn others to eternal damnation who might otherwise be saved? He is omnipotent. Surely he can give people free will to make their own mistakes without giving them the free will to deny others the chance at salvation.

Quote
Do either of you have a solution to this problem?  You're God, with all the perks.  Can you conceive a design for a world that includes free will but does not permit evil?  To put the same problem another way, can you conceive of a being that that is incapable of doing evil and also has free will?

Well, that's not really a fair question, for the simple reason that I'm not God. Being God is not like being president of the US. I can imagine what being president, with all the power that comes with it, feels like and hypothesize how I could do things if I were president. I can't imagine how it is to be God, because God is far beyond anything in my experience.

If your faith presumes that God is constrained by the limits of my ability to imagine his option, then you are not worshipping anything the god I believe in - you might as well be worshipping an idol or Opera Winfrey.

Title: Re: How do you get to heaven split from EP129
Post by: Czhorat on January 17, 2008, 11:24:39 AM
A few quick points before work.

If God deliberately creates a world with the potential for evil, then isn't it His fault if evil occurs?  Isn't that like an engineer making bridge with a built-in potential for collapse?  I do have an answer to that question, but it isn't a strait up "yes" or "no".  Rather than try to explain it in a big messy paragraph, I ask to pose you a question that I think is a way-point on the way to the answer:

Do either of you have a solution to this problem?  You're God, with all the perks.  Can you conceive a design for a world that includes free will but does not permit evil?  To put the same problem another way, can you conceive of a being that that is incapable of doing evil and also has free will?

Actually if a bridge collapses it very well may be the fault of the engineer who designs it and he or she should design better bridges in the future. Can one solve all of the world's problems without abrogating free will? No. But could God have done better? In no particular order, here are a few things I would change.

1) The human reproductive system. It's figuratively and, as any female past the age of puberty will tell you, literally a mess. Monthly flows of hormones make it difficult for some women to control their moods. It's too hard for some people to get pregnant and too easy for others. At the very least it would be nice to have a simple "on/off" switch to avoid getting pregnant by accident and then turn ones fertility on when it's child conceiving time. 

2) Disease. This is an easy one. There's no reason for a just god to have created a world in which so many people are, through no fault of their own, painfully and terminally ill.

3) The ambiguity of the message. I'm sorry, but writing a book is NOT the best way to spread your message, especially if the shelves are crowded with similar books containing different messages. Make press releases clearing up issues regarding homosexuality, masturbation, slavery, etc. If people are to commit atrocities, then let them not be in my name.

4) Redistribution of wealth and power. Take property, money, and land away from the rich and give it to the poor. Do this every generation or two. What about free will, you ask? This could enhance free will. As things stand countless millions of people live hand-to-mouth, barely able to scrape together the bare necessities of life while others live in unconscionable luxury.To take away a bit of the freedom of the super-rich to pass on their riches to their children could greatly enhance the freedom of many others to live lives free of abject poverty.

There's more, but you should get the idea. What I don't understand is what makes you such a panglossian figure who seems to truly believe that this is the best of all possible worlds. Do you lack the imagination to see anything better, or is it because the possibility of a better world would contradict your faith?


I think you'll find that any solution for getting rid of evil or suffering has prohibitive side-effects.

Quote
Czhorat and Russell, you both mentioned that God does not acknowledge your existence.  (What a jerk!)  To that, I can only say that I don't relate to your experience.  As silly as it probably sounds to you, I say that I have something of a relationship with God.  There is dialog.  I'm not a prophet: I don't get revelations or visions, but I do claim there is a subtle but very noticeable communication between myself and God.  Occasionally (very rarely) this has amounted to explicit instructions, which I have followed to good results.  I have never heard words.  I actually struggled for a long time because my experience of God was so much less dramatic than some of the stories I'd heard from other people, but I'm cool with it now.

Impossible to evaluate without knowing more. Are you open to the possibility that you are mistaken or deluded?

Quote
This probably isn't the best analogy, but my Olympus E-300 camera has a manual.  That manual is authoritative (I know manuals can have typos, but for the sake of argument).  I can learn about the Olypmus E-300 from places other than the manual, but I know that if something I see in the B&H Photographic Catalog conflicts with what it says in the manual, then B&H is the one that's got it wrong.  Conversely, by knowing the manual, I have insight and context with which to understand and interpret the other information I encounter.

The Japanese weren't screwed because they didn't have a Bible.  At a disadvantage, yes, but not screwed.

Again, I apologize, because I think I was unclear before.

You were clear. You said that a book was the only viable way for God to spread his message. Are you now backing away from that point? Do you see how the bookshelves full of competing books at the very least make it difficult to decide which message is the "true" one? And why would a just god put some people at a disadvantage just because of where they happen to be born? Any reason, or is he just capricious? Alternatively, you could accept all religions as man-made which would account for local difference. Which solution makes more sense to you?

I asked once and don't think you answered - do you think those following a different faith are as "right" or as likely to be "right" as you are?

Well, no.  I mean, I'd be pretty stupid to devote my life to something that I was only 8% sure was right, wouldn't I?  Why would you bother with something that you think is only somewhat likely to be true?

Christianity says I will go to heaven.   :)  Islam says I'm going to hell.  :'(  Atheism says I will go nowhere.   :-\  Buddhism says I will be reincarnated.   ???  Can I believe that it is equally likely that I will go to heaven, hell, nowhere and be reincarnated?  Is that even possible?

I believe that I will go nowhere, but that reincarnation, heaven, and hell have pretty much equal possibilities. It IS possible to not know and think any alternative is equally likely. WHY do you think your answer is more likely? Is it, as Russel suggested, that it's what you were brought up with? If so, can you at least acknowledge that your indoctrination is as big a part of your belief than any rational reason?
Title: Re: How do you get to heaven split from EP129
Post by: Tango Alpha Delta on January 17, 2008, 01:36:28 PM
Wow... this is getting hard to keep up with.  A couple of points I'd like to address while I have time:

1) I pronounce "Czhorat" with a sort of throat clearing noise followed by "O'Rat"... sort of a Klingon-cum-Irish sort of name.

2) Atheists aren't angry at God (most of the time); but they do get angry at Followers who insist on using flawed logic to justify their belief.  Since most atheists believe they arrived at their own belief through logic, having theists tell them "I just know it's true" is deeply frustrating.  (NOTE: read that a few times before assuming that I made any value judgment on either system of belief.)

3) Female stormtroopers are incredi-hot... oh, wrong thread.

4) This thread seems to have developed into an "all-against-Mr. Tweedy" kind of thing.  I don't like contributing under those circumstances, so I'm bowing out forthwith.  (I also have a camping trip this weekend, so probably won't have time to get on, anyway.)

Have a fun weekend, and as the Prophets said... "Be excellent to each other!"
Title: Re: How do you get to heaven split from EP129
Post by: eytanz on January 17, 2008, 04:36:24 PM
2) Atheists aren't angry at God (most of the time); but they do get angry at Followers who insist on using flawed logic to justify their belief.  Since most atheists believe they arrived at their own belief through logic, having theists tell them "I just know it's true" is deeply frustrating.  (NOTE: read that a few times before assuming that I made any value judgment on either system of belief.)

Ok, two responses to this:

A) How can an atheist be angry at God? Isn't that like me being angry at the tooth fairy?

B) More importantly, I hope you realize that "I just know it's true" is exactly what Atheists sound like to non-atheists, too. Either that or they're mis-applying Occam's Razor to the real world. I easily understand how logic would lead someone to becoming agnostic (in the colloquiual sense of the word). I can't see how logic will help you outright reject the notion of god (or God) anymore than it will help you accept it. Lack of evidence for something is not equivalent, in a logical sense, with evidence for the lack of something.
Title: Re: How do you get to heaven split from EP129
Post by: gelee on January 17, 2008, 10:57:28 PM
Quote
A) How can an atheist be angry at God? Isn't that like me being angry at the tooth fairy?

Not to butt in, but I feel compelled to comment on this particular item.  Atheists are often accused of not actually being atheists, but rather being in a state of rebellion against God.  Sort of "You mean old God!  How could you break my XBox like that?  I'll show show you!  I just won't believe in you any more, so there!"
So yes, it would be like getting angry at the tooth fairy.
Title: Re: How do you get to heaven split from EP129
Post by: eytanz on January 17, 2008, 11:18:41 PM
Quote
A) How can an atheist be angry at God? Isn't that like me being angry at the tooth fairy?

Not to butt in, but I feel compelled to comment on this particular item.  Atheists are often accused of not actually being atheists, but rather being in a state of rebellion against God.  Sort of "You mean old God!  How could you break my XBox like that?  I'll show show you!  I just won't believe in you any more, so there!"
So yes, it would be like getting angry at the tooth fairy.

I'm confused as to whether you are attacking atheists here, or making a rather confusing comment about them.
Title: Re: How do you get to heaven split from EP129
Post by: Czhorat on January 17, 2008, 11:36:24 PM
I suppose I should have answered this one:

Wow... this is getting hard to keep up with.  A couple of points I'd like to address while I have time:

1) I pronounce "Czhorat" with a sort of throat clearing noise followed by "O'Rat"... sort of a Klingon-cum-Irish sort of name.

I say "kuh-ZHOR-at", but some have said "se-ZOR-at" or even something sounding sorta like "Joe-rat". Steve Eley says "SEE - ZOR - at" as if the first letter is an initial.
Title: Re: How do you get to heaven split from EP129
Post by: gelee on January 17, 2008, 11:47:50 PM
Quote
A) How can an atheist be angry at God? Isn't that like me being angry at the tooth fairy?

Not to butt in, but I feel compelled to comment on this particular item.  Atheists are often accused of not actually being atheists, but rather being in a state of rebellion against God.  Sort of "You mean old God!  How could you break my XBox like that?  I'll show show you!  I just won't believe in you any more, so there!"
So yes, it would be like getting angry at the tooth fairy.

I'm confused as to whether you are attacking atheists here, or making a rather confusing comment about them.
Didn't mean to be confusing.  I was actually trying to answer your question A.
I was just agreeing with your assertion that an atheist can not be angry at god, and attempting to explain that they are often accused of being so.  I've caught that one myself a few times, from freinds and family.  People think that I DO believe in God, but that I'm just being an ass and trying to make some kind of point, or maybe rebelling against "The Establishment," whatever they feel that may be.  I am sometimes accused of being bitter about something, and that I'm blaming God and rejecting him out of anger.
So yes, I agree that an atheist being angry at god is like being angry at the tooth fairy.
Title: Re: How do you get to heaven split from EP129
Post by: eytanz on January 18, 2008, 12:11:23 AM
Didn't mean to be confusing.  I was actually trying to answer your question A.
I was just agreeing with your assertion that an atheist can not be angry at god, and attempting to explain that they are often accused of being so.  I've caught that one myself a few times, from freinds and family.  People think that I DO believe in God, but that I'm just being an ass and trying to make some kind of point, or maybe rebelling against "The Establishment," whatever they feel that may be.  I am sometimes accused of being bitter about something, and that I'm blaming God and rejecting him out of anger.
So yes, I agree that an atheist being angry at god is like being angry at the tooth fairy.

Ok, thanks for clarifying. I wasn't clear if you were saying the above or whether you yourself were expressing that view. I know some people think that - but I was (and still am) a bit confused by TAD's statement, as I'm not sure if he's kidding or serious, though I suspect the former.
Title: Re: How do you get to heaven split from EP129
Post by: Tango Alpha Delta on January 18, 2008, 12:34:52 AM
Didn't mean to be confusing.  I was actually trying to answer your question A.
I was just agreeing with your assertion that an atheist can not be angry at god, and attempting to explain that they are often accused of being so.  I've caught that one myself a few times, from freinds and family.  People think that I DO believe in God, but that I'm just being an ass and trying to make some kind of point, or maybe rebelling against "The Establishment," whatever they feel that may be.  I am sometimes accused of being bitter about something, and that I'm blaming God and rejecting him out of anger.
So yes, I agree that an atheist being angry at god is like being angry at the tooth fairy.

Ok, thanks for clarifying. I wasn't clear if you were saying the above or whether you yourself were expressing that view. I know some people think that - but I was (and still am) a bit confused by TAD's statement, as I'm not sure if he's kidding or serious, though I suspect the former.


Yes, I was attempting "tongue-in-cheek", but trying to convey something more like what gelee said.  I was actually trying to convey a bit of what eytanz said, as well... but I suspect now that I am only being trying.  :(

Ok, NOW I'll bow out... unless we get snowed in this weekend.

Title: Re: How do you get to heaven split from EP129
Post by: Mr. Tweedy on January 18, 2008, 05:58:09 AM
Ok, NOW I'll bow out... unless we get snowed in this weekend.

Aw.  I was hoping to hear more about Vikings vs. Mormons.

The Mormons would have firearms, which puts them at an obvious advantage, but dead Vikings, as I understand it, are resurrected at the end of each day's battle, so the Mormon ammo would run out fast.  Could go either way.

Busy today.  Catch up... sometime.
Title: Re: How do you get to heaven split from EP129
Post by: gelee on January 18, 2008, 11:24:49 PM
Didn't mean to be confusing.  I was actually trying to answer your question A.
I was just agreeing with your assertion that an atheist can not be angry at god, and attempting to explain that they are often accused of being so.  I've caught that one myself a few times, from freinds and family.  People think that I DO believe in God, but that I'm just being an ass and trying to make some kind of point, or maybe rebelling against "The Establishment," whatever they feel that may be.  I am sometimes accused of being bitter about something, and that I'm blaming God and rejecting him out of anger.
So yes, I agree that an atheist being angry at god is like being angry at the tooth fairy.

Ok, thanks for clarifying. I wasn't clear if you were saying the above or whether you yourself were expressing that view. I know some people think that - but I was (and still am) a bit confused by TAD's statement, as I'm not sure if he's kidding or serious, though I suspect the former.

My pleasure.  This is a debate that I gave up a long time ago, but I think a measure of understanding would help all parties concerned.
The term "atheist" is every bit as loaded as "christian," and almost as complicated.  The way I had to explain this to my wife was that there were more than one kind of non-theistic stand point:
Theist: I have an elephant in my garage.
Hard Atheist: Based on the information I have, you do not have an elephant in your garage.
Soft Atheist: Based on the information I have, I do not believe that you have an elephant in your garage.
Agnostic: I do not know if you have elephant in your garage or not.  Each is equally likely, based on the information I have.

It might be semantic hair-splitting, but it's an important difference.  I'm of the "soft" sort.  I'm the cuddly atheist!
Title: Re: How do you get to heaven split from EP129
Post by: eytanz on January 19, 2008, 12:34:19 AM
My pleasure.  This is a debate that I gave up a long time ago, but I think a measure of understanding would help all parties concerned.
The term "atheist" is every bit as loaded as "christian," and almost as complicated.  The way I had to explain this to my wife was that there were more than one kind of non-theistic stand point:
Theist: I have an elephant in my garage.
Hard Atheist: Based on the information I have, you do not have an elephant in your garage.
Soft Atheist: Based on the information I have, I do not believe that you have an elephant in your garage.
Agnostic: I do not know if you have elephant in your garage or not.  Each is equally likely, based on the information I have.

It might be semantic hair-splitting, but it's an important difference.  I'm of the "soft" sort.  I'm the cuddly atheist!

I don't quite think that's right, really. I have a few issues with it:

1. First, most theists (myself included), are such because of the information they have. Maybe it's faulty information, or faulty deduction, but that could be said of the atheists as well. It's not fair to remove that clause specifically from the theists.

2. Why are you splitting the atheists into "soft" and "hard" but not the theists? I have nowhere to put myself in your classification.

3. Elephants in garages are not a good enough analogy, since it's pretty easy to check if there really is one or not. If you and I were arguing about whether there was an elephant in my garage, I would resolve the argument by showing you my garage.

4. I know a lot of people who call themselves agnostic who don't believe the options are equally likely, just that they are both possible.

I would offer the following version:

Hard Theist: Based on the information I have, There is an elephant on Mars.
Soft Theist, Based on the information I have, I believe there is an elephant on Mars.
Hard Atheist: Based on the information I have, there is no elephant on Mars.
Soft Atheist: Based on the information I have, I do not believe that there is an elephant on Mars.
Agnostic: I do not know if there is an elephant ion Mars. I don't have enough information.

On this classification, I'm a soft theist.
Title: Re: How do you get to heaven split from EP129
Post by: stePH on January 19, 2008, 02:12:12 AM
Ok, NOW I'll bow out... unless we get snowed in this weekend.

Aw.  I was hoping to hear more about Vikings vs. Mormons.

The Mormons would have firearms, which puts them at an obvious advantage, but dead Vikings, as I understand it, are resurrected at the end of each day's battle, so the Mormon ammo would run out fast.  Could go either way.
Unless the Mormons happen to know the cheat code for "Infinite Ammo".  ;)
Title: Re: How do you get to heaven split from EP129
Post by: Mr. Tweedy on January 21, 2008, 10:16:08 PM
Quote from: Russell Nash
I asked once and don't think you answered - do you think those following a different faith are as "right" or as likely to be "right" as you are?
…I'd be pretty stupid to devote my life to something that I was only 8% sure was right, wouldn't I? …

So your parents weren't the same religion as you?  If they were, you started with a bias towards believing in Christianity.  Unless you have gone through the religious education provided by each of the other religions, how can you say you really understand what they believe.  Therefore I would say you have devoted your life to the religion you just happen to have been born into and choose to believe it is right. 

My point was that you choose to devote your life to one religion without shopping around.  You went with what you were given, because it's what you were given.  It's not a non-sequitor.  It was calling you out.  Just like I did with your showing appreciation comment, and just like I did when you claimed there was so much evidence against evolution. 

I don't care if you believe something, because it's what your family has always believed.  Just don't imply you believe it, because you have researched all of modern religion and have made an educated choice.

I never said that I had thoroughly studied every religion or that I had done a comparative analysis.  (Although your comments would seem to imply that you have.)  I also never said that I was perfect at appreciating everybody.  I said I am convinced Christianity is true, which I am.  I said that appreciation is good and has great benefits benefits, which is true.  I did not claim that I am personally perfect in either knowledge or character.  You have nothing to call me out on.


If God deliberately creates a world with the potential for evil, then isn't it His fault if evil occurs?  Isn't that like an engineer making bridge with a built-in potential for collapse?  I do have an answer to that question, but it isn't a strait up "yes" or "no".  Rather than try to explain it in a big messy paragraph, I ask to pose you a question that I think is a way-point on the way to the answer:

I don't think the engineer analogy is very good. As far as I understand Christianity, God wasn't just involved in the creation of the world. God still influences the world. He just chooses to do it in a subtle way. He is both omnipresent and omnipotent. Why does he wait until people are dead for them to feel the consequences of their actions, rather than address those right away?

By "address those right away" do you mean damn sinners immediately instead of waiting for them to die?  There wouldn't be any people on Earth, in that case, since everyone has sinned.  Damning everyone on the spot would be perfectly just and within God's prerogative, but it would result in an unpopulated Earth and Heaven, which is not what God wants.  The reasons He refrains are mercy and love: He wants people to come to Him and He likes having people around.  He loves people and sees their beauty and potential, and so He chooses to let the world continue rather than summarily smite it.

Sure, you can say that he's giving people a chance to refore, but it's not as simple as that, since he lets them affect other people. [...]

I think my response to Czhorat will address that.

As Windup pointed out, Christianity argues that we have but a limited time to determine the status of our eternal soul. Why is this time not granted equally?

Why?  Well, the world is generally broken, but beyond that I don't know.  I suspect it's ontological: Things just don't work like that.  Beyond that vague speculation I have no answer.

Can one solve all of the world's problems without abrogating free will? No. But could God have done better? In no particular order, here are a few things I would change.

1) The human reproductive system. It's figuratively and, as any female past the age of puberty will tell you, literally a mess. Monthly flows of hormones make it difficult for some women to control their moods. It's too hard for some people to get pregnant and too easy for others. At the very least it would be nice to have a simple "on/off" switch to avoid getting pregnant by accident and then turn ones fertility on when it's child conceiving time. 

2) Disease. This is an easy one. There's no reason for a just god to have created a world in which so many people are, through no fault of their own, painfully and terminally ill.

I see your points here.  The world seems to have a degree of inbuilt suffering, unrelated to any human actions.  My answers to this will probably not satisfy you, but I have two:

First, I would argue that physical suffering is not generally what makes people miserable.  We all know (or know of) people who have gone through horrible suffering and come out happy on the other side.  And we certainly all know people who have never so much as stubbed their toe who are miserable and makers of misery for others.  People are miserable when they see their lives as meaningless.  People who see purpose can be happy through suffering and even because of suffering.  I really don't think physical pain is of itself very important, all things considered.  (This is more a philosophical tangent than I want to get off on.  Ironically, that sounds pretty Buddhist.)

Second, the Bible is quite explicit in saying that most (if not all) of this suffering has come about due to sin in the world.  When God made nature, it was much nicer.  Exactly how sin messes up nature is not stated.  I have theories, but that's all they are.

3) The ambiguity of the message. I'm sorry, but writing a book is NOT the best way to spread your message, especially if the shelves are crowded with similar books containing different messages. Make press releases clearing up issues regarding homosexuality, masturbation, slavery, etc. If people are to commit atrocities, then let them not be in my name.
Again, I'd say the message is not really very ambiguous.  Check this out:

Russell Nash says that everyone should worship Yahweh!

Now, is Russell obligated to come and refute that?  Or has he already spoken clearly enough on the topic that readers should know that's not something Russell Nash would say?  If people read that and believe it, whose fault is that?  His?  Mine for writing it?  The reader for believing it?

As for the idea of God controlling the publishing industry to suppress all competing messages:

4) Redistribution of wealth and power. Take property, money, and land away from the rich and give it to the poor. Do this every generation or two. What about free will, you ask? This could enhance free will. As things stand countless millions of people live hand-to-mouth, barely able to scrape together the bare necessities of life while others live in unconscionable luxury.To take away a bit of the freedom of the super-rich to pass on their riches to their children could greatly enhance the freedom of many others to live lives free of abject poverty.

There are two big problems here, and they are this:  1.) If God comes along and messes with everybody's stuff every so often, then Russell no longer has the prerogative of telling Him to fuck off.  This would totally rob anyone of the option of not believing in God, which leads into 2.)  This would make most human action meaningless.  I don't have to work for myself: God will come along and fill up my my coffer on schedule.  I don't have to love my neighbor: God will take care of that.  I don't have to think about what I believe or why: The answer is literally in front of my face where I couldn't deny it if I wanted to.

God wants people to choose to be good and do right.  He wants partners and friends.  Taking so much out of our hands would rob us of choice and make out deeds and thoughts insignificant.  For our deeds to be meaningful, they have to be 1.) freely chosen and 2.) effective.

There's more, but you should get the idea. What I don't understand is what makes you such a panglossian figure who seems to truly believe that this is the best of all possible worlds. Do you lack the imagination to see anything better, or is it because the possibility of a better world would contradict your faith?

I think I've said several times that this world is screwed up.  The world we see around us now is broken on several levels, decayed, degraded from what it was made to be.  I am far from panglossian.  I am not arguing that the world is all good.  I am arguing that the world makes sense.

Czhorat and Russell, you both mentioned that God does not acknowledge your existence.  (What a jerk!)  To that, I can only say that I don't relate to your experience.  As silly as it probably sounds to you, I say that I have something of a relationship with God.  There is dialog.  I'm not a prophet: I don't get revelations or visions, but I do claim there is a subtle but very noticeable communication between myself and God.  Occasionally (very rarely) this has amounted to explicit instructions, which I have followed to good results.  I have never heard words.  I actually struggled for a long time because my experience of God was so much less dramatic than some of the stories I'd heard from other people, but I'm cool with it now.

Impossible to evaluate without knowing more. Are you open to the possibility that you are mistaken or deluded?

Sure.  Do you watch "Stranger Things?"  In the pilot episode, a priest makes the horrifying discovery that invisible "prayer leaches" are floating above churches and literally eating the prayers that naive worshippers think are directing toward God.  If you could show me something like that, I'd certainly have to reconsider the source of my impressions.  But aside from prayer leaches, I'm not sure what sort of proof there could be of my delusion.

Are you open to the possibility that I'm not deluded?

Do you see how the bookshelves full of competing books at the very least make it difficult to decide which message is the "true" one?

Absolutely.  It bugs me and I really wish people would quit writing them already.  But if people weren't free to write crap, where would that mean for their free agency?

And why would a just god put some people at a disadvantage just because of where they happen to be born? Any reason, or is he just capricious? Alternatively, you could accept all religions as man-made which would account for local difference. Which solution makes more sense to you?

I think it's more telling if you flip that question around and ask why all religions are so similar.  There's a lot of truth in many religions.  For instance, they've all got this idea of personal corruption that everyone needs to have expunged.  Moral codes the world over have a lot of similarity (no one likes a traitor, for instance).  Why would that be?  Maybe because there's some underlying truth that they're all reaching toward and succeeding to unequal degrees?  Sounds like a reasonable explanation to me.

As for people being at a disadvantage: I don't know.  I personally find some of the ways God does things pretty weird and, yes, unfair.  But if this is really GOD we're talking about, then I would expect to not understand everything.  And I don't.

Quote from: Czhorat
I asked once and don't think you answered - do you think those following a different faith are as "right" or as likely to be "right" as you are?

Well, no.  I mean, I'd be pretty stupid to devote my life to something that I was only 8% sure was right, wouldn't I?  Why would you bother with something that you think is only somewhat likely to be true?

Christianity says I will go to heaven.   :)  Islam says I'm going to hell.  :'(  Atheism says I will go nowhere.   :-\  Buddhism says I will be reincarnated.   ???  Can I believe that it is equally likely that I will go to heaven, hell, nowhere and be reincarnated?  Is that even possible?

I believe that I will go nowhere, but that reincarnation, heaven, and hell have pretty much equal possibilities. It IS possible to not know and think any alternative is equally likely. WHY do you think your answer is more likely? Is it, as Russel suggested, that it's what you were brought up with? If so, can you at least acknowledge that your indoctrination is as big a part of your belief than any rational reason?

I don't understand how you can entertain those four beliefs all at once.  How does that work out in you mind?

I say that I was never indoctrinated.  My beliefs as an adult are very close to what I was taught as a child, but that is because I've spent my whole life aggressively questioning what I'm taught and my parent's teaching has held up under my scrutiny.  For their part, they always encouraged me to ask any question, and I did.  Same goes for all of the preachers I have had.  I don't think that qualifies as indoctrination.  And I have many friends (and a spouse) who were brought up far from the Christian faith and only came to Christianity as adults.

Wow, that was really long...  I was going to write some kind of concluding statement, but now I forgot what it was.

Oh yeah: Is God responsible for evil on Earth?  Yes and no.

No: It is God's will that no one should ever do evil and everyone who does is disobeying Him.  Yes: God created the world with the potential for evil and full knowledge that that potential would be realized.  He knew all this shit would happen and He lets it happen.

The explanation for this seeming paradox is simply this: Without choice, life is meaningless.   God thinks that having beings who can choose to love, to appreciate, to respect, to create, to enjoy, to build, etc. is worth the cost.  Life is so beautiful that it's worth the incredibly steep price, not only of all the shit in the world, but also of the death of Christ Himself.

If y'all don't feel like replying to something that ridiculously long, I won't take offense.  It was cathartic for me, anyway.  I like to write stuff.
Title: Re: How do you get to heaven split from EP129
Post by: eytanz on January 21, 2008, 11:09:19 PM
Quote from: Czhorat


I believe that I will go nowhere, but that reincarnation, heaven, and hell have pretty much equal possibilities. It IS possible to not know and think any alternative is equally likely. WHY do you think your answer is more likely? Is it, as Russel suggested, that it's what you were brought up with? If so, can you at least acknowledge that your indoctrination is as big a part of your belief than any rational reason?

I don't understand how you can entertain those four beliefs all at once.  How does that work out in you mind?

He doesn't. He entertains the belief that they are all possible. That's a single belief.

If you toss a (fair) die, I believe that it might come up 1, or 2, or 3, or 4, or 5, or 6, and that each of these has an equal possibility. That's not six beliefs, it's one.

Furthermore, it's possible to have contingent beliefs. I can believe that if you and I play a dice game you will use fair dice, but I can also believe that if I am incorrect in my initial belief, then I will lose. The second belief is contingent on the first one being wrong, but there is no problem with holding them both at once.

My belief is that there is no afterlife, and that death is simply an ending. I also believe that if I am wrong about that, then quite a few versions of the afterlife are equally likely. I've had different people, of different Christian denominations, tell me that I'll go to hell (because I'm not a Christian), purgatory (because I'm a sinner but not too bad and that I've accepted Jesus even though I don't know it), and heaven (because I'm nice). I've been brought up Jewish, and have been told that there is no afterlife but that I will be ressurected at the end of days. And those are just the options I've had serious conversations about. As far as I know I might be headed for Valhalla because I served in the military. I have no way or interest of judging between these and others, since I reject all of them. But if it happens that I'm wrong, I don't have any reason to believe any of these is more likely than the other.
Title: Re: How do you get to heaven split from EP129
Post by: Czhorat on January 22, 2008, 11:10:05 AM
Quote from: Mr Tweedy
Can one solve all of the world's problems without abrogating free will? No. But could God have done better? In no particular order, here are a few things I would change.

1) The human reproductive system. It's figuratively and, as any female past the age of puberty will tell you, literally a mess. Monthly flows of hormones make it difficult for some women to control their moods. It's too hard for some people to get pregnant and too easy for others. At the very least it would be nice to have a simple "on/off" switch to avoid getting pregnant by accident and then turn ones fertility on when it's child conceiving time. 

2) Disease. This is an easy one. There's no reason for a just god to have created a world in which so many people are, through no fault of their own, painfully and terminally ill.

I see your points here.  The world seems to have a degree of inbuilt suffering, unrelated to any human actions.  My answers to this will probably not satisfy you, but I have two:

First, I would argue that physical suffering is not generally what makes people miserable.  We all know (or know of) people who have gone through horrible suffering and come out happy on the other side.  And we certainly all know people who have never so much as stubbed their toe who are miserable and makers of misery for others.  People are miserable when they see their lives as meaningless.  People who see purpose can be happy through suffering and even because of suffering.  I really don't think physical pain is of itself very important, all things considered.  (This is more a philosophical tangent than I want to get off on.  Ironically, that sounds pretty Buddhist.)

Second, the Bible is quite explicit in saying that most (if not all) of this suffering has come about due to sin in the world.  When God made nature, it was much nicer.  Exactly how sin messes up nature is not stated.  I have theories, but that's all they are.

Physical suffering can be very important, and the issues of disease, etc that I brought up can not be dismissed as "mere" physical suffering. First of all, for most people serious disease makes their lives worse not better. Second, there's the issue of those left behind. Children orphaned by parents taken too early by disease. Parents who have to bury children. Are you saying this is just?

As far as your second point is concerned, why should I or even you believe it? If the Bible is God's word, is it possible that he shaded the truth a bit to make himself look better?

Quote from: Mr Tweedy
3) The ambiguity of the message. I'm sorry, but writing a book is NOT the best way to spread your message, especially if the shelves are crowded with similar books containing different messages. Make press releases clearing up issues regarding homosexuality, masturbation, slavery, etc. If people are to commit atrocities, then let them not be in my name.
Again, I'd say the message is not really very ambiguous.  Check this out:

Russell Nash says that everyone should worship Yahweh!

Now, is Russell obligated to come and refute that?  Or has he already spoken clearly enough on the topic that readers should know that's not something Russell Nash would say?  If people read that and believe it, whose fault is that?  His?  Mine for writing it?  The reader for believing it?

All of the above. If I tried to kill you over someone's misstatement of Russell's position he'd probably say something. If I and a few thousand of my fellow Russellites started a war that he really didn't want in his name then he'd have, in my opinion, a moral obligation to say that it was very nice of us to think of him but that this wasn't really quite what he wanted.


(re: redistribution of wealth)
Quote
There are two big problems here, and they are this:  1.) If God comes along and messes with everybody's stuff every so often, then Russell no longer has the prerogative of telling Him to fuck off.  This would totally rob anyone of the option of not believing in God, which leads into 2.)  This would make most human action meaningless.  I don't have to work for myself: God will come along and fill up my my coffer on schedule.  I don't have to love my neighbor: God will take care of that.  I don't have to think about what I believe or why: The answer is literally in front of my face where I couldn't deny it if I wanted to.

God wants people to choose to be good and do right.  He wants partners and friends.  Taking so much out of our hands would rob us of choice and make out deeds and thoughts insignificant.  For our deeds to be meaningful, they have to be 1.) freely chosen and 2.) effective.

You sound like a free market capitalist purist who sees any government assistance as creating a cycle of dependency in which nobody will work. I'm not saying that all goods and wealth should be completely redistributed equally. Just that giving some people free will de-facto abrogates the free will of others. Why would God stand by, for instance, when countless thousands of Africans were kidnapped from their homes and sold as slaves here in America, sometimes with God's own words used as justification? You say that God doesn't want to take away the free will of the slave-traders, but I ask what about the free will of the slaves? That seems to be forgotten or ignored.


Quote
I think I've said several times that this world is screwed up.  The world we see around us now is broken on several levels, decayed, degraded from what it was made to be.  I am far from panglossian.  I am not arguing that the world is all good.  I am arguing that the world makes sense.

Would it make equal sense if  you applied the teaching of Islam or Hinduism or no religion at all? If not, why not?

Quote
Czhorat and Russell, you both mentioned that God does not acknowledge your existence.  (What a jerk!)  To that, I can only say that I don't relate to your experience.  As silly as it probably sounds to you, I say that I have something of a relationship with God.  There is dialog.  I'm not a prophet: I don't get revelations or visions, but I do claim there is a subtle but very noticeable communication between myself and God.  Occasionally (very rarely) this has amounted to explicit instructions, which I have followed to good results.  I have never heard words.  I actually struggled for a long time because my experience of God was so much less dramatic than some of the stories I'd heard from other people, but I'm cool with it now.

Impossible to evaluate without knowing more. Are you open to the possibility that you are mistaken or deluded?

Sure.  Do you watch "Stranger Things?"  In the pilot episode, a priest makes the horrifying discovery that invisible "prayer leaches" are floating above churches and literally eating the prayers that naive worshippers think are directing toward God.  If you could show me something like that, I'd certainly have to reconsider the source of my impressions.  But aside from prayer leaches, I'm not sure what sort of proof there could be of my delusion.

Are you open to the possibility that I'm not deluded?
I was thinking more about the ideas coming from your own brain than by replacing one unprovable supernatural entity with another. In any event, one person's subjective impression of something experienced only within their own mind in no way convinces me.

Quote
Do you see how the bookshelves full of competing books at the very least make it difficult to decide which message is the "true" one?

Absolutely.  It bugs me and I really wish people would quit writing them already.  But if people weren't free to write crap, where would that mean for their free agency?
Good. Now let's take the next step. Imagine you're a devout Russellite. Would you view your Bible the same way you would now view the Book of Russell? Getting back to the very start of this dialog, I'll re-ask this question: What reason is there for someone born and raised in a different faith to choose one form of religion over any other? If there's no good reason, then didn't God do a poor job of getting his message across, and isn't he being unfair in having acceptance of that message as a precondition for getting into heaven?


Quote
And why would a just god put some people at a disadvantage just because of where they happen to be born? Any reason, or is he just capricious? Alternatively, you could accept all religions as man-made which would account for local difference. Which solution makes more sense to you?

I think it's more telling if you flip that question around and ask why all religions are so similar.  There's a lot of truth in many religions.  For instance, they've all got this idea of personal corruption that everyone needs to have expunged.  Moral codes the world over have a lot of similarity (no one likes a traitor, for instance).  Why would that be?  Maybe because there's some underlying truth that they're all reaching toward and succeeding to unequal degrees?  Sounds like a reasonable explanation to me.

There's been lots of recent study on the underlying biology behind morality. Some of the reasons that certain forms of morality are constant could be evolutionary in nature. Moral codes against traitors and in favor of fairness, for example, even seem to be shared by non-human primates. I'd consider this one reason for similarities between religions. Another is that holy books tend to be written by those in power. They'd pick and choose stories designed to keep people in line, so to speak. Let's flip the question back. What about the differences? If, for instance, belief in Jesus is THE most important thing in Christianity, then why is it found ONLY in Christianity?


I asked once and don't think you answered - do you think those following a different faith are as "right" or as likely to be "right" as you are?

Well, no.  I mean, I'd be pretty stupid to devote my life to something that I was only 8% sure was right, wouldn't I?  Why would you bother with something that you think is only somewhat likely to be true?

Again, with all the differing possibilities, why?

I'll leave with another question to answer your point that for God to prove his existence would take away our potential for choice. How do you explain the stories in the Bible? Especially early on, God was constantly revealing himself and telling people what to do. Did he have less respect for people back then? Change his management style? Or is it just possible to believe that these stories are not to be taken literally and may or may not be even true?


Moderator:  Fixed quoting errors
Title: Re: How do you get to heaven split from EP129
Post by: Russell Nash on January 22, 2008, 11:57:38 AM
Quote from: Mr Tweedy
3) The ambiguity of the message. I'm sorry, but writing a book is NOT the best way to spread your message, especially if the shelves are crowded with similar books containing different messages. Make press releases clearing up issues regarding homosexuality, masturbation, slavery, etc. If people are to commit atrocities, then let them not be in my name.
Again, I'd say the message is not really very ambiguous.  Check this out:

Russell Nash says that everyone should worship Yahweh!

Now, is Russell obligated to come and refute that?  Or has he already spoken clearly enough on the topic that readers should know that's not something Russell Nash would say?  If people read that and believe it, whose fault is that?  His?  Mine for writing it?  The reader for believing it?

All of the above. If I tried to kill you over someone's misstatement of Russell's position he'd probably say something. If I and a few thousand of my fellow Russellites started a war that he really didn't want in his name then he'd have, in my opinion, a moral obligation to say that it was very nice of us to think of him but that this wasn't really quite what he wanted.
Ah, but you forget I'm a narcissistic megalomaniac, and I just want everyone screaming my name and directing their devotion to me.  I don't care why.
Title: Re: How do you get to heaven split from EP129
Post by: Chodon on January 22, 2008, 01:20:05 PM
One question I've always had is if Monotheists (Jews, Christians, Muslims) believe their immortal soul is in peril for sin why don't they fully dedicate their life to their religion by becoming a rabbi, priest, or immam?  I mean, it's your immortal soul!  What could be more important?  Your job?  Your family?  Come on!

I'm not saying I believe one side or the other, just curious what others think about this.
Title: Re: How do you get to heaven split from EP129
Post by: eytanz on January 22, 2008, 01:55:22 PM
One question I've always had is if Monotheists (Jews, Christians, Muslims) believe their immortal soul is in peril for sin why don't they fully dedicate their life to their religion by becoming a rabbi, priest, or immam?  I mean, it's your immortal soul!  What could be more important?  Your job?  Your family?  Come on!

I'm not saying I believe one side or the other, just curious what others think about this.

Jews don't believe their immortal soul is in peril. That's a Christian notion.

As for whether it's best to be a rabbi or not - well, first of all, only few people can be rabbis at any one time because a rabbi is sort of like the village elder - it's not really a job you can start out at until you've done something else for a while and gotten wisdom and experience. But among the ultra-orthodox branches of Judaism there are certainly those who believe that all men should devote all their time to study and prayer. That makes them more equivalent to monks than to priests, even though they are not celibate (since being married and having children is also a religious obligation). But that's a relatively recent development, and not accepted by many less extreme branches of the faith. In general, it's considered superior to lead a succesful religious life and a succesful secular life in parallel - if you can contribute to your community *and* be devout, God will judge you more favorably than if you do one to the exclusion of the other.
Title: Re: How do you get to heaven split from EP129
Post by: Mr. Tweedy on January 22, 2008, 11:00:03 PM
Czhorat, it seems to me that most of your comments at this point are not so much logical objections as statements of disapproval.  God should have done it this way.  God is inefficient.  God is unfair.  God has the wrong priorities.  Well, if you just don't like God and the way He does things, well, sorry, but I have nothing to say to that.  I like God a lot, myself.  I hope you will too someday.

There were a couple of things that were real objections:

As far as your second point is concerned, why should I or even you believe it? If the Bible is God's word, is it possible that he shaded the truth a bit to make himself look better?

Well... lots of reasons, most of which you would probably think are bunk.  Shaded the truth?  Well, if God shaded the truth He probably would have made Himself seem nicer and cuddlier.  As it is, He promises His followers suffering and comes off as pretty scary a lot of the time, and a lot of it's confusing, and there's the whole part where He dies...  I don't think it's a puff piece.

Just that giving some people free will de-facto abrogates the free will of others. Why would God stand by, for instance, when countless thousands of Africans were kidnapped from their homes and sold as slaves here in America, sometimes with God's own words used as justification? You say that God doesn't want to take away the free will of the slave-traders, but I ask what about the free will of the slaves? That seems to be forgotten or ignored.

Essentially, you're complaining that actions have consequences which effect other people.  You seem to be advocating some kind of system where nothing any of us does effects anyone else, which sounds, to me, worse than the current situation.  The world would not be dynamic.

The slave traders did evil by (among other things) restricting the free choice of the slaves, but that does not mean the slaves had no choices to make.  There are always choices, even it's simply the choice of whether or not to be courteous to the next person on your chain.  Our actions can hinder and restrict the freedom of others, but not abrogate.  Specifically, the choice to love or hate is always available.

I was thinking more about the ideas coming from your own brain than by replacing one unprovable supernatural entity with another. In any event, one person's subjective impression of something experienced only within their own mind in no way convinces me.

Well, for that matter, your claim to never have had any experience of God doesn't convince me.  It's an impasse, I'm afraid.

I'll leave with another question to answer your point that for God to prove his existence would take away our potential for choice. How do you explain the stories in the Bible? Especially early on, God was constantly revealing himself and telling people what to do. Did he have less respect for people back then? Change his management style? Or is it just possible to believe that these stories are not to be taken literally and may or may not be even true?

Hmm...  That actually a good point.  I stand corrected.  For God to prove His existence in blinding, undeniable ways would not stop people from rejecting Him.  Lots of people in the Bible saw jaw-dropping miracles and still rejected.  The people of Israel walked through the parted Red Sea and were worshiping a metal cow a month later.

I think what that shows us is that blinding, undeniable proofs aren't what convince people to love God.
Title: Re: How do you get to heaven split from EP129
Post by: Czhorat on January 22, 2008, 11:44:43 PM
Czhorat, it seems to me that most of your comments at this point are not so much logical objections as statements of disapproval.  God should have done it this way.  God is inefficient.  God is unfair.  God has the wrong priorities.  Well, if you just don't like God and the way He does things, well, sorry, but I have nothing to say to that.  I like God a lot, myself.  I hope you will too someday.

Like or dislike has nothing to do with it. God doesn't exist. I was just pointing out that the fantasy creature you claim to love and worship isn't as nice as you seem to think he is, even if I accepted his existence as true.

There were a couple of things that were real objections:

As far as your second point is concerned, why should I or even you believe it? If the Bible is God's word, is it possible that he shaded the truth a bit to make himself look better?

Well... lots of reasons, most of which you would probably think are bunk.  Shaded the truth?  Well, if God shaded the truth He probably would have made Himself seem nicer and cuddlier.  As it is, He promises His followers suffering and comes off as pretty scary a lot of the time, and a lot of it's confusing, and there's the whole part where He dies...  I don't think it's a puff piece.

Quote
Just that giving some people free will de-facto abrogates the free will of others. Why would God stand by, for instance, when countless thousands of Africans were kidnapped from their homes and sold as slaves here in America, sometimes with God's own words used as justification? You say that God doesn't want to take away the free will of the slave-traders, but I ask what about the free will of the slaves? That seems to be forgotten or ignored.

Essentially, you're complaining that actions have consequences which effect other people.  You seem to be advocating some kind of system where nothing any of us does effects anyone else, which sounds, to me, worse than the current situation.  The world would not be dynamic.

No, I'm not. I'm pointing out the inconsistency in your thinking. Free will is the most important thing to God, SO important that people are free to believe in him or disbelieve in him. Millions of people are born without the freedom to pursue anything of value in their lives because they're too busy starving to death, are enslaved by their fellow man, or are forced to live as second-class citizens because of some accident of birth.

Now, back to the point at hand.

Quote
Good. Now let's take the next step. Imagine you're a devout Russellite. Would you view your Bible the same way you would now view the Book of Russell? Getting back to the very start of this dialog, I'll re-ask this question: What reason is there for someone born and raised in a different faith to choose one form of religion over any other? If there's no good reason, then didn't God do a poor job of getting his message across, and isn't he being unfair in having acceptance of that message as a precondition for getting into heaven?

You never answered this. The closest you came was to my answer about different religions:

Quote
I think it's more telling if you flip that question around and ask why all religions are so similar.  There's a lot of truth in many religions.  For instance, they've all got this idea of personal corruption that everyone needs to have expunged.  Moral codes the world over have a lot of similarity (no one likes a traitor, for instance).  Why would that be?  Maybe because there's some underlying truth that they're all reaching toward and succeeding to unequal degrees?  Sounds like a reasonable explanation to me.

To which I answered:
Quote
There's been lots of recent study on the underlying biology behind morality. Some of the reasons that certain forms of morality are constant could be evolutionary in nature. Moral codes against traitors and in favor of fairness, for example, even seem to be shared by non-human primates. I'd consider this one reason for similarities between religions. Another is that holy books tend to be written by those in power. They'd pick and choose stories designed to keep people in line, so to speak. Let's flip the question back. What about the differences? If, for instance, belief in Jesus is THE most important thing in Christianity, then why is it found ONLY in Christianity?

I think it's pretty clear that morality, the existence of the world and of people in it, and anything else can be explained just fine without the need for a God. If you do imagine God then there's all kinds of hand-waving in which people like you have engage to try to reconcile books written centuries ago with what we now know in the modern world. If you have an answer to the central question, of why a just god would stack the deck so heavily against people not born to families already believing in him, I'd love to see it. If you have an answer to the question of why a rationale outsider should believe one faith over another, or even a rational reason YOU believe in it, I'm all ears. Other than that, you're talking in circles and, for the purpose of this conversation, I'm just about done with you.
Title: Re: How do you get to heaven split from EP129
Post by: Tango Alpha Delta on January 23, 2008, 02:49:59 AM
How they got the longboats to the Great Salt Lake may remain ever a mystery, but there they sat, bristling with spears and plated with gaily painted shields.  The hoary hoard of sea-grimed warriors that disembarked and waded the last few yards to shore stayed close, guarded, wanting to preserve the moment of surprise until it was too late for their prey to rise to a defense.

But then, as one, a line of cheerful, clean-cut faces rose from their innocuous hiding places, materializing as if from no where.  Sporting blond crewcuts over smiling, apple pie cheeks; armed only with thick, blue books and protected only by narrow, black ties clipped to freshly starched white dress shirts, they were mounted on bicycles, but were not moving.

Fearless Odin Olafson strode forward, terrifying from the horned helm and spiked eye patch down to the menacing, barbed chain around the hem of his breech-clout.  He was met by Elder Joseph Brigham, with his firm handshake and his devout sincerity.  "What brings you to Utah, friend?" he greeted the hulking Norseman.

"You invaded our lands, bringing fairy tales and pyramid schemes to entrap our feeble minded and sentimental!!" roared the Viking chieftain.

"Well, my heck, where else would we send missionaries who speak Scandinavian tongues?" Elder Joe clucked, and shook his head with tolerant amusement.  "Besides... it's not a fairy tale.  I know it to be true because I believe it.  And faith itself is proof, especially if it's strong enough!"

"Circular logic!!  The tricks of Loki!!" cried the mighty son of Olaf, and he swung his battle axe above his head to signal the attack...

...but... where was the roar of his men?  Where was the brutal clank of metal on wood?  Where were the screams of agony from the hated enemy?

He looked to the right, and saw Nils Erikson admiring a bright Huffy as his erstwhile opponent tried on his helm.  He looked to the left and spied Henrik Arvidsen on his knees in tearful prayer with two of the young, fresh elders.  He bellowed at his men, demanding to know what they were doing.  Jan Svenson tugged at his shoulder plate, and said,  "They are really very nice, and have promised each of us our own Valhalla to repopulate as we see fit, if we only give up our violent ways, learn hygiene, and give up caffiene."

Broken, Odin turned back to Elder Joe, who seemed to be genuinely not gloating.  He sighed, and let his axe fall to the sand.

"You know," said Elder Joe, pulling out a magazine titled Consolidated Products, "With the nutritional imbalances you've suffered at sea, you might benefit from some of our tea tree oil products..."

Odin wept.
Title: Re: How do you get to heaven split from EP129
Post by: Mr. Tweedy on January 23, 2008, 05:33:28 AM
TAD, that was hilarious!  I had to stifle because the women of my house are sleeping, but I would most certainly have given a hearty Viking-like laugh otherwise.  Bravo!  Now I'll take a sip of my caffeinated beverage...

--------------------------

If you have an answer to the question of why a rationale outsider should believe one faith over another, or even a rational reason YOU believe in it, I'm all ears. Other than that, you're talking in circles and, for the purpose of this conversation, I'm just about done with you.
My sentiments also, minus the anger.  I'll answer your questions (most likely not to your satisfaction) and knock off because it's clear that you aren't going to find my reasoning acceptable.

Like or dislike has nothing to do with it. God doesn't exist. I was just pointing out that the fantasy creature you claim to love and worship isn't as nice as you seem to think he is, even if I accepted his existence as true.

Nice?  Whoever said God was nice?  God is big and scary and dangerous.  He's also merciful, loving and just, but that doesn't cancel out the scary and dangerous.  This is the guy who sent the plagues on Egypt.  This is the guy who told the Israelites to massacre whole cities.  This is the guy who invented sharks and scorpions.  I would never describe God as "nice."  I would actually think that calling Him "nice" would be something of an insult.

Millions of people are born without the freedom to pursue anything of value in their lives because they're too busy starving to death, are enslaved by their fellow man, or are forced to live as second-class citizens because of some accident of birth.

My response to that statement is that I find it disturbingly cynical and condescending.  Who are you to declare what is valuable in someone else's life?  Do you mean to say that being hungry, poor, or enslaved makes one's life meaningless?  I disagree with vehemence.  This is not to say that I'm okay with or don't care about people being any of those things (far from it), but the physical circumstances of one's life are not what determine it's value or its happiness.  A life of poverty is no less worth living than a life of luxury.

Good. Now let's take the next step. Imagine you're a devout Russellite. Would you view your Bible the same way you would now view the Book of Russell? Getting back to the very start of this dialog, I'll re-ask this question: What reason is there for someone born and raised in a different faith to choose one form of religion over any other? If there's no good reason, then didn't God do a poor job of getting his message across, and isn't he being unfair in having acceptance of that message as a precondition for getting into heaven?

If God is indeed a "fantasy creature," then you're right, there is no reason.  If all religion is crap, then there is no reason at all to pick one piece of crap over another.  I have no answer that you will accept as valid because my answer hinges on the belief that my religion is true, which you emphatically deny.

That said, my unacceptable answer about someone who grow up a Russellite is this:

If I were a devout Russellite who was really serious about my faith, then I would delve into it and discover that not all parts of it were equal.  Parts would make sense and be borne out by experience and parts would be revealed as foolish.  I would wonder why this discrepancy.

I would search for answers.  At this point, if I sincerely want to know the truth, then I think the Holy Spirit (which you deny exists) would give guidance.  If I happened to live near Christians, I would encounter them and they could explain what's what and I would find that here, indeed, is my answer that fills in the gaps of Russellism.  If I did not live near Christians, then I think God would lead toward truth in other ways.  Although I would never arrive at a religion that looked like Western Christianity, I think it's entirely possible that I would arrive at the crucial understandings.

If I really don't care about truth but am only interested in pursuing my selfish interests (whatever they might be) then Russellism will suit me just fine and I will never find the gaps.  If I do not seek the truth, I have no chance of finding it.

I think it's pretty clear that morality, the existence of the world and of people in it, and anything else can be explained just fine without the need for a God.
I disagree, but again you would say that my evidence is not valid.  If you're really interested in the question, then I'd challenge you to read the book "The Edge of Evolution" by Michael Behe (http://www.amazon.com/Edge-Evolution-Search-Limits-Darwinism/dp/0743296206/ref=pd_bbs_sr_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1201065293&sr=8-1).  I'm about half way through it, but what I've read so far has been very educational.  Of course it's all pseudo-science and religious dogma in disguise, but a lot of times reading someone's tripe helps you better understand the truth.

(Yes, Russell Nash, I'm aware that you think I'm a monstrous idiot for taking anything Behe has to say seriously.  Duly noted.  No need to make a post saying it.)

As a final point, you have as much as said that you think I'm delusional, that I believe in things that don't exist and imagine a dialog with a person who isn't there.  Once you've crossed that line and declared that a person is less than sane, there really isn't anything more he can say to you, is there?  At this point, anything I say is suspect simply because I said it, in which case there isn't much point in my saying it.
Title: Re: How do you get to heaven split from EP129
Post by: Mr. Tweedy on January 23, 2008, 06:03:50 AM
Quote from: Czhorat


I believe that I will go nowhere, but that reincarnation, heaven, and hell have pretty much equal possibilities. It IS possible to not know and think any alternative is equally likely. WHY do you think your answer is more likely? Is it, as Russel suggested, that it's what you were brought up with? If so, can you at least acknowledge that your indoctrination is as big a part of your belief than any rational reason?

I don't understand how you can entertain those four beliefs all at once.  How does that work out in you mind?

He doesn't. He entertains the belief that they are all possible. That's a single belief.

If you toss a (fair) die, I believe that it might come up 1, or 2, or 3, or 4, or 5, or 6, and that each of these has an equal possibility. That's not six beliefs, it's one.

Furthermore, it's possible to have contingent beliefs. I can believe that if you and I play a dice game you will use fair dice, but I can also believe that if I am incorrect in my initial belief, then I will lose. The second belief is contingent on the first one being wrong, but there is no problem with holding them both at once.

My belief is that there is no afterlife, and that death is simply an ending. I also believe that if I am wrong about that, then quite a few versions of the afterlife are equally likely. I've had different people, of different Christian denominations, tell me that I'll go to hell (because I'm not a Christian), purgatory (because I'm a sinner but not too bad and that I've accepted Jesus even though I don't know it), and heaven (because I'm nice). I've been brought up Jewish, and have been told that there is no afterlife but that I will be ressurected at the end of days. And those are just the options I've had serious conversations about. As far as I know I might be headed for Valhalla because I served in the military. I have no way or interest of judging between these and others, since I reject all of them. But if it happens that I'm wrong, I don't have any reason to believe any of these is more likely than the other.

I like the elegance of your die analogy, but I don't think it fits.  A die is a single entity, of which 1-6 are characteristics.  To say you believe in an equal chance of 1-6 is simply to say that you believe in the die.

Unlike 1-6, our four afterlife options are not parts of a single whole.  They are disparate ideas from different sources that have no real relationship with each other.  Now, there could be a religion somewhere which teaches that people go at random to one of those four fates and you could believe in that, but that isn't the same as believing in all four in their current disparate state.

It is also not the same to say "I believe in all four" and to say "I don't know."  The former means that you believe that all four options are viable and have a 25% chance of actually occurring.  The later expresses no opinion about the four.
Title: Re: How do you get to heaven split from EP129
Post by: Czhorat on January 23, 2008, 10:28:29 AM
I disagree, but again you would say that my evidence is not valid.  If you're really interested in the question, then I'd challenge you to read the book "The Edge of Evolution" by Michael Behe (http://www.amazon.com/Edge-Evolution-Search-Limits-Darwinism/dp/0743296206/ref=pd_bbs_sr_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1201065293&sr=8-1).  I'm about half way through it, but what I've read so far has been very educational.  Of course it's all pseudo-science and religious dogma in disguise, but a lot of times reading someone's tripe helps you better understand the truth.

Would Behe be an "expert" in the field? Because if so, I've heard that the opinions of experts aren't worth anything.

Unless they agree with Mr Tweedy.
Title: Re: How do you get to heaven split from EP129
Post by: Russell Nash on January 23, 2008, 11:59:57 AM
I'll leave with another question to answer your point that for God to prove his existence would take away our potential for choice. How do you explain the stories in the Bible? Especially early on, God was constantly revealing himself and telling people what to do. Did he have less respect for people back then? Change his management style? Or is it just possible to believe that these stories are not to be taken literally and may or may not be even true?

Hmm...  That actually a good point.  I stand corrected.  For God to prove His existence in blinding, undeniable ways would not stop people from rejecting Him.  Lots of people in the Bible saw jaw-dropping miracles and still rejected.  The people of Israel walked through the parted Red Sea and were worshiping a metal cow a month later.

I think what that shows us is that blinding, undeniable proofs aren't what convince people to love God.

Mr Tweedy, you either don't know the story (which Iseriously doubt) or you are misrepresnting it.

The people Moses was leading were up to this point polytheastic.  They didn't not believe in Yahweh.  They believed in a whole host of different gods.  Moses didn't tell them how long they were going to be staying in that area, so they started to settle.  This included farming.  The golden cow was the representation of the local god of fertility.  Eventhough smutty Christians love to say that fertility gods are just for sex (spiritual Viagra so to say), they are primarily for farming, praying for the fertility of the land.  The idea being that the people will be able to multiply if there is enough food.  It was only after this that Moses informed them that their new god was jealous and demanded theo-monogamy.

But then again if you look at the history of the region you see that every god was parting waters for everyone back then.  It was a common metaphor.  Whenever someone made a great change in their life for the better, it was said that his god parted the waters for him so that he could walk to the other side.  So instead of saying, "through god's help I was able to kick cocaine", they'd say, "Yahweh parted the waters for me and I was able to walk to the other side of the river where I don't need cocaine."

And The Church of Russell Nash can part the waters for you too.  Just send your prayer in an envelope with $100 bill to cover s/h costs to:

TCoRN
1313 Mockingbird lane
10101 Berlin
Germany
Title: Re: How do you get to heaven split from EP129
Post by: Russell Nash on January 23, 2008, 12:11:03 PM
Quote from: Czhorat


I believe that I will go nowhere, but that reincarnation, heaven, and hell have pretty much equal possibilities. It IS possible to not know and think any alternative is equally likely. WHY do you think your answer is more likely? Is it, as Russel suggested, that it's what you were brought up with? If so, can you at least acknowledge that your indoctrination is as big a part of your belief than any rational reason?

I don't understand how you can entertain those four beliefs all at once.  How does that work out in you mind?

He doesn't. He entertains the belief that they are all possible. That's a single belief.

If you toss a (fair) die, I believe that it might come up 1, or 2, or 3, or 4, or 5, or 6, and that each of these has an equal possibility. That's not six beliefs, it's one.

Furthermore, it's possible to have contingent beliefs. I can believe that if you and I play a dice game you will use fair dice, but I can also believe that if I am incorrect in my initial belief, then I will lose. The second belief is contingent on the first one being wrong, but there is no problem with holding them both at once.

My belief is that there is no afterlife, and that death is simply an ending. I also believe that if I am wrong about that, then quite a few versions of the afterlife are equally likely. I've had different people, of different Christian denominations, tell me that I'll go to hell (because I'm not a Christian), purgatory (because I'm a sinner but not too bad and that I've accepted Jesus even though I don't know it), and heaven (because I'm nice). I've been brought up Jewish, and have been told that there is no afterlife but that I will be ressurected at the end of days. And those are just the options I've had serious conversations about. As far as I know I might be headed for Valhalla because I served in the military. I have no way or interest of judging between these and others, since I reject all of them. But if it happens that I'm wrong, I don't have any reason to believe any of these is more likely than the other.

I like the elegance of your die analogy, but I don't think it fits.  A die is a single entity, of which 1-6 are characteristics.  To say you believe in an equal chance of 1-6 is simply to say that you believe in the die.

Unlike 1-6, our four afterlife options are not parts of a single whole.  They are disparate ideas from different sources that have no real relationship with each other.  Now, there could be a religion somewhere which teaches that people go at random to one of those four fates and you could believe in that, but that isn't the same as believing in all four in their current disparate state.

It is also not the same to say "I believe in all four" and to say "I don't know."  The former means that you believe that all four options are viable and have a 25% chance of actually occurring.  The later expresses no opinion about the four.

You're misreading the analogy.  Let me add one little thing to eytanz's example.  I do not believe you have a die in your hand, but if you do and you roll it, it will come up 1-6.  It is exactly the same as saying, I do not believe in anything after death, but if there turns out to be something, it could be any of these things modern religions mention.  There is no reason to pick 1-6 if I don't think you have a die in your hand.  There is no reason to pick a favorite existence for after death, since I don't think any of them is going to happen.
Title: Re: How do you get to heaven split from EP129
Post by: Mr. Tweedy on January 23, 2008, 02:14:31 PM
I disagree, but again you would say that my evidence is not valid.  If you're really interested in the question, then I'd challenge you to read the book "The Edge of Evolution" by Michael Behe (http://www.amazon.com/Edge-Evolution-Search-Limits-Darwinism/dp/0743296206/ref=pd_bbs_sr_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1201065293&sr=8-1).  I'm about half way through it, but what I've read so far has been very educational.  Of course it's all pseudo-science and religious dogma in disguise, but a lot of times reading someone's tripe helps you better understand the truth.

Would Behe be an "expert" in the field? Because if so, I've heard that the opinions of experts aren't worth anything.

Unless they agree with Mr Tweedy.

The opinions of experts are worthwhile if they hold up to critical analysis, i.e. if they make sense.  They should not be taken on faith simply because the speaker bears the title "expert."  I am inviting you to analyze Behe and come to your own conclusion about the validity of his ideas.  You can decide for yourself whether or not he is worthy of any particular title.
Title: Re: How do you get to heaven split from EP129
Post by: Darwinist on January 23, 2008, 03:26:18 PM


[/quote]

The opinions of experts are worthwhile if they hold up to critical analysis, i.e. if they make sense.  They should not be taken on faith simply because the speaker bears the title "expert."  I am inviting you to analyze Behe and come to your own conclusion about the validity of his ideas.  You can decide for yourself whether or not he is worthy of any particular title.
[/quote]

I've read some Behe and can't agree with him and believe his ideas are invalid.  His writings about the idea of irreducible complexity drive me crazy.   He looks at complex systems from the top down rather that how they evolved - from the bottom up.  I'm not going to go on a rant - but a good example is the eye.   Creationists argue that the modern human eye is too complex to have evolved, it had to be created.  But in nature there are living creatures with very simple sensory organs, very simple eyes, and more complex eyes all the way up to the complex human eye.   I could go on forever as I am a Darwin groupie but I won't.  The creationsim / evolution debate on the forums was wiped out with the great server crash of 11-07.  That being said, I find it interesting reading the work of people like Behe and hearing new ideas.  At this point I choose to believe the opinions of the majority of scientists and biologists and subscribe to evolution.  I see no evidence of supernatural influence on the development of life.     
Title: Re: How do you get to heaven split from EP129
Post by: Mr. Tweedy on January 23, 2008, 04:09:30 PM
Darwinist, being a "Darwin groupie," could you recommend any books on the practical research end of things?  Most of my reading about Evolution (Darwin, Sagan, National Geographic, college textbooks) has been about theory.  I haven't encountered very much discussion about the nuts and bolts science supporting the theory.  I'd be interested in reading something that focussed on specific research.  Any recommendations?

My biggest specific curiosity is to know more about how paleontology is done.
Title: Re: How do you get to heaven split from EP129
Post by: Czhorat on January 24, 2008, 11:04:13 AM
I'm bowing out of this one, mainly because Mr. Tweedy's thought process is so far different from mine that we may as well be speaking a different language.

I'll leave with a thought for you to ponder, Mr Tweedy. You say that you evaluate "experts" based on whether their opinions and beliefs make sense to you. In science there often is no common sense answer. The case of climate change (discussed on a prior thread) and the development of life over millions of years, for example, are both so far out of one individual's experience that we can't just intuit a solution or explanation. Other times there are common sense answers which are just wrong. Ask a dozen random people, for example, if a heavier object falls faster than a lighter object because of its greater mass. Those who have not been educated by an expert in physics but rely on intuition will always intuitively give the wrong answer. If you substitute your gut feeling for expert opinion or scientific consensus, all you'll ever do is confirm your own biases and never really learn anything.

And on that note, I'm out of this one before our poor moderator has to split it apart yet again.
Title: Re: How do you get to heaven split from EP129
Post by: gelee on January 24, 2008, 12:34:55 PM
My pleasure.  This is a debate that I gave up a long time ago, but I think a measure of understanding would help all parties concerned.
The term "atheist" is every bit as loaded as "christian," and almost as complicated.  The way I had to explain this to my wife was that there were more than one kind of non-theistic stand point:
Theist: I have an elephant in my garage.
Hard Atheist: Based on the information I have, you do not have an elephant in your garage.
Soft Atheist: Based on the information I have, I do not believe that you have an elephant in your garage.
Agnostic: I do not know if you have elephant in your garage or not.  Each is equally likely, based on the information I have.

It might be semantic hair-splitting, but it's an important difference.  I'm of the "soft" sort.  I'm the cuddly atheist!

I don't quite think that's right, really. I have a few issues with it:

1. First, most theists (myself included), are such because of the information they have. Maybe it's faulty information, or faulty deduction, but that could be said of the atheists as well. It's not fair to remove that clause specifically from the theists.

2. Why are you splitting the atheists into "soft" and "hard" but not the theists? I have nowhere to put myself in your classification.

3. Elephants in garages are not a good enough analogy, since it's pretty easy to check if there really is one or not. If you and I were arguing about whether there was an elephant in my garage, I would resolve the argument by showing you my garage.

4. I know a lot of people who call themselves agnostic who don't believe the options are equally likely, just that they are both possible.

I would offer the following version:

Hard Theist: Based on the information I have, There is an elephant on Mars.
Soft Theist, Based on the information I have, I believe there is an elephant on Mars.
Hard Atheist: Based on the information I have, there is no elephant on Mars.
Soft Atheist: Based on the information I have, I do not believe that there is an elephant on Mars.
Agnostic: I do not know if there is an elephant ion Mars. I don't have enough information.

On this classification, I'm a soft theist.
Point well made and taken.  It is neither fair nor accurate to dump all theists into one homogenous box.
Title: Re: How do you get to heaven split from EP129
Post by: Mr. Tweedy on January 24, 2008, 03:09:01 PM
I'm bowing out of this one, mainly because Mr. Tweedy's thought process is so far different from mine that we may as well be speaking a different language.

Since we both bowed out, this isn't a God thread anymore.  Consider it split.  I want to know how you think on this on this other topic.

In science there often is no common sense answer. The case of climate change (discussed on a prior thread) and the development of life over millions of years, for example, are both so far out of one individual's experience that we can't just intuit a solution or explanation. Other times there are common sense answers which are just wrong. Ask a dozen random people, for example, if a heavier object falls faster than a lighter object because of its greater mass. Those who have not been educated by an expert in physics but rely on intuition will always intuitively give the wrong answer. If you substitute your gut feeling for expert opinion or scientific consensus, all you'll ever do is confirm your own biases and never really learn anything.

I do not mean that I trust myself and myself alone to figure out answers.

Here's an example I like that explains what I mean: Ice.  I have been told by experts that when the temperature of water falls below a certain point its molecules link together in a crystalline structure determined by the magnetic properties of its constituent atoms.  What we get is a hexagonal crystal that is less dense that its constituent atoms would be in a liquid form.
(http://www.tms.org/pubs/journals/JOM/9902/Schulson-9902.fig.1.lg.gif)
I have no way to verify this directly, but I can analyze the claim and determine if it makes sense.  I observe ice floating.  I observe that it breaks along clean lines.  I observe the hexagonal structure of snow-flakes.  I observe nothing which contradicts the expert's claim, nor do I know of another explanation which better explains the phenomena I observe.  Therefore, I accept the claim of the expert even though I have never personally observed a hexagonal ice crystal.  This is not because he is called "expert," but because his claim makes sense.

If a purported expert made the claim about hexagonal ice crystals in a books but I observed that real ice is an amorphous goo that sinks in water, then I would conclude that the alleged expert was wrong, in spite of his title.

I will not take the word of an expert on faith if it conflicts with my reasoning and observation.  The claims have to make logical sense and fit with what I observe.
Title: Re: How do you get to heaven split from EP129
Post by: eytanz on January 24, 2008, 04:02:58 PM
You know, I sort of bowed out of the expert vs. non-expert debate in the other thread where it came up, because I have a hard time not taking what you are saying personally.

I have a PhD, which I worked very hard for. I spent three years of my life working on a solution to a particular problem, and the solution I came up with is one that explicitly contradicts many people's notions of what makes sense. What you (Mr Tweedy) are saying is, in essence, people who may have spent a whole of an hour or two (if they really made an effort) thinking about something are as competent as judging it as I am after three full years, during which my data and analysis went through several processes of evaluation and review.  In which case, the past six years of my life were a sham - maybe they weren't a waste, in the sense that I got a job out of it, but I sure as hell don't deserve this job according to your standards.

(Note that my PhD is in linguistics, which a lot of people don't accept as a science. That's a whole different debate. But I try to approach my work as a science, and hold it to the standards that are expected from one, which is what matters here)
Title: Re: How do you get to heaven split from EP129
Post by: Darwinist on January 24, 2008, 04:08:48 PM
Darwinist, being a "Darwin groupie," could you recommend any books on the practical research end of things?  Most of my reading about Evolution (Darwin, Sagan, National Geographic, college textbooks) has been about theory.  I haven't encountered very much discussion about the nuts and bolts science supporting the theory.  I'd be interested in reading something that focussed on specific research.  Any recommendations?

My biggest specific curiosity is to know more about how paleontology is done.

I haven't read much lately about specific research, not since college probably. I get most of my info now from Scientific American (sciam.com) and Natural History (naturalhistorymag.com).   The latter has an interesting point/counterpoint with Behe about ID, BTW.   The journal Nature publishes papers about research in the different fields of science.  That would probably one of the best sources of the information you are looking for.
Title: Re: How do you get to heaven split from EP129
Post by: Mr. Tweedy on January 24, 2008, 04:42:39 PM
Darwinist: I let my subscription to Scientific American expire a while ago (money was the consideration), but I listen to their podcast every week.  I'll check out Natural History: Thanks for the tip.

Eytanz: Come on, man, you know I'm not insulting you, your competence or your education.  I'm just saying is that if you tell me something that seems fishy, I'll check it out myself.  You surely don't find that insulting?  I would certainly assume that you know 1000% more about linguistics than I do, but does that mean I should blithely swallow whatever you tell me, no matter what it is?

My degree is in art.  If I told you the Romans invented Cubism, would you just believe me because I have a degree or would you say "wait, that doesn't sound right" and check it out for yourself?  When you checked it out and found that Cubism was a 20th century movement, would your opinion of my expertise be diminished?

You aren't a linguist because you have the letters "PhD" after your name.  You are a linguist because you know and understand language.  Substance over appearance.  Reality over symbolism.  Fact over name.  I don't see how you could pull an insult out of that.
Title: Re: How do you get to heaven split from EP129
Post by: eytanz on January 24, 2008, 05:49:50 PM
Darwinist: I let my subscription to Scientific American expire a while ago (money was the consideration), but I listen to their podcast every week.  I'll check out Natural History: Thanks for the tip.

Eytanz: Come on, man, you know I'm not insulting you, your competence or your education.  I'm just saying is that if you tell me something that seems fishy, I'll check it out myself.  You surely don't find that insulting?  I would certainly assume that you know 1000% more about linguistics than I do, but does that mean I should blithely swallow whatever you tell me, no matter what it is?

No, of course you shouldn't accept stuff I say no matter what it is. No-one should.

But neither should you assume that you have the ability to check whether what I say to you is correct. If you were saying "There are people who are considered experts in their field who say things that conflict with my observations. Therefore, I do not accept what they say; but I accept that it is quite possible that they may still be correct and my observations inadequate", I would consider your attitude enlightened. Rather, you were saying, quite explicitly "There are people who are considered experts that who say things that conflict with my observations. They are wrong, as my observations are better than any recieved wisdom". That is simply arrogance.

Quote
My degree is in art.  If I told you the Romans invented Cubism, would you just believe me because I have a degree or would you say "wait, that doesn't sound right" and check it out for yourself?  When you checked it out and found that Cubism was a 20th century movement, would your opinion of my expertise be diminished?

No, I wouldn't believe you just because you have a degree. But how am I supposed to check this? At best I could go to an encyclopedia and see what the mainstream view is among people with art degrees, or I could go to wikipedia and see what the most popular view is. How is either better according to your criteria?


Quote
You aren't a linguist because you have the letters "PhD" after your name.  You are a linguist because you know and understand language.  Substance over appearance.  Reality over symbolism.  Fact over name.  I don't see how you could pull an insult out of that.

I agree that it is not the letters "PhD" that make me a linguist. What they mean is that other linguists have judged my knowledge and understanding of language, and of the means of researching language, and found it adequate.

More to the point, I am indeed a linguist because of my knowledge and understanding of language and how it works. And that knowledge did not come out of nowhere, I had to work hard to get it. You did not do that work, and therefore do not possess equal levels of knowledge or understanding. Of course, you possess some level of knowledge and understanding, but not the kind that comes from years of training. As an intelligent, educated persons, you have the knowledge and understanding that lets you make observations and figure out if they conflict with my claims. You probably do not possess the knowledge or understanding to evaluate the cause of this discrepency.

Also, let me point out that I didn't say I was insulted, I said I was taking it personally; I meant by that simply that I cannot divorce myself from the argument here - I consider myself one of the people you are subjecting to what I feel is ill-considered blanket criticism. You may not consider me one of them, but that's just because you don't deal with me in my professional capacity in these forums.

Title: Re: How do you get to heaven split from EP129
Post by: Russell Nash on January 24, 2008, 06:02:31 PM
Hmm...  That actually a good point.  I stand corrected.  For God to prove His existence in blinding, undeniable ways would not stop people from rejecting Him.  Lots of people in the Bible saw jaw-dropping miracles and still rejected.  The people of Israel walked through the parted Red Sea and were worshiping a metal cow a month later.

I think what that shows us is that blinding, undeniable proofs aren't what convince people to love God.

Mr Tweedy, you either don't know the story (which Iseriously doubt) or you are misrepresnting it.

The people Moses was leading were up to this point polytheastic.  They didn't not believe in Yahweh.  They believed in a whole host of different gods.  Moses didn't tell them how long they were going to be staying in that area, so they started to settle.  This included farming.  The golden cow was the representation of the local god of fertility.  Eventhough smutty Christians love to say that fertility gods are just for sex (spiritual Viagra so to say), they are primarily for farming, praying for the fertility of the land.  The idea being that the people will be able to multiply if there is enough food.  It was only after this that Moses informed them that their new god was jealous and demanded theo-monogamy.

But then again if you look at the history of the region you see that every god was parting waters for everyone back then.  It was a common metaphor.  Whenever someone made a great change in their life for the better, it was said that his god parted the waters for him so that he could walk to the other side.  So instead of saying, "through god's help I was able to kick cocaine", they'd say, "Yahweh parted the waters for me and I was able to walk to the other side of the river where I don't need cocaine."

And The Church of Russell Nash can part the waters for you too.  Just send your prayer in an envelope with $100 bill to cover s/h costs to:

TCoRN
1313 Mockingbird lane
10101 Berlin
Germany

I totally passed over one other thing.  The episode with the Golden Cow happened before the parting of the Red Sea.  Moses parted the sea then walked the ark to the center to hold back the waters while everyone crossed.  The ark was holding the stones he wrote the commandments on.  He smashed the statue of the golden cow when he came down from Mt. Sanai with the commandments.  That means the progression was:

1) Receive the commandments
2) Smash the Golden Cow
3) Smash the commandments and put them in the ark
4) Part the sea

Don't worry.  It's a mistake anyone not familiar with the story could have made.
Title: Re: How do you get to heaven split from EP129
Post by: Mr. Tweedy on January 24, 2008, 06:10:39 PM
Hmm...  That actually a good point.  I stand corrected.  For God to prove His existence in blinding, undeniable ways would not stop people from rejecting Him.  Lots of people in the Bible saw jaw-dropping miracles and still rejected.  The people of Israel walked through the parted Red Sea and were worshiping a metal cow a month later.

I think what that shows us is that blinding, undeniable proofs aren't what convince people to love God.

Mr Tweedy, you either don't know the story (which Iseriously doubt) or you are misrepresnting it.

The people Moses was leading were up to this point polytheastic.  They didn't not believe in Yahweh.  They believed in a whole host of different gods.  Moses didn't tell them how long they were going to be staying in that area, so they started to settle.  This included farming.  The golden cow was the representation of the local god of fertility.  Eventhough smutty Christians love to say that fertility gods are just for sex (spiritual Viagra so to say), they are primarily for farming, praying for the fertility of the land.  The idea being that the people will be able to multiply if there is enough food.  It was only after this that Moses informed them that their new god was jealous and demanded theo-monogamy.

But then again if you look at the history of the region you see that every god was parting waters for everyone back then.  It was a common metaphor.  Whenever someone made a great change in their life for the better, it was said that his god parted the waters for him so that he could walk to the other side.  So instead of saying, "through god's help I was able to kick cocaine", they'd say, "Yahweh parted the waters for me and I was able to walk to the other side of the river where I don't need cocaine."

And The Church of Russell Nash can part the waters for you too.  Just send your prayer in an envelope with $100 bill to cover s/h costs to:

TCoRN
1313 Mockingbird lane
10101 Berlin
Germany

I totally passed over one other thing.  The episode with the Golden Cow happened before the parting of the Red Sea.  Moses parted the sea then walked the ark to the center to hold back the waters while everyone crossed.  The ark was holding the stones he wrote the commandments on.  He smashed the statue of the golden cow when he came down from Mt. Sanai with the commandments.  That means the progression was:

1) Receive the commandments
2) Smash the Golden Cow
3) Smash the commandments and put them in the ark
4) Part the sea

Don't worry.  It's a mistake anyone not familiar with the story could have made.

What?  I assume you must be joking, but I'm afraid I don't get it.
Title: Re: How do you get to heaven split from EP129
Post by: Tango Alpha Delta on January 25, 2008, 03:02:48 AM
Alright... somehow this thread has spawned TCoRN, and I have to cry foul.  It was bad enough to have so many religions out there to not believe in BEFORE the thread started, but now we've created another one?  All I can say is this:

Russell, you'd better be able to produce a universe (you may start with a tree, a mountain and a midget), or prepare to face the wrath of a Noodly Appendage for blasphemy!  Your TCoRN will be milled, yea, and baked into unleavened RAmen...


Mr. Tweedy can bring the chickens for the pie.  :)
Title: Re: How do you get to heaven split from EP129
Post by: Mr. Tweedy on January 25, 2008, 04:16:38 AM
Ha ha!  :D  So much to disbelieve, so little time!

We've also invented 4-Wayism and Fuckoffism.  And I might have accidentally declared myself to be all-knowing a few posts up, so that makes Tweedism.

I'd call this thread very productive.
Title: Re: How do you get to heaven split from EP129
Post by: Mr. Tweedy on January 25, 2008, 04:58:14 AM
You raise a good point, Eytanz, and it is indeed a conundrum.  If I am not an expert myself, then how can I be qualified to criticize the opinions of an expert?  A layman cannot understand the reasons behind an expert's opinions.

That is certainly a valid point in many situations.  I would contend, however, that its application is limited by several factors.

1.) The esoteric sometimes intersects with the mundane.  A perfect example is of a traveller who has been to the distant country of Zababi, a country about which I know nothing at all.  I will have no cause to doubt him if he tells me that people in Zababi are shorter than people in America, that they eat mostly beef, and that their women wear copper jewelry.  He’s been there.  I haven’t.  He would know.  But if he tells me that people there have three eyes, then I will begin to question, because that does not accord with what I do know about human physiology.

When the expert is speaking on topic that does intersect with my experience, then I have no option but to trust him.  But if the expert’s words have implications in areas that are familiar to me, then I do have some power to judge his claims, even if his field is generally mysterious to me.

2.) Logic is logic.  If an expert contradicts himself, draws conclusions not supported by his evidence or otherwise makes logical errors, then anyone can criticize.

Going back to my traveller, if he tells me on one day that the Zababians are monotheists and on another tells stories about their pantheon, then I can reasonably conclude that not everything he’s told me is true.  I can conclude this even though I don’t know anything about Zababi.

Similarly, I can spot erroneous conclusions.  He tells me that the Zababians eat cats.  I ask how he knows.  He says he knows because his cat vanished mysteriously from his hotel room.  I say that’s not enough evidence to justify the conclusion that all Zababians are cat eaters.

3.) Ulterior motives are sometimes apparent.  When an expert stands to gain personally by making the claims he is making, then suspicion is automatically aroused.  For instance, if our traveler tells us that the Zababians are dangerous conquerors who are libel to attack my city and at the same time opens a gun shop, then I might suspect that it’s a marketing scam.  Again, my suspicion is justified even in ignorance of Zababi.

4.) There’s probably a 4, but I can’t think of it at the moment.


That's if I know nothing.  Of course, if I do know something about the topic at hand, then my ability to criticize increases.  So, while it is sometimes true that a layman is not qualified to question or critique an expert opinion, there are definite and not uncommon times when he is.
Title: Re: How do you get to heaven split from EP129
Post by: Russell Nash on January 25, 2008, 09:53:44 AM
I totally passed over one other thing.  The episode with the Golden Cow happened before the parting of the Red Sea.  Moses parted the sea then walked the ark to the center to hold back the waters while everyone crossed.  The ark was holding the stones he wrote the commandments on.  He smashed the statue of the golden cow when he came down from Mt. Sanai with the commandments.  That means the progression was:

1) Receive the commandments
2) Smash the Golden Cow
3) Smash the commandments and put them in the ark
4) Part the sea

Don't worry.  It's a mistake anyone not familiar with the story could have made.

What?  I assume you must be joking, but I'm afraid I don't get it.

In your original comment you had the story out of order.  They put up the golden cow and then Mose parted the Red Sea.
Title: Re: How do you get to heaven split from EP129
Post by: eytanz on January 25, 2008, 11:08:43 AM
[In your original comment you had the story out of order.  They put up the golden cow and then Mose parted the Red Sea.

Wait, you're being serious? And you are referring to the book of Exodus, not to some retelling of the story?

I also thought you were making a joke or a reference to some other text I don't know. In the book of exodus, the parting of the red sea (chapters 13 to 15) precedes the golden calf episode (chapter 32) by quite a bit.

Title: Re: How do you get to heaven split from EP129
Post by: Russell Nash on January 25, 2008, 11:52:20 AM
[In your original comment you had the story out of order.  They put up the golden cow and then Mose parted the Red Sea.

Wait, you're being serious? And you are referring to the book of Exodus, not to some retelling of the story?

I also thought you were making a joke or a reference to some other text I don't know. In the book of exodus, the parting of the red sea (chapters 13 to 15) precedes the golden calf episode (chapter 32) by quite a bit.



Shit, shoot me in the foot if I got this backwards, but my reverend had the ark being used as a symbol to keep the sea parted until everyone had crossed and the ark was built to carry the commandments. 

[Going to Wikipedia]
[/Going to Wikipedia]

Shit, that was the Jordan.

But the thing with the ten commandments coming after the Golden Calf still holds water.  Although Wikipedia mentions (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Golden_calf#The_Sin_of_Idolatry) that there's a question as to whether the Hebrews were praying to another god (possibly Egyptian fertility god Apis) or  that they were making Idols of Yahweh.  The former is breaking the 1st commandement.  The latter is breaking the second.  I contend they were grandfathered in on both counts, because the law wasn't in force before then.

I withdraw my second comment about the Reed Sea, but the first about the arival of the tablets still holds.
Title: Re: How do you get to heaven split from EP129
Post by: Tango Alpha Delta on January 25, 2008, 12:47:03 PM

2.) Logic is logic.  If an expert contradicts himself, draws conclusions not supported by his evidence or otherwise makes logical errors, then anyone can criticize.




...which is really all we have been doing in this thread.  We've all been too lazy to provide any real "evidence" for our claims, and have been quick to point out each others' mistakes when we make allusions to "evidence" in our argument.

Logically, our mistakes don't matter to the outcome of the discussion.  It's not like anyone is going to say, "Ha!  Mr. Tweedy misquoted a Bible verse, so there must not be a God!"  or "Russell got the story out of order, so there must BE a God!"  The best we can hope is that someone will get a fact right, and even then, that only proves the "infinite number of monkeys" theory.  :)

Now, would I be out of line to ask what the original thesis of this thread was supposed to be?  Because I suspect that would be more interesting to talk about than trying to figure out who knows their Bible best.
Title: Re: How do you get to heaven split from EP129
Post by: eytanz on January 25, 2008, 01:29:50 PM
2.) Logic is logic.  If an expert contradicts himself, draws conclusions not supported by his evidence or otherwise makes logical errors, then anyone can criticize.

True. But to criticize someone's logic, you need to know what the logic that person used is. In all the examples you quoted on the "Color of the Brontosaurus" thread, your criticism has been on the form "X said Y, but Y conflicts my what I see, therefore Y is wrong". That's nothing at all like saying "X said Y, and the justification given for Y is based on faulty logic.", or "X said Y and Z, and those are not compatible statements".

The reason I take issue with the depiction of the sceintists in tCoB is that they are presented in the same way as you frame your arguments - as if they pull out conclusions (valid or invalid) out of their sleeve, with no line of reasoning behind it. You said that it is apt satire, which implies that you think the this is common practice. That is a very different criticism then "I looked carefully at what that person said and found flaws in their reasoning" - once you do that, then you are doing science. That's what a large part of my research consists of - finding the flaws in other people's reasoning so that I can explain why their conclusions are different than mine. Other linguists look over my work and find the flaws in my reasoning, and publish that. This is as important a part of the scientific process as the gathering of new data.

Quote
3.) Ulterior motives are sometimes apparent.

True. But usually in any sort of point of contention, there are people who stand to gain from any of those positions. The ulterior motives normally cancel each other out. And obviously, often you (or I, or anyone who is being skeptical about a claim) have ulterior motives of our own. We must learn to distrust ourselves just as much as we distrust others if we want to be truly objective.

Title: Re: How do you get to heaven split from EP129
Post by: Mr. Tweedy on January 25, 2008, 03:40:34 PM
I didn't mention the arrival of the tablets.  I just said that Israelites were worshipping a metal cow shortly after having seen the Red Sea parted.  (My specific mention of "a month" was an approximation; it was longer than a month, but the sequence is correct.)  Hence, seeing astonishing miracles was not enough to convince them that God was worthy of their full devotion.

That's a pattern that holds throughout the whole Bible.  God performs all sorts of miracles on His own, through prophets, through Christ and through apostles.  The general reaction is for people to ignore God and kill His messengers.
Title: Re: How do you get to heaven split from EP129
Post by: Thaurismunths on January 25, 2008, 04:23:21 PM
Alright... somehow this thread has spawned TCoRN, and I have to cry foul.  It was bad enough to have so many religions out there to not believe in BEFORE the thread started, but now we've created another one?
But there are no other religions. There is only TCoRN (the one true way to What Comes Next), and the Gauntlet of Faith (all things that detract from worship of him).

Quote
All I can say is this:
Russell, you'd better be able to produce a universe (you may start with a tree, a mountain and a midget), or prepare to face the wrath of a Noodly Appendage for blasphemy!  Your TCoRN will be milled, yea, and baked into unleavened RAmen...
Aah, but R-ssell N-sh has already created a universe! For who else could have created such a thing as this reality we live in? You should consider yourself fortunate to be in it and praise him for giving you existence.

Quote
Mr. Tweedy can bring the chickens for the pie.  :)
And that would be right and good for they are ultimately R-ssell N-ash's chickens and he would like them returned.
Title: Re: How do you get to heaven split from EP129
Post by: Mr. Tweedy on January 25, 2008, 05:09:41 PM
Posh!  Russell Nash does not exist!  You are fools to waste your time revering a being who is clearly fictitious.

I demand as proof of his existence that he send me a case of that great German chocolate I hear so much about, each piece wrapped in a 100 Euro bill, delivered by one of his children dressed in a panda suit.  If he is real, this should be easily within his power.

(http://snappytheclam.com/images/panda-sm.jpg)
Title: Re: How do you get to heaven split from EP129
Post by: Bdoomed on January 25, 2008, 09:21:05 PM
The Great N-sh does not need to prove his infinate power to you!
but if you wish him to, please send your request in form of a prayer of submission and 100 Euros to cover shipping and handling to

TCoRN
1313 Mockingbird lane
10101 Berlin
Germany

praise N-sh
Title: Re: How do you get to heaven split from EP129
Post by: Tango Alpha Delta on January 26, 2008, 12:50:58 AM
Posh!  Russell Nash does not exist!  You are fools to waste your time revering a being who is clearly fictitious.

I demand as proof of his existence that he send me a case of that great German chocolate I hear so much about, each piece wrapped in a 100 Euro bill, delivered by one of his children dressed in a panda suit.  If he is real, this should be easily within his power.


A group of pandas bearing Euro-wrapped chocolates came by my house today, but they didn't have any ID, and I was too busy fornicating and worshipping my collection of Billy Joel CDs to pay any attention to them... you don't suppose they'll send a flood or Fire from the Sky to sort me out, do you?  Now THAT might convince me...
Title: Re: How do you get to heaven split from EP129
Post by: Mr. Tweedy on January 26, 2008, 02:59:10 AM
I think you're safe, TAD.  I don't think Russellism considers fornication a sin.  (Can't say about Billy Joel.)

Eytanz, I am content that we agree that laymen are not helpless in critiquing expert opinion or deducing that not all experts are genuine, even though we disagree as to how many charlatans there actually may be in any given field.  In the future I think that–









Mr. Tweedy has been crushed beneath a very large box of Euro-wrapped German chocolates.  According to the roll of the Great 4-Sided Die, he has been reincarnated as a three-toed sloth.  He is content in this new form, but he unfortunately no longer possesses fingers with which to type.
Title: Re: How do you get to heaven split from EP129
Post by: Bdoomed on January 26, 2008, 06:22:32 AM
shame, i kinda liked Tweedy.
ummm
i believe it's blasphemous to call TCoRN 'russellism'
see now i have to do 50 hail russells




praise N_sh.
Title: Re: How do you get to heaven split from EP129
Post by: Thaurismunths on January 26, 2008, 12:53:51 PM
A group of pandas bearing Euro-wrapped chocolates came by my house today, but they didn't have any ID, and I was too busy fornicating and worshipping my collection of Billy Joel CDs to pay any attention to them... you don't suppose they'll send a flood or Fire from the Sky to sort me out, do you?  Now THAT might convince me...
It is right and good that you should worship Billy Joel, be it his live concerts or digital recordings. This has endeared you to N-sh.
And fornicating ain't bad either.

praise N-sh
Title: Re: How do you get to heaven split from EP129
Post by: Tango Alpha Delta on January 26, 2008, 01:21:17 PM
A group of pandas bearing Euro-wrapped chocolates came by my house today, but they didn't have any ID, and I was too busy fornicating and worshipping my collection of Billy Joel CDs to pay any attention to them... you don't suppose they'll send a flood or Fire from the Sky to sort me out, do you?  Now THAT might convince me...
It is right and good that you should worship Billy Joel, be it his live concerts or digital recordings. This has endeared you to N-ash.
And fornicating ain't bad either.

praise N-ash

Oh, yeah... I'm the Original G-nash!   Next order of business: purge those Elton John-loving heretics!
Title: Re: How do you get to heaven split from EP129
Post by: Czhorat on January 27, 2008, 04:15:48 PM
And that would be right and good for they are ultimately R-ssell N-ash's chickens and he would like them returned.

Just make sure that they aren't fed corn, because corn is a dumb-ass crop and an abomination in the eyes of Russel Nash.

Such is the word of Russel.
Title: Re: How do you get to heaven split from EP129
Post by: Darwinist on January 28, 2008, 02:30:39 AM
And that would be right and good for they are ultimately R-ssell N-ash's chickens and he would like them returned.

Just make sure that they aren't fed corn, because corn is a dumb-ass crop and an abomination in the eyes of Russel Nash.

Such is the word of Russel.

Ludicrous!  I have 95 reasons that corn is an awesome crop and I'd nail the list to N-sh's Berlin mansion door if I could afford the plane ticket to Germany.  We need to reform Russellism and return it to its corn-loving origins. 
Title: Re: How do you get to heaven split from EP129
Post by: Bdoomed on January 28, 2008, 04:16:02 AM
We need to reform Russellism and return it to its corn-loving origins. 
BLASPHEMY!
its TCoRN!!!!!!
it has been decreed that since Corn is in the abbreviated name of the church that it is a sacreligeous crop
Title: Re: How do you get to heaven split from EP129
Post by: Czhorat on January 28, 2008, 11:15:34 AM
We need to reform Russellism and return it to its corn-loving origins. 
BLASPHEMY!
its TCoRN!!!!!!
it has been decreed that since Corn is in the abbreviated name of the church that it is a sacreligeous crop

HE, the great Russell Nash, hath said unto us that the rise of King Corn came after WWII simply because we had all of this nitrogen processing capability left over from making bombs.

That as swords have been beaten into plowshares, so to have bombs been molded into the humble tortilla chip.

Then King Corn became a wicked tyrant, and cursed the people with high fructose corn syrup.

So said Russell Nash
Title: Re: How do you get to heaven split from EP129
Post by: DDog on January 30, 2008, 03:30:52 PM
That is a very different criticism then "I looked carefully at what that person said and found flaws in their reasoning" - once you do that, then you are doing science.
Look at you, still talking when there's science to do...
Title: Re: How do you get to heaven split from EP129
Post by: Bdoomed on January 30, 2008, 08:46:48 PM
Eternity is the 35 minutes in my Economics class.
That also happens to be hell.
guess i shouldnt've sinned all those times.

i think hell will be extreme boredom while on caffene pills.
either that or someone constantly shouting in your ear.

anyways, if my entire life is just a test to see how i will spend eternity, i think ill just doodle.
Title: Re: How do you get to heaven split from EP129
Post by: Thaurismunths on January 31, 2008, 01:08:40 AM
My personal favorite treatise on hell:

Is Hell Exothermic or Endothermic? (http://www.pinetree.net/humor/thermodynamics.html)

As you study for exams, remember its not the quantity it's the quantity. And remember there is no substitute for pure unadulterated bull

Dr. Schambaugh, of the University of Oklahoma School of Chemical Engineering, Final Exam question for May of 1997. Dr. Schambaugh is known for asking questions such as, "why do airplanes fly?" on his final exams. His one and only final exam question in May 1997 for his Momentum, Heat and Mass Transfer II class was: "Is hell exothermic or endothermic? Support your answer with proof."

Most of the students wrote proofs of their beliefs using Boyle's Law or some variant. One student, however, wrote the following:

    "First, We postulate that if souls exist, then they must have some mass. If they do, then a mole of souls can also have a mass. So, at what rate are souls moving into hell and at what rate are souls leaving? I think we can safely assume that once a soul gets to hell, it will not leave.

    Therefore, no souls are leaving. As for souls entering hell, let's look at the different religions that exist in the world today. Some of these religions state that if you are not a member of their religion, then you will go to hell. Since there are more than one of these religions and people do not belong to more than one religion, we can project that all people and souls go to hell. With birth and death rates as they are, we can expect the number of souls in hell to increase exponentially.

    Now, we look at the rate of change in volume in hell. Boyle's Law states that in order for the temperature and pressure in hell to stay the same, the ratio of the mass of souls and volume needs to stay constant. Two options exist:

       1. If hell is expanding at a slower rate than the rate at which souls enter hell, then the temperature and pressure in hell will increase until all hell breaks loose.
       2. If hell is expanding at a rate faster than the increase of souls in hell, then the temperature and pressure will drop until hell freezes over.

    So which is it? If we accept the quote given to me by Theresa Manyan during Freshman year, "that it will be a cold night in hell before I sleep with you" and take into account the fact that I still have NOT succeeded in having sexual relations with her, then Option 2 cannot be true...Thus, hell is exothermic."

The student, Tim Graham, got the only A.
Title: Re: How do you get to heaven split from EP129
Post by: Russell Nash on January 31, 2008, 07:14:38 PM
My personal favorite treatise on hell:

Is Hell Exothermic or Endothermic? (http://www.pinetree.net/humor/thermodynamics.html)

As you study for exams, remember its not the quantity it's the quantity. And remember there is no substitute for pure unadulterated bull

Dr. Schambaugh, of the University of Oklahoma School of Chemical Engineering, Final Exam question for May of 1997. Dr. Schambaugh is known for asking questions such as, "why do airplanes fly?" on his final exams. His one and only final exam question in May 1997 for his Momentum, Heat and Mass Transfer II class was: "Is hell exothermic or endothermic? Support your answer with proof."

[snip]

So which is it? If we accept the quote given to me by Theresa Manyan during Freshman year, "that it will be a cold night in hell before I sleep with you" and take into account the fact that I still have NOT succeeded in having sexual relations with her, then Option 2 cannot be true...Thus, hell is exothermic."

The student, Tim Graham, got the only A.

Disgustingly there is a version of this that of course leaves out the names and changes the ending.  I forget exactly how it worked, but they had hell as being endothermic because of the love of god (funny they never said which one.  Obviously they meant Odin).  I hate it when people do that.
Title: Re: How do you get to heaven split from EP129
Post by: Thaurismunths on February 01, 2008, 01:29:14 AM
(funny they never said which one.  Obviously they meant Odin).
Obviously.
For it is the word of N-sh.
Title: Re: How do you get to heaven split from EP129
Post by: Tango Alpha Delta on February 01, 2008, 12:47:11 PM
(funny they never said which one.  Obviously they meant Odin).
Obviously.
For it is the word of N-sh.


Couldn't be Odin... Eros would make sense though.  Do I get to be a heretic, now?  :D
Title: Re: How do you get to heaven split from EP129
Post by: Russell Nash on February 01, 2008, 01:22:01 PM
(funny they never said which one.  Obviously they meant Odin).
Obviously.
For it is the word of N-sh.


Couldn't be Odin... Eros would make sense though.  Do I get to be a heretic, now?  :D

Make a list of your credentials and submit them to the High Priest and Priestess in triplicate.
Title: Re: How do you get to heaven split from EP129
Post by: Tango Alpha Delta on February 01, 2008, 03:28:44 PM
(funny they never said which one.  Obviously they meant Odin).
Obviously.
For it is the word of N-sh.


Couldn't be Odin... Eros would make sense though.  Do I get to be a heretic, now?  :D

Make a list of your credentials and submit them to the High Priest and Priestess in triplicate.


In my case, it should probably be a list of incredentials...
Title: Re: How do you get to heaven split from EP129
Post by: Bdoomed on February 01, 2008, 07:55:45 PM
(funny they never said which one.  Obviously they meant Odin).
Obviously.
For it is the word of N-sh.


Couldn't be Odin... Eros would make sense though.  Do I get to be a heretic, now?  :D

Make a list of your credentials and submit them to the High Priest and Priestess in triplicate.


In my case, it should probably be a list of incredentials...
thats enough incredentials for me.
i think TAD is TCoRN's first heretic.

such is the word of N_sh.
Title: Re: How do you get to heaven split from EP129
Post by: Russell Nash on February 05, 2008, 09:11:45 AM
(funny they never said which one.  Obviously they meant Odin).
Obviously.
For it is the word of N-sh.


Couldn't be Odin... Eros would make sense though.  Do I get to be a heretic, now?  :D

Make a list of your credentials and submit them to the High Priest and Priestess in triplicate.


In my case, it should probably be a list of incredentials...
thats enough incredentials for me.
i think TAD is TCoRN's first heretic.

such is the word of N_sh.

An official Heretic,  I'm so proud.
Title: Re: How do you get to heaven split from EP129
Post by: Thaurismunths on February 05, 2008, 11:27:27 PM
Welcome Heretic!
May you long suffer for your abominations against N-sh!
Title: Re: How do you get to heaven split from EP129
Post by: Tango Alpha Delta on February 05, 2008, 11:50:32 PM
Welcome Heretic!
May you long suffer for your abominations against N-sh!

RAWK!!  Do I get to be hated and hunted just on my own merits (looks & personality, etc.) or do I need to nail 95 feces to a church?  (I'd rather not, because I really quite respect private property.)
Title: Re: How do you get to heaven split from EP129
Post by: Bdoomed on February 06, 2008, 12:29:38 AM
its okay, you are inherently hated.  you dont have to do anything.
Title: Re: How do you get to heaven split from EP129
Post by: Darwinist on March 10, 2008, 04:36:06 PM
This just in from the Vatican - the list of mortal sins is being updated.  Fox is reporting that "ruining the environment" is one of the additions.  Quoting Fox News:

"It holds mortal sins to be “grave violations of the Ten Commandments and the Beatitudes,” including murder, contraception, abortion, perjury, adultery and lust.

The Catechism of the Catholic Church states that “immediately after death the souls of those who die in a state of mortal sin descend into Hell.”

Title: Re: How do you get to heaven split from EP129
Post by: Chodon on March 10, 2008, 08:36:44 PM
New mortal sins:
Quote from: The Pope
Drug abuse
Genetic manipulation
Morally dubious experimentation
Environmental pollution
Social inequalities
Social injustice
Causing poverty
Accumulating excessive wealth at the expense of the common good

They seem a little more open to interpretation to the old deadly sins.  Is using a styrofoam cup something one should attend confession for?  Driving to work?  That's pollution, right?  Is recreational use of drugs abuse?  Do legal drugs count?  I think the Catholic church raised more questions than they answered.

Edited because I can't spel.
Title: Re: How do you get to heaven split from EP129
Post by: Russell Nash on March 10, 2008, 09:09:06 PM
New mortal sins:
Quote from: The Pope
Drug abuse
Genetic manipulation
Morally dubious experimentation
Environmental pollution
Social inequalities
Social injustice
Causing poverty
Accumulating excessive welath at the expense of the common good

They seem a little more open to interpretation to the old deadly sins.  Is using a styrofoam cup something one should attend confession for?  Driving to work?  That's pollution, right?  Is recreational use of drugs abuse?  Do legal drugs count?  I think the Catholic church raised more questions than they answered.

Hey, the church trying to get people to think.  That's a new one!
Title: Re: How do you get to heaven split from EP129
Post by: Tango Alpha Delta on March 10, 2008, 11:36:13 PM
Quote from: The Hairy Tick of TCoRN
Drug abuse - I'm very kind to all drugs (+1)
Genetic manipulation - that just sounds naughty; does choosing a hot wife count? (?)
Morally dubious experimentation - WTF?  How ELSE am I to select an eight-cylinder V-8 diesel marital aid without I experiment with it first? (-1)
Environmental pollution - Oh... but diesel is cleaner than it used to be...  (-1)
Social inequalities - Like not allowing female priests? (-1)
Social injustice - Like not allowing female priests? (-1)
Causing poverty - My own or someone else's?  (-1)
Accumulating excessive welath at the expense of the common good - Oh, great... we should just change our name to "United States Hades" and get it over with.  (-1)

Hmmm -5; well, nailing the 95 Theses would be littering, so I guess I'd better not...  and I'd tell you that was all tongue-in-cheek, but I fear the ambiguous "morally dubious" umbrella might shadow me!