Carpe diem? Maybe that's a bad thing...

[Caid Ivik]

TMA, if there is a Satan, he is a part of God's plan too. By wisdom, we are able to deepen or perception of morale, we can do as saint as evil acts. Tough this wisdom could seduce us to the evil, but it is always a free choice of any human. This is inherent for any human, so it was also for the primal humanity since it had been imbued with rationality. Personal story of Adam and Eva stays for every human at his birth. Same as humanity, Adam's children, had to discover the "good side", so every human does so. And while a child has its parents, humanity as whole has only God himself. The "corruption", what layed upon Adam and Eva, was not caused by some external force, that fruit was not a Pandora's box. It is a disharmonical decision, which is motivated by short-termed goals, a trying to exclude my act from the world order (I hope I don't have to define sin more). This ability is not a "corruption", it only caused corruption, which destroyed the "paradise", a synonym for heaven, as a state of perfect harmony with God. Which is being fulfilled with even greater (divine - as the image of God, not a voice of Satan, works here!) nobility as the primal paradise, when someone reaches it.

Btw, Gunwounds made a brilliant explanation ;D

[TMA_1]

uhh, yeah the taking of the fruit from the tree was a "disharmonical" choice.  It sounds like a bunch of semantics to be perfectly honest, because the fruit itself wasent the issue. The issue was Eve's choice to act independantly of God. Remember when she talked to the serpent she said we cannot eat OR TOUCH of the fruit. Right there she was starting to use her own wisdom, and not the wisdom of God. Then on top of that she wanted to have knowledge of good and evil outside of the influence of God. It is very similar to the classic pandora's box fable. Not in any detailed way, but in a sense that we humans are inevitably to blame for the fall of mankind.

[Acriku]

Well you are saying it in a roundabout way.... the fact that you have to put the disclaimer in parentheses shows this. 

Lets say that there is a religion where everyone worships Tom Cruise.  Lets call them Cruiseans.  Tom Cruiseans want to be in Tom Cruise's presence and converse with him and be happy.  Now Tom Cruise lives in Hollywood.  So someone says all Cruisean's goal is to get into Hollywood (cause thats where Tom Cruise is).

It woud be DIRECT and proper to say that all Cruisean's main goal is to BE WITH TOM CRUISE....NOT "just" to get into Hollywood.  Sure you can say it in a roundabout way that they all want to get into Hollywood (cause thats where Tom cruise is) but that isnt saying it in a DIRECT way.

Heaven isnt Heaven because it is heaven.  Heaven is Heaven because God's glory is there.... so if God "moved" to a new residence then your assuption would be false that all christians just want to get to heaven.  Sorta like if Tom Cruise moved to Japan.... then the initial assumption that all Cruiseans want to go to Hollywood would be false.

I am not arguing that what you said is completely wrong... but its obviously not a direct statement and can be misleading because people will think you are referring to a LOCATION and not an ENTITY.  Thats the problem i have with it.  Saying "I want to get into heaven"  has a completely diff meaning than "I want to be with God".

One has ambiguity of motive and the other shows with certainy what your motive is.

You misunderstand. I am not taking the point of people getting into Heaven. I'm taking the point of people achieving eternal happiness. I don't care where they get it. You're arguing against something that is not even meant to be a part of the argument (I believe they call that a straw man). Again, wherever they get the eternal happiness that is what I am arguing ABOUT. I'll sort through the replies tomorrow, after work, to reply to other main points.

[Acriku]

some good info gunwounds! :)

Acriku you are attacking this from a perspective of one who is skeptical. Because of this some statements made show that it would be harder for you to understand. "Its never simple as black and white" TO christians who have an objective goal in life in many times it is that simple, and at the same time it is that complex. We have two sides to us. In my faith when Adam and Eve sinned their bodies were currupted. In many ways the act of Eve would be praised by people now days because she saught for wisdom from a human means "And her eyes were opened". This is the plan of Satan though, but in your eyes you would see it differently from me. Instead of trying to attack it, try putting yourself in the shoes of one who believes.

When I study about religions throughout the world (Specifically middle eastern religions and some religions of the East) I try to put myself in the same shoes as those who practice the faith. If I follow the logic of the other person I gain much more insight into why they believe what they believe. Not only does this strengthen the faith of my beliefs, but it helps me to see the cultures of different faiths in the world.

Its like seeing the commentary from athiests of bibles on the internet. THey make statements that are so ignorant. THey will attack a specific practice that culturally was acceptable over 2000 years ago because they look at it from a modern frame of reference. Any good historian will try hard not to judge the past from their own cultural perspective. This taints knowledge and on top of that it creates misconceptions about what the bible says. For example I saw one of these commentaries attack some symbology in Revelation as being rediculous and that somehow that is exactly how it will happen. Like the Whore of Babylon for example, one one of these commentaries they made it out to be a real woman! Honestly many agnostic and athiest people who study other religions try to be objective, but when it comes to judeo-christian beliefs they seem to have a different more antagonistic bent. This is obviously becvause judeo-christian beliefs are strongly intermingled with parts of western culture, specifically parts of western culture that some of these athiests and agnostics dispise.

Dont fall into a trap of intellectual dishonesty acriku, you wont learn anything, in fact the only things you will learn will come from your own opinions, and not the opinions of others. If you learn from your own opinions in history, you will get a twisted form of history.

Can we all stop the cheap shots at nonbelievers and atheists? They are pointless. Instead of crying about how ignorant or judgemental they seem to be to you, focus on the discussion please. Oh and as a side note, the point "atheists" make when they point out grossly inhumane acts occurring in the Bible is that God approved of it then because he did not punish them for it (the stoning of children, for instance was instructed IN THE BIBLE). They are not attacking the culture for committing certian acts, they are attacking God's approval of them. Because he approved it then, and he is immutable and perfect, he must approve of it now and therefore from the moral perspective God is despicable. Just wanted to add that, since you brought it up to attack.

I am not being intellectually dishonest here, TMA. If no one keeps doubting these things until full clarity is achieved, then full clarity will never be achieved. Because I am not fully convinced, I will continue to question.

[TMA_1]

I like how you point out straw man arguments, cheap shots, non-sequiturs and other illogical statements, and yet you make the same oversimplified, generalistic, and at times hostile statements. Your style of debate hasent changed at all, which I thought it had.

Why should I even try to debate? You obviously dont want to better understand christians or their faith. Instead you want us to accept your point of view entirely. Hell, even a good old argument would be fun but you take it too far. YOu are as bad as the christians who go onto athiest webboards and try to argue people into submission. I am not going to debate like this anymore.

God and this modern culture are astranged. In your mind christianity is a thing of the past. To me you are a symbol of the crumbling future.

[GUNWOUNDS]

hey hey hey... can you two chill out...

every time we get into a discussion  Acriku will give a slight jab at the christian faith and then TMA gets REALLY offended and then rants about how atheists are big meanies.  Cool off guys.

Look.... i didnt try to make a straw man above Acriku..... i thought you were actually discussing the issue.... its sorta hard to tell WHAT you are discussing cause you put like 50 freaking things in your starter post and even add new stuff as you go.  Try taking things one at a time and this wont happen.  And please dont accuse me of strawmen or whatever... cause i've known you for 2-3 years now acriku, i know how you think and what you think and i am not trying to "win" an arguement i am simply chatting and giving out useful (i hope) info for you to chew on.... ok?... so ease off the strawmen,nonsequitor, etc.

Also one thing to note TMA.... is that Acriku is a bit diff from other people i have talked with.  You see he is a non-believer who says "if there was a God i would do everything in my power to worship him" plus i have had other convos with him and he seems genuine.  This is a bit diff from other non-believers who say "If there was a God i really dont care... i dont want there to be a God and if he showed up at my door i would tell him to get lost"

And i am not making that up... i have known many people like that and even my marine biology professor back in college was like that.... he said he didnt want there to be a God and if there was one he could kiss his ass.  Now its pointless to argue with a person like that.

But with Acriku since he atleast respects the notion of worshipping a God in teh first place i think you need to not be so hard on him.  However you are right that he doesnt need to take swipes at "rookie" christians ....or take the word of an atheist critic who thinks God is despicable as the absolute truth.

If so then this discussion will go nowhere.

[GUNWOUNDS]

They are not attacking the culture for committing certian acts, they are attacking God's approval of them. Because he approved it then, and he is immutable and perfect, he must approve of it now and therefore from the moral perspective God is despicable.

I know this is a long post... but if you really want to get inside my head and know what i really think then this is something you will want to read.

[TMA_1]

no I just see where this is going gunwounds. If we continued nothing would be learned. Acriku would have more fuel to add to his fire, and I to mine. There is no point. I am stopping right at the turn of the argument.

It isnt a matter of what you would do acriku, or what you would believe if you thought that God was real. It is the simple matter that you will not believe. I can see it, and have seen it before. I remember when you kinda believed in a divine being, and then you got militant in your athiesm, and you calmed a bit.

On top of it I have no more ideas to give, we have argued about this before. It comes down to a leap of faith, no matter what anyone says.

Also I am not the best to discuss this topic. For some reason your statements can piss me off so terribly.lol and that isnt good, especially when talking about omething so important. :)

[GUNWOUNDS]

well i understand TMA.... its hard sometimes to discuss your faith with someone sometimes.  But you seem to take this personally.... do you feel upset that you werent able to "convert" Acriku or something?  I feel its best to just discuss the situation from a neutral mood cause if you try to argue from the standpoint of you "must convert him or you are a failure" then you will be very angry when you dont.

Look at it from a standpoint of a muslim trying to convert you TMA.... you wouldnt be all that open-minded to him now would you?

I never wanted to be just some close-minded christian.... thats why i went out and started reading about all the different religions ... so that when i rejected Islam and Judaism and atheism i would be doing it with an informed mind and not just cause my "momma" brought me up as a christian.......and after years of reading i can safely say that what i have said in my above post completely envelopes what i believe and why i believe it.  Thats it.  Dont try to convert people over the internet cause you arent gonna change their mind one way or the other... all you can do is plant seeds and hope they grow.

But just as a side-note.... i do hope Acriku is asking these questions innocently and not trying to just piss people off.

[TMA_1]

It isnt about conversion gunwounds, that is why you are completely misunderstanding my point of view. If it was about conversion the post would be completely different. If you have been reading anything at all gunwounds you will have noticed that I am attempting to explain why christians worship. Acriku asked questions and is arguing at the answers. THe answers were set before him by different people and he wants to show logical problems with those beliefs.

Acriku isnt trying to find answers to questions. He is asking questions to prove his own ends.

I dont see how you got the whole conversion idea. I am just trying to protect my point of view from a person who is the antithesis of a bible thumper, an almost militant athiest in debates.

I have been in your shoes gunwounds. I too have studied a bit into certain middle eastern and far eastern religions, trying to better understand them as I have said before on this thread. You should have listened because the most important part of studying other beliefs is understanding them from an unbiased perspective, one where you dont take into account your own beliefs.

Acriku may do that with other religions, but you cannot sit there and not tell me that acriku has a specific grudge against judeo-christian beliefs.

If you objectively look at his statements you can tell he is trying to find weak points in the beliefs, exploiting them and remembering them to harden his heart a little more each time.

Sure he would accept God if he saw God face to face, but only a mentally challanged person wouldnt.

[GUNWOUNDS]

Ok you have made yourself very clear.

[TMA_1]

fundimentalist flip-flopping, ahhh gotta love it. ;)

I wont say any more. Sorry for troubling the thread.

[Wolf]

Though I hate to jump in once the argument has gone on for some time, I'd like to point out a fundamental difference between Protestantism and Catholocism that might help us progress in this debate. Namely, that Catholics believe what will save you is confession and asking for forgiveness, while Protestants believe that faith alone is enough to save you. In the former, commission of sin is practically assumed, meaning that people don't live the godly life, as Acriku proposed. In the latter, there is something closer to what Edric was saying; that God's first commandment is to love him, with the second being to love each other.

Just a thought.

[Caid Ivik]

That's a nonsense, only thing which may "save" you is good will. We catholics are not such rite-bound as you protestants try to picture us... Asking for forgiveness won't help much anyway if you won't live trough love, justice, patience or humility. Catechism of Catholic Church are practical things for everyday life, not some kind of mythological cult.

[GUNWOUNDS]

That's a nonsense, only thing which may "save" you is good will. We catholics are not such rite-bound as you protestants try to picture us... Asking for forgiveness won't help much anyway if you won't live trough love, justice, patience or humility. Catechism of Catholic Church are practical things for everyday life, not some kind of mythological cult.

You are correct Caid that many Catholics may have a true heart..... but lets be honest... most of the Catholic Church does have alot of cultish things.

[Wolf]

What made you think I was a Protestant, Caid? Really, I don't think I said anything there that overtly labled me as Protestant -- well, other than saying something which you took to be a criticism of Catholocism, which was unintended. Even if I was a Protestant -- which I would refuse to tell you because it let's you too easily classify and dismiss my arguments -- it doesn't matter as to the structure of the debate. What made me say what I had said was that I had just read St. Augustine's City of God -- you Catholics might have heard of him (wink) -- and he said something along those lines. I meant no harm by it, and if you want to debate meaningfully, I would suggest that you try to develop meaningful hypothesis and arguments about the statements and not the people who make them.

[Caid Ivik]

I don't think it is dismissing for same reason as you don't think it is a protestant thought, what you are presenting. Like taking a part (in this case, a sentence of Augustinus) out of context. Same may count for your view on protestants, but I would leave that for themselves. Actually, question "how may I be saved?" is abstract and wouldn't come by other way than reaction on ie some preaching I don't understand. Jesus came to solve current state of society, which cannot be parted into categories. Commandement of love has same base on any level, any situation, that is what differed it from pharsees.

But anyway, perhaps your assertion isn't that incomplex as I see it. In a model sitaution, I do an injustice to someone and I have three solutions: ask him for forgiveness, pray to God alone or prepare for revenge and possible counterattack. First suggestion is the way of love, if he would then retaliate, I would be justily rewarded, if not, it is a recurrence of love. Second one is a fatalist solution, which may help me in the relation with God, but my deed will be most possibly retaliated (in case the affected one would not take the first choice). And with third I only add, that this leads to geometrical growth of revenge effect. This is a protestant explanation, perfect for a scientific research, but unable to create a complex religion, only another pharseeism, based on partial commandements.

That would be done. Gunwounds, I talk about the official teaching of Catholic Church. But it is defined by acts of our ancestors.

1.marian cult is natural, as Mary is seen as a model of feminine virtues, she looks more "practical" for everyday life then; for only part of us are philosophers and more than half are women

2.once you die you are unable to do anything, so I find this a logical conclusion

3.mantra is useful tool of ceasing and reconcentrating thoughts, it is a way to clean mind; same reason pays for both post-confessional prayer and litanies

4.hierarchy in the Church is the only way to maintain conservation of the primal teachings (for it are also those theatrical condemnations and excommunications) and prevent its revisits (well, they occur, but less often); sure, sometimes it is very army-like, but it is turning better since the last Council

Concentrating on faith, be it with a material talisman or without it, is same. Continuity of Church prevents changing one talisman into a new God. Respect for Mary or litanies are some of many ways we have to communicate with God himself. He has as many faces as many thoughts we have, so if somebody doesn't understand ie deep spiritual wisdom of Eckhard, why should his way trough endless litanies be considered false? There were big dilemmas about such questions in 15th century and not all are yet solved. Some people (Hus, Luther, Calvin) said they have found the "one and only pure way" on what we reacted with jesuits, an order making missions by syncreticism. For by pure definition, we are all catholics.

[Wolf]

Yes, Caid, that is what I wanted to see, though I may not agree with you. :)

[Acriku]

I like how you point out straw man arguments, cheap shots, non-sequiturs and other illogical statements, and yet you make the same oversimplified, generalistic, and at times hostile statements. Your style of debate hasent changed at all, which I thought it had.

Why should I even try to debate? You obviously dont want to better understand christians or their faith. Instead you want us to accept your point of view entirely. Hell, even a good old argument would be fun but you take it too far. YOu are as bad as the christians who go onto athiest webboards and try to argue people into submission. I am not going to debate like this anymore.

God and this modern culture are astranged. In your mind christianity is a thing of the past. To me you are a symbol of the crumbling future.

I'm sorry for pissing you off, but you must understand my position. I am asking questions, but I don't expect just an answer back. I won't blindly accept anything as an answer, I want to understand the answers before I can either agree or disagree with them. Do you see now? I only ask further on your answers because I do not udnerstand them. Maybe it's because I'm a dumbass and you need to speak in baby terms, or maybe your answer is unclear, whatever the reason may be, I just do not understand. So, don't get offended or pissed. I'm just a guy trying to understand :)

[Acriku]

I know this is a long post... but if you really want to get inside my head and know what i really think then this is something you will want to read.

...<snip>...

Very interesting post. I think you've actually explained the necessary need for Jesus quite well. I say that because no one has done that for me, until now. I have one thought on it and I will leave it alone for others to read and learn from: you mention in the beginning with your analogy to the man and his house that he built himself, that we will learn more from the Moral Law than from the universe about God. Is this still true when we factor in the omnipotence and omniscience of God? In other words, since God is omnipotent and omniscient, is it not true that we can learn a good deal about God from what goes on around us (because if something happens, and he has the power to not let it happen, then we can assume he wanted it to happen)?  Just a thought.

[GUNWOUNDS]

In other words, since God is omnipotent and omniscient, is it not true that we can learn a good deal about God from what goes on around us (because if something happens, and he has the power to not let it happen, then we can assume he wanted it to happen)?

[Acriku]

  Thats not really observing the universe per se... that is still observing the Moral Law.  You are asking (i think) if someone breaks the Moral Law and doesnt get struck down before or after the violation that God approves or it or wanted it to happen.  So you see its still observing the Moral Law that allows us to get to know God better than just observing how the planets revolve around the Sun. (thats what i was referring to) 

    However if you are referring to simple interactions in the universe such as a comet crashing into the Earth or somesuch thing... then i would have to say that i think that God would actually have a neutral "view" towards such a thing meaning he would just view it happen without liking it or disliking it since it had no moral value attached to it.

I don't understand how God could stand neutral to a comet hitting Earth, his precious creation. Naturally, it has no moral attachment; but when there exists a god that created everything, including the dust and ice in the comet, a reason is instrinsic in everything. Especially if the god is a morally absolute god.

Well, in regards to your question, we run into some problems cause if God struck the person down before the violation was commited... then it would be like the movie "minority report" (starring Tom Cruise).... where cops come crashing through the windows and arrest someone before they can commit a crime and then imprison them promptly.  This of course would be unacceptable.  We could go on and on about free will but i think its obvious that pre-emptive strikes by God would be pointless and that that he should just as well as made some terminator robots instead of mankind.  Since he didnt we can assume that he did want something superior.... something better than a Robot running off of pre-programmed code telling us to never do wrong.

If people had the ultimate choice, then I would agree with you. It would be unacceptable because we might actually make the right choice and not violate his word. However, if God is omniscient then he has always known what we will do and can strike us down before we even do it. We would deserve it as much as if we had done it before he struck, because he knows all. It's hard to think we have free will if this is the case. However, if it isn't then God is not omniscient.

Another problem I have is that if God truly and wholly values free will, why does he threaten us with an eternity in Hell if we do otherwise? That impedes on our free will, because he's telling us our inevitable doom if we don't follow his word. Our decision to follow his word cannot be completely of our own decision with the threat of Hell hanging over our heads.

And another thing, what does God want from us? You say he wouldn't want robots worshipping him by eliminating free will, and yet he creates us and then tells us to do as he says and believe in him and the Bible despite how obviously metaphorical some parts are or face an eternity in hell. He had already murdered an entire world save for a drunk and his family and some friends, err I'm sorry a "perfect man" and his family, for not following his word. If he'll go to that length for us to follow his word after he created us himself, how much does free will really matter? What's so bad about robots worshipping him if it seems from the Old Testament that he wants our sole worship and attention above all else? A better answer would not be that he doesn't want to get rid of free will, it's that he can't. But, that brings up a whole list of problems, so for God to exist that can't be it. God's a tricky concept, eh?

Secondly, if God just immediately struck the person down AFTER the violation... he would be totally justified... and He did so many times in the Old Testament and at some instances mankind was only saved from extinction through a small number (less than 1%) of Righteous men... (Noah, Abraham , etc)  However we dont live in the Old testament anymore... we live in a different spiritual time period... one were God the Father is still strict in his absoluteness, however since we now have Jesus to go to we are all living in a state of Grace.  The Bible says God puts his wrath into a "spritual cup" the "Cup of Wrath"... i assume this is an anthropomoprhism that is basically letting us know that God is holding in his righteous anger and is withholding judgement temporarily (we have jesus to thank for this).  Thats where the term "grace" comes from... you have all heard of it before... (2-day grace period for paying your credit card bills, etc, etc).

About that... It doesn't add up. He's absolutely strict in his absoluteness... but not really? If during this grace period we turn out what God wants, then he is NOT righteous in striking us down at all! Back in the Old Testament times, he was NOT righteous in striking an entire world if they could have became what he wanted, through grace, time, Jesus, or whatever.

About the "bigger picture", in the end God defeats Satan. Does this strike anyone as a surprise? God is omnipotent. There's no defeating. God won before the battle began. There's no value in defeating Satan if you're omnipotent. That's infinitely less of a big deal than having Stone Cold Steve Austin grand slam Steven Hawkings. It's pointless to have a battle. It's also pointless in delaying the inevitable - God's Wrath. Just doesn't make sense to me.

Sorry if I inadvertently piss anybody off, this was done after work so pleasantries ran out hours ago.

[Caid Ivik]

Most of astronomical stellung only helps carbon-based life on Earth (dh relative solitude of our sun, its magnitude, rate between our magnetic fields and cosmic radiation, planetar displacement, same for the asteroids and other stuff etc). World is created with many possibilities, about which you talk here; however, it is already formed into an interesting shape. Possibility of deformative factor in God, if we talk about it in judeochristian terms, is absurd.

[GUNWOUNDS]

I don't understand how God could stand neutral to a comet hitting Earth, his precious creation. Naturally, it has no moral attachment; but when there exists a god that created everything, including the dust and ice in the comet, a reason is instrinsic in everything. Especially if the god is a morally absolute god.

If people had the ultimate choice, then I would agree with you. It would be unacceptable because we might actually make the right choice and not violate his word. However, if God is omniscient then he has always known what we will do and can strike us down before we even do it. We would deserve it as much as if we had done it before he struck, because he knows all. It's hard to think we have free will if this is the case. However, if it isn't then God is not omniscient.

You seem to think everyone deserves a fantastic life...i dont see where we are guaranteed that.

[Caid Ivik]

That's the difference between judaism and christianity; Jews believe that God is primarily just and christians that he primarily wants to manifest love to his creation, so that he would forgive us some faults. Both are partly true, as judaism is more practical and christianity more eschatologic. However, it can differ if you live by it...