h2g2 The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy: Earth Edition

Post 357:

Adrianne,
I expect that by 'religious types' you are referring to the followers of the Abrahamic religions. You will find that amongst the many religions outside the three abrahamic religions, the same concept of 'evil' doesn't necessarily exist.
To many pagans, for instance, we do recognise that evil exists. However rather than ascribing it to some supernatural agency we see it as being part of everyone's human nature. Something each of us must deal with, for in the right conditions we can succumb to it.
For example, was every Serb in Bosnia evil? Why else would previously law-abiding citizens, often good neighbours to their muslim fellow citizens, suddenly turn into homocidal maniacs? I don't think they were or indeed are evil. The conditions of civil anarchy, lack of central moral authority, fear and mass hysteria swept many of them up and caused them to lose control of their own natures. After the atrocities many slipped back to normality either terribly shocked and guilty by what they had participated in or in denial. I won't deny though that there were some who enjoyed it and still do, but they are a sick minority.
For many pagans we don't see evil in everything. Indeed one of the great things about the pagan paths is that we celebrate life at every opportunity and try to see the wonder and joy in all things.
Blessings,
Matholwch /|\.

This post has been removed.

>For instance, did you know all of us, non-christians are actually
>satan worshippers because we don't believe in god?

If you're suggesting that Christians would actually believe that, then you're wrong, for the most part. (Oh, I'm sure there are *some* Christians who believe that, like *right* on the fringes, but then there are probably *some* Christians who believe that the earth is flat...) I think a more accurate assessment of Christian belief that non-Christians have been deceived by Satan (who is, after all, the father of lies) into rejecting the salvation offered by Jesus (who is the Truth).

>And even though God loves us all if we don't believe in him he sends
>us(lovingly) to hell to burn?

Well, the way I see this whole hell business is that it's very much a case of we send ourselves there (or not, as the case may be). I see it as being like walking down a path. You come to a fork in the path. Which way do you go? There's a guy there, and he tells you that if you turn left, you're going to end up falling off a very steep cliff to certain death. If you take the right-hand fork, you'll end up at this city of light, where love reigns supreme, no hate, no pain, no death, no tears...

Put like that, if someone ends up falling off the cliff, they only have themselves to blame, really...

>...all hell is is total separation from God, so in theory, for non-
>Christians, its not that bad anyway!!

Well, if you really want to spend separated from love, you might see it is "not that bad..." Personally I disagree.

David.

Hi David and welcome to the debate .

Interesting how you think that we send ourselves to hell.

Let's see if I get this right:
1. The path and the fork in the path are created and maintained by God.
2. I am created and maintained by God. My basic intelligence, strengths and weaknesses are default set by God.
3. The rules that state which destination you can head for are created and maintained by God.
4. The destinations are created and maintained by God and follow rules devised and policed by him.
5. The being that will tempt or deceive me into taking the wrong path was set there by God for this very purpose.
6. God is omniescent (i.e. he knows all that is, has been and shall be).
7. God is omnipresent (i.e. he is everywhere, with everyone).
8. God is omnipotent (i.e. he is all powerful. Nothing occurs except by the will of God).
9. No matter how good a life I lead, if I refuse to accept his son as my saviour then I'm doomed.
10. I only get one go at this.....!

Does that sound fair or rational to you?
Does that sound like the actions of a 'loving father'?
Sounds more like a madman's social science experiment.
And some wonder why Christianity is in decline?

Blessings,
Matholwch /|\.

I've been moderated for writing the tenets of Yoga; that's the longest copyright on record!!!! perhaps it was because I included the sanskrit terms? Perhaps someone could tell me!


Alji (Member of The Guild of Wizards @ U197895)

Matholwch replied to David
(Interesting how you think that we send ourselves to hell.)
I too believe we choose to be with God or way from God(away from God is the definition I was taught of Hell)

(Let's see if I get this right:
1. The path and the fork in the path are created and maintained by God.)
I would say there are many forks in the path and at each God and a fallen angel(The Devil) stand telling you why you should choose their path. The fallen angel wants you to choose yourself as your focus. If it feels good, do it. God says be careful, if it feels good it may make you sick eventually.

(2. I am created and maintained by God. My basic intelligence, strengths and weaknesses are default set by God.)

My view is that God created and we fell or chose to turn away allowing problems to come into existance.Now we are subject to the consequences. Death, weakness due to birth defects, personality disorders due to faulty parents, famine, war, all human created disasters. While God did create humans and angels and gave them free will he is not happy that they fell. In fact he has been reaching out to show us the right path ever since. He could have and eventually will end the process and recreate paradise (a perfect Earth with no disease etc)and put us there again. In the mean time we can choose. Each time we choose to turn away it gets harder to turn back, but we get to choose many times in our lives.

(3. The rules that state which destination you can head for are created and maintained by God.)

There is really only one rule. Accept God. All the rest is part of showing the way to do that. Christ came to show us it was possible. The ten commandments were guidelines of what works. It all comes down to in the end or at the end of your life, do you accept God.

(4. The destinations are created and maintained by God and follow rules devised and policed by him.)

God is all there is anyway, we are part of him. It is just do you recognize and accept that you are part of him. You can reject or refuse accept that. Then when your life is over you will not be put in paradise (the perfect Earth) when he recreats it.

(5. The being that will tempt or deceive me into taking the wrong path was set there by God for this very purpose.)

God created Angels but we do not know much about them. They act as messengers and some used their free will to reject God. The fallen angels resent God's creating man in his own image and want to destroy man by enticing him to turn away from God. God wants us to choose him and if he eliminated the fallen angels we would have no choice.

(6. God is omniescent (i.e. he knows all that is, has been and shall be).)

Right.

(7. God is omnipresent (i.e. he is everywhere, with everyone).)

Right .

(8. God is omnipotent (i.e. he is all powerful. Nothing occurs except by the will of God).)

God gave the angels and man free will (choice). While he knew and knows that some will fall he can not remove that free will if he wants us to choose him ourselves. When he does stop the current creation it will be the end of time.

(9. No matter how good a life I lead, if I refuse to accept his son as my saviour then I'm doomed.)

That is what we are taught. I know that sounds harsh and in fact I have a hard time with it too. Maybe Christ will have a way for those who are simply mislead. But there are some who do not lead good lives. They live at the expense of others and are glad to use others to get where they want to be. If they never see that they are wrong and never accept God, when their life is over they will no doubt not want to go to be with him. The fallen angels will be more attractive. C.S. Lewis's allegory "The Great Divorce" was a little heavy handed in his description of "Hell" for all we know those who go to Hell will find it quite appealing. Lewis made Hell seem dreary looking to show a contrast with the bright/reality of Heaven. Lewis rejected the hell fire and brimstone concept because I think that will only occur at the very end and last only a moment or two(it will just seem like an eternity like when you get something in your eye that hurts).

(10. I only get one go at this.....!)

If a Christian has added to your unbelief they will have to face their responsibity for damage done but if you chose unbelief of your own free will you may be facing God in the next life and not recognize him because you refused to get to know him during this life. We only know what we have proof of. Christ said, the way to salvation is through me. No other way.

(Does that sound fair or rational to you?)

Yes it does, I'll bet there have been many times in your life where someone has told you about God. If you continue to think you are to intellegent or rational to accept God you may face the concequences.

(Does that sound like the actions of a 'loving father'?)

I don't know about your father but mine warned me the consequenses can not be avoided. When I was 19 I got pregnant. I loved her father and we were going to get married but he changed his mind. consequences. I was still pregnant.

(Sounds more like a madman's social science experiment.)

Since I work at a State Mental Hospital I know plenty of madmen. There is nothing mad about it. If you have a choice to make you live with the consequenses or if you realize it was a mistake you make an effort to change.

(And some wonder why Christianity is in decline?)

Human life tends to function in cycles. High,low,up,down,dedicated, apathetic. That is life and Christianity is not in decline, you just don't know about it anymore.

That sounds bonkers Alji! How can you copyright the tenets of a religion/philosophy? (Unless you're L. Ron Hubbard)

Thanks for the detailed and considered reply, Matholwch. I think it expressed the aspirations of a lot of us on this thread, including me. Like yourself, I'm also well aware that I fall short as often as I don't, but you have to have the aspirations as a standard.
Having said that, it wasn't the answer to the question as I intended it (although it was the answer to one half of the question as I SHOULD have intended it).

You asked Turvy (and the rest of us) < If...science and rationalism is the answer to everything what is to guide people to be loving, dutiful and honourable? > The short answer (and I say this as a self-confessed materialist) is that science and rationalism are not the answer to everything. Science and rationalism (and by implication our notions of what COUNTS as science and rationalism), are always embedded in a wider culture. This wider culture is also embedded, in this case in a real world that is understood by science. Ethics should be rational, but it is a rationalism with many different premises (though some ARE shared) to scientific rationalism.
My question was originally intended as referring to the logical underpinning of that real world, that is, it was a metaphysical question. But I also think that when all the metaphysics is settled almost nothing has been said about the important questions, except to set the bounds on the possibilities of the real world we live in. It functions as a background "reality check". What should guide us to be loving, dutiful and honourable are the same things that they have always been. It is the changes in our social relations that change what counts as moral rationality, not science, from which the majority of the population are in any case intellectually alienated. (BTW I think that that alienation and its consequences are what rightly bug Hoovooloo; scientific understanding SHOULD be part of our common heritage.)

Noggin

I'm withdrawing from this conversation, partly because I don't think it's going to get anywhere, and partly because the attitudes of some of the participants depress me intensely. If you can, imagine this post being spoken in tones of exhausted exasperation.

I was replied to directly by "Insight", whom I have taken to referring to as "Ignorance" for reasons which should be obvious to anyone who reads more than two of his posts anywhere.

I'm not debating any more, really. I'm tired of it. It really is like talking to a two-year old. But possibly for the last time, here we go...

-<"How did God help either of these events to happen?"
By failing to prevent it, as is blatantly obvious.>
Since when is failing to prevent something the same as causing it?

Good grief. It is incredible to me that the person posing this question is
(1) allowed to vote in elections and
(2) is a possible candidate to be on a jury in a criminal trial.

It is a fundamental concept in law and morality that if you are in a position to prevent something evil from happening and you do not, you become an accomplice to that crime. If you help a murderer hide a body, you become an accomplice after the fact and assume some of the responsibility for the killing. This is yet another incredibly widely known and understood concept. "Ignorance" has never heard of it. Anyone surprised?

"So Cain went to Nod and had sex with his wife. Why should that imply that his wife CAME from Nod, as opposed to that she went there with him?"

The very, very obvious fundamental question was not whether she was indigenous to Nod (a Noddite?). The very clearly implied question was WHERE did this woman come from?

On a related note - it is not genetically possible for the entire human race to be descended from one woman. I don't intend to debate this point, because despite my (and other people's) best efforts at explaining genetics in simple terms, "Ignorance" and others persist in plucking random words out of a biology textbook, typing them in random order, then calmly and superciliously stating that they constitute a refutation of everything our modern day biology is based on. We are not all descended from a single woman.


"In case there is anyone who hasn't noticed, Hoovooloo gets some sort of perverse pleasure out of insulting people."

I love this. "In case there is anyone out there who hasn't noticed". Listen to him talking down to the people who are really slow on the uptake. Allow me to remind anyone interested that this is the same person who asked me why I put an "H." at the end of my postings. This was the beginning and end of his value as comedy.

Actually, I don't get perverse pleasure, or indeed any pleasure, out of insulting people. If I'm insulting people it's because I'm angry or depressed. Right now, it's a sort of resigned fatalism which is anything but pleasurable. "Ignorance" has, he claims (and it's worth bearing in mind that I've shown him to be quite happy to lie outright in support of his own arguments, so you have to take his claims with a pinch of salt) to have got good exam results. My depression and fatalism are as a result, respectively, of the terrible waste of his potential and my utter failure to make any apparent dent whatsoever in his self-importance and belief in his own infallibility. Well, he's 18. He may learn. Let's hope so.

"I don't know why, or how he selects his targets,"

Just for the information of everyone, "Ignorance" included, here's why: I hate to see people deceived. I make a poor salesman, because I tell people the unvarnished truth about products (I don't work in sales). I make a TERRIBLE magician, because it's not enough for me to amaze people with tricks, I have to show them how they're done. And I make an annoying person to watch a science fiction film with, because I'm forever telling you how they did the special effects (mind you, it's getting a bit repetitive nowadays... "CGI...CGI...CGI..." Come back Ray Harryhausen...). I really cannot abide hearing people publicly spouting lies or half truths in defence of ANYTHING. So when people start defending Creationism, I debate. And when (as they, in my experience, ALWAYS do) they start lying about science, or just outright lying, I call them liars and they don't like it.

That's why. How do I pick my targets? People who lie. People who are deliberately, wilfully ignorant and proud of it. People for whom ignorance is a POLICY. NOT, I hasten to add, people of low intelligence. If you're a Bible-thumping fundamentalist because you've got a two-digit IQ, you have my pity but frankly trying to talk to you about it is pointless. If you're a Bible-thumping fundamentalist with straight-A grades, then you are a person who is actively avoiding having anything to do with anything the human race has learned about its place in the universe in the last thousand years. Anyone who takes a worthwhile brain and uses it to defend this kind of position, who actively tries to foster ignorance, superstition and fear - they're a target. Their perversion of logic, their lies about science, and their promotion of primitive notions of Creation over all the evidence of reality should be countered. That's how I pick targets.

Or rather, they were. My encounter with "Ignorance" has depressed me more than I can adequately describe. To find someone so young, so arrogant, so fully incapable of thought, so completely unable ever, even once, to admit to the possibility that he may be wrong about ANYTHING, is deeply unsettling to me. To further discover that this person has apparently been told by the people who know him that he is actually CLEVER, tips me into despair. And to find that the exams I took all those years ago have now become so easy that a person who can't make simple logical deductions can score A grades makes me worry for the future of a country which must depend on these people to run it in years to come.

This depression comes on top of my encounter earlier in the year with a man (a Christian, it almost goes without saying) so startlingly devoid of thought that for a while I was actually successfully convinced that he was not human at all and merely a cleverly programmed machine. That a human can be so devoid of consciousness and still function comes as no surprise, per se - what does come as a surprise is that such people still exist.

The upshot of all this negative feedback is that I can no longer work up the energy to attempt to debate these people. I say "attempt", because despite my best efforts, no debate takes place. I make points, they are ignored. I ask questions, they go unanswered. I correct fundamental errors, and there are excuses. I point out lies, and they are denied. I demand proof, and am given platitudes. I attempt to engage, and am met at all points with a blanket refusal to think. Well, no more.

Everyone should be free to believe what they want to believe, and worship in their own way whatever it is they want to worship. I have no problem with that. My mistake has been to try, respectfully at first and more and more stridently as I'm insulted and ignored, to get people to actually look at the world they live in without filtering it through prejudice and superstition. I am not going to try any more.

I'm still interested, deeply, in what people believe. I'm even more interested in the reasons WHY they believe it. But I'm not, any more, going to bother trying to educate anyone. If you tell me the moon is made of green cheese and the fairies live at the bottom of your garden and can cure your cancer, I'll respectfully ask you why you think that. I won't bother suggesting you see an astrophysicist or a doctor, because the world NEEDS ignorant people. The streets won't sweep themselves...

"but try not to encourage him, because it does no service to his otherwise evident intelligence."

No, don't encourage me. Things that "encourage" me include lying, hypocrisy, deliberate wilful ignorance and a refusal to consider even for a moment that you may, possibly, not have a clue what you're talking about. So don't do any of those things, whatever you do.

"
It sounds unpleasant to me too"

Genocide is "unpleasant". The Holocaust... "unpleasant". Check out that wide functional vocabulary, folks. The Christian thinks that wiping out an entire race of men, women and children is "unpleasant". Nicely put.

"I can accept that there is a superior being whose thoughts on morality are superior to mine"

Note that phraseology, again. "Ignorance" accepts the existence of ONE (1, count 'em) SINGLE being whose thoughts are superior to his. Is anyone else as impressed as I am that he makes this allowance?

"As to being 'unfit to live', you have to realise that according to the Bible we are ALL unfit to live"

I've said this before, and I'll say it again - speak for yourself.

"due to our being sinners, which is why we die"



"<"science in general is unintelligible"
Don't presume to consider the rest of us as stupid as you.>
So here's another reason that Hoovooloo thinks I am stupid - it's because I don't understand every detail of every scientific theory that has been devised."

Hmm. Even a mildly literate person, I am sure, could understand that that is not what I said, and not even close to what I meant.

The phrase I was commenting on was "science in general is unintelligible". At a basic level, this is a lie. Worse, it's an extremely obvious lie. Science obviously IS intelligible to vast numbers of people who make their living in it, for a start. It's also intelligible to even vaster numbers of people who, although it is not their job, are interested enough to learn something of it.

So along comes Ignorance, and says science is unintelligible. What are we to make of this? Well, OBVIOUSLY science is unintelligible to HIM, otherwise he wouldn't say that. But he makes the arrogant fundamental(ist) mistake of projection - "if I don't understand it, it cannot be understood". I point out that this is a logical fallacy, and he is insulted. Well, unlucky.

I most emphatically do not expect him to understand every scientific theory. He has more than amply demonstrated in his postings here great depths of ignorance on the subjects of astrophysics, orbital mechanics, logic, genetics, probability theory, evolution, polymer chemistry, and many others. He *demonstrably* does not understand the basics of the scientific method, crucial to any understanding of how any investigation works. But, and here is the reason why I said what I said - he believes that because HE does not know these things, that they are "unintelligible" - i.e. you and I can't know them either. Wrong. But he apparently doesn't like having that pointed out.

"And I suppose you, Hoovooloo, do [understand every detail of every scientific theory that has been devised]."

No, I do not. I am well known to many people on this site as a person who knows a great deal about a few subjects, and a little about many subjects, and nothing at all about others. I am further well-known for seeking out people who can help me know more, and listening to them and respecting their greater knowledge. By that approach, I've learned an enormous amount from this site - or rather, from PEOPLE on this site. Follow your approach, and you will learn nothing.

"The Hebrew word translated day doesn't necessarily mean 24 hours"

I do know this. What I'd like to know is why in EVERY SINGLE translation of the Bible I've ever seen, it is translated as "day". If it doesn't mean 24 hours, why use that word? If it means "year", why not say so? Is every single translator of the Bible really THAT incompetent? And how many other words don't mean what they apparently mean? I am right in thinking the Bible says Jesus died on the cross? Or do the Hebrew words REALLY mean Jesus cried on the dross? Or perhaps he just went to sleep on a plank? I mean, if your translators are really that bad, any of it could mean anything, couldn't it?

"It may also be applicable that those who are separated from God are sometimes metaphorically said to be dead"

So perhaps Jesus only "metaphorically" died on the cross then? If you're going to allow this in one place, you have to allow it everywhere. It's either ALL true, or ALL up for "interpretation".

"Further, the literal meaning of the verb 'to die' according to Vines Expository Dictionary of Old Testament words, is 'to lose one's life.'"

This, from a person who didn't know, and didn't bother to look up, what the word "ignorance" meant.

Well, that was a chuckle, wasn't it? No.

I'm still depressed. I'm unsubscribing from this thread. I have to say, I feel defeated. Not by superior argument, not by force of logic, or reason, or by a clever move on the part of my "opponent". I've been worn down by sheer, persistent, unapologetic, self-righteous, Ignorance. You win. You know less than me, and you don't WANT to know more. I'm giving up trying to tell you anything. I'm sure you'll be happier and if it's possible even more infuriatingly self-satisfied and smug as a result. My only consolation is that since you believe all men to be sinners and that the power of guilt is a terrible thing, that you will burn in the hell I don't believe in.

H.
(by the way, "Ignorance", if you still haven't worked it out, I put an "H" at the end of my posts because my name is "Hoovooloo", and people often sign messages with their initials. I hope this helps.)

I'll try again but without the Sanskrit - then it might get through.

Alji (Member of The Guild of Wizards @ U197895)

If you want a long read about Hindu philosophy then look @
http://www.hinduism.co.za/philosop.htm

For some of my beliefs see
http://www.hinduism.co.za/philosop.htm#The%20Yoga

Alji (Member of The Guild of Wizards @ U197895)

Actually, Alji, it is worth reading, tho' Lewis was what Sara Maitland called 'That old sexist'. I don't agree with everything in it, any more than you do, but it's interesting! Do check it out.

Hi Matholwch

I suppose that my own moral code has its foundation in my parents code (not surprisingly really). Despite Catholicism, my parents were good and kind people and I got my compassion and empathy for nursing from them, particularly my mother!.(They too abandoned the Catholic Church but not their faith).

The law in the UK at least is based on a Christiam moral ethic and a fudal code which, as you rightly state codifies "protection of property first, the provision of revenge second and... compensation coming up hard on the rails." It is now modified by European law which conflicts with a lot of what is on the Statute books.

I do not have an answer to your question, I really do not know what replaces religious moral codes in a decadent, amoral, athiest society. I somehow feel that Western society is on the rocks and the tide is coming in!

As it happens I also read Science Fiction and the books of Peter F Hammilton, William Gibson, David Brin and Paul Cornell seem strangely prophetic!

If I could promote and spread my own set of morals and ethics I would. Idealism is OK but it either becomes fundamentalism or a religion in its own right. I would not presume! (to mis-quote "the meek shall inherit the Earth...if it's OK with you guys...)

By the way I am sorry to see that Hoovooloo has left the debate. His insight will be sorely missed!

turvy

Well, back on debating...

The bible IS true in its entirety. "All Scripture is God-breathed." 2 Timothy 3:16 The consequence of this: Scripture is infallible, since God is perfect. And it does say "ALL."

I know that this is a major point, so I'm ready for a debate here.

What then is scripture. If I copy a book of the Bible and mangle it, does that mean my manglings have the full force of the Word of God behind them or are they not considered part of the scripture. If a mangling today is invalid, one a while back is invalid, and we have to accept the possibility that there MAY NOT BE an actual scripture laying around. If anyone can modify the scriptures to mean anything, and it carries full weight then anyone, even one in contradiction with god is infallible. The only rationilization of this is that god becomes what the person added into the scripture, or that that part is ripped back out of the scripture. I haven't seen anyone die from tampering with scripture (alhtough it is theatened, however if there was a documented cae of this there'd be less doubt in God) However, if god becomes what is added, then god *is* the word, and is in fact *no more than* the words that describe him. If the scriptures are always right then god doesn't exist as an intelligent being able to manipulate the world of his own will, being only an ever growing colletion of literature. If this was the original god, then someone ancient jokester would roll laughing to see the world today.

If all scripture is God-breathed, this says to me that anything not breathed by god is not scripture, and if I publish a half-accurate bible it os not all scripture. Everything in the King James Bible that's taken out of context does as you say still have its meaning, *if put back into the original context*. Without firm knowledge of what happened in every place that any text was modified/translated, we cannot be certain the bible *as commonly read* is wholly useful and authorative.

Most Scientists will admit the Universe had a beginning.
If so what is so hard about admitting that it also had a creator?

If the universe is defined as "all that exists" then it could have no creator that exists. Or perhaps the creator can exist, but not inside our universe. Thus makes us sound like a daydream, I can dream of kising a pretty girl, I can imagine my converstaion, holding it for both of us in my head, but I'm really sitting back in my chair, completely alone.

If the creator exists, and can exist *in* our universe, then our universe must exist in *his* universe/multiverse in which he resided before creating us. In this case we expand universe to mean the whole of both universes, and wonder where god's universe (and god) came from.

If everything must have a cause other than itself, so must god.

Simply put, to most the universe means "everything", everything includes god. Many try to understand how soemthing can come from nothing, creationists believe there was always something (god), others belive until yo reach the base state of nothingnes thatyou havven't reached the beginning of the "universe", that if there's a creating god he emerged some time after the universe itself had formed and molded bits of it till they were more pleasing to him.

1In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth. 1:2And the earth was waste and void; and darkness was upon the face of the deep: and the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters 1:3And God said, Let there be light: and there was light. 1:4And God saw the light, that it was good: and God divided the light from the darkness. 1:5And God called the light Day, and the darkness he called Night. And there was evening and there was morning, one day.

The creationist takes the 1st line to be the beginning of the universe, the other asks what this is the beginning of. The universe? Or merely our world? (Odd too that day and night preceeded the sun, or that we can't build a tower of Babel, but can go to the moon)

Perhaps Goddid not make an afterlife, and just created us hoping we'd live in peace and harmony, meaning for Eath to be paradise, which we messed up, and after countless of our generations he threw up his hands in disgust and stormed off to do something more productive with his time.

if there's any argument agasint omniscience in the bibel, it must be in Genesis, where god seemingly never kows what's around he bend. He creates man, THEN decideds it's not best for him to be alone.

Adam is created in one place, then god seemingly changes his mind and takes adam east to eden.

3:22And Jehovah God said, Behold, the man is become as one of us, to know good and evil; and now, lest he put forth his hand, and take also of the tree of life, and eat, and live for ever- 3:23therefore Jehovah God sent him forth from the garden of Eden, to till the ground from whence he was taken. 3:24So he drove out the man; and he placed at the east of the garden of Eden the Cherubim, and the flame of a sword which turned every way, to keep the way of the tree of life.

Who is this "we?" Good and evil existed before humanity, is god undergoing peer review? If God can create the garden (and recreate anything at will) why not destroy the tree of eternal life, rather than leaving it around to be discovered in the future?

Still, best not to pick apart completely here. A very popular (and contreversial) movie could be made by applying MST3K to one book of the bible after another. Of course the perpetrators might well die...

But another thought, if people truly believed once removing one rib from adam permenantly removed that rib from all men, then why not try some primitive surgery to embed something valuable in your body? Then, raise a big family, each kid coming out with its own copy of whatever valuable embedded in their skin...

>The law in the UK at least is based on a Christian moral ethic

Our laws have little if anything to do with Christianity.

Matthew 5:33 to 5:47
"Again you have heard that it was said to them of old time, 'You shall not make false vows, but shall perform to the Lord your vows,'
but I tell you, don't swear at all: neither by heaven, for it is the throne of God; nor by the earth, for it is the footstool of his feet; nor by Jerusalem, for it is the city of the great King. Neither shall you swear by your head, for you can't make one hair white or black.
But let your speech be, 'Yes, yes; No, no.' Whatever is more than these is of the evil one. You have heard that it was said, 'An eye for an eye, and a tooth for a tooth.' But I tell you, don't resist him who is evil; but whoever strikes you on your right cheek, turn to him the other also. If any man would go to law with you and take away your coat, let him have your cloak also. Whoever compels you to go one mile, go with him two. Give to him who asks you, and don't turn away him who desires to borrow from you. "You have heard that it was said, 'You shall love your neighbor, and hate your enemy.' But I tell you, love your enemies, bless those who curse you, do good to those who hate you, and pray for those who spitefully use you and persecute you, that you may be sons of your Father who is in heaven. For he makes his sun to rise on the evil and the good, and sends rain on the just and the unjust. For if you love those who love you, what reward do you have? Don't even the tax collectors do the same? If you only greet your friends, what more do you do than others? Don't even the tax collectors do the same?

The basis of our laws are Roman not Christian.


Alji (Member of The Guild of Wizards @ U197895)

Just look around you...
Does anyone here SERIOUSLY think that all this happened by accident.
The evidence for creation is right under our noses all the time.

All what, modern civilization? Wolves form packs. (Or really, maintain them) Humans band together. Humans invent things. More humans together invent more things. The most productive groups are sought out as the have the easiest time surviving, which adds more minds to create more inventions, thus the continuing growth of technology leading to the world today

The world? If there's an explosion and clumps of matter get sent in every direction, then it makes sense that when a clump is enough isolated (by distance) from the rest of the mass of the universe that the forces from things outside the clump are insignificant compared to the gravitational force insie, and that something will form, some of these sommethings will be planets, some stars depending on the amount of material in each subclump, reletive distances etc. As massive as the universe is, there's enough matter to make semiingly improbable events happen with regularity. Ad the saying goes, even if you're a 1 in a million guy, there's 1,000 people exactly like you in China. Planets will form.

What about life? A supersaturated solution has no crystal, although it has the potential. A suitable planet (statistically there are many) has no life, though it has the potential. Most any solid that lands in the solution forms a point around to crystallize, CHEMICAL REACTIONS are self-similar and have a seeding effect. Inside our cells we wok through chemistry, just on a larger scale. DNA periodcally divides, grabbing surrounding chemicals to match each of the halves of the strand that is splitting. At the beginning of life, the 1st DNA like molecule would do the same thing. Life may have started as free-floating DNA-alikes grabbing passing chemicals. No competition, no predators, just replication. Over time one messes up the replicationin a favorable way (It bonds with a heavy atom, and most of the "nuclear" molecules were on the bottom of the slime pile, so it sinks and survives better) another develpos a pron on top that sticks out and acts as an enzyme, breaking apart onothe of the molecules laying around. If this duplicated, it would be dominant until something came out that broke it apart or that didn't fit the enzyme. Over time the parts get more complex, eventually forming shielded nuclear material (cells). The docile replicators still simply absorb chemicals rom the environent. The predatory "cells" would be viruses that in addition to having their own protection, can break the protection of another cel to steal from it. Natural selection continues, and eventually prehuman life.

so this gives us explosion to planet, planet to life, life to civilization, but where did the dust come from? What is the source of the cosmic egg?

I've no idea. The rest of my ideas are simply ideas I've heard elsewhere and incorporated as they seemed logical.

If you define god only as "the source of the cosmic egg", no more and no less, then god fits into the views of many who don't believe in a classical god, and god needn't be concious or sentient. Of course this definition of god is unsatisfying for most.

The universe is much like the infinite monkeys/typewriters/shakespere thought expirement

In the future, as computers become powerful enough I believe we will test this by modelling a big bang (we don't need to know what started it, we just need to model *lots* of mass-energy exploding in 3 dimensions. We may skip that entirely and start from hydrogen exploding outwards from a sphere of radius x. At what distance from/time after the explosion is hydrogen thought to have formed? Regardless, we can model and see if solar systems with many heavy elements form, then we can toss out the explosion and model from clumps of assorted material until we achieve a solar system like our onw. At that point we model many earths like our own until one forms repeating chemicals, then that is modelled until larger life evolves until we have humans. When we've done this we've proven that *barring significant reactions by as yet unknown forces* current models leading to us from a cosmic egg *could happen*. Of course, as things stand right now, they *could* be right, but until serious modelling is done we can't say for certain that current theorys completely fit our existing worldview. At this point the created world will be able to repeat the experiment, and starting from the egg themselves, we'll be largely indistinguishable from them. (If we can create them) As soon as we begin this experiment, our god may come down and tell us that we are the same experiment we have begun and that in doing so we've fulfilled a turing-like test imposed by the next level up. Of course a nesting of such universes, each started off from a guess about the origin of the parent means that our low-level physics might not be something capable of arising from nothing on its own. In that case, God is us at a higher level, though not neccasarily humanoid. Perhaps only the universe or world was created in image. Intervention would satisfy our origin, but what about theirs? Ultimately, only bt communication al the way back can we even collect the data to theorize on the original creation. Who knows what that universe's natural laws may be...

You dislike the fact that I refer to the Bible, which is the Word of God, written by men divinely inspired.
// it is for the skeptic, the word claimed to be of god, written by men divinely inspired. The skeptic dislikes that the bible is quoted to prove god exists, even though the bible is *only* valid if god exists. This is circular reasoning, which proves nothing. The skeptics dislike circular reasoning passed off as evidence.

When an object or person is thought to be a liar, you cannot take their word as evidence that they are not. Any claim IN the bible, that the bible or god is valid, must be ignored when trying to prove it. Otherwise you let off the thief because he told you he wasnt the one who stole the money.

What so many of these arguments boil down to is "God needs to manifest if we are to be certain of his existence" or else, you the believer must point out something we have not yet seen that could not have occured without a powerful, intelligent being to create it.


How else could so many who did not know each other write about God and always make him out to be the same as the others? To what do you appeal to make your arguments, besides your own beliefs?

(8. God is omnipotent (i.e. he is all powerful. Nothing occurs except by the will of God).)

God gave the angels and man free will (choice). While he knew and knows that some will fall he can not remove that free will if he wants us to choose him ourselves.

Why would god want this? If we're flawed, wouldn't he rather have better subjects anyway? Seemingly if god was rational, and we were the scum many claim we are, we'd be gone by now. God seems to advocate pruning, and it's odd that the human race hasn't been. (Perhaps a flood, but that obviously didn't finish the job)

(10. I only get one go at this.....!)
We only know what we have proof of. Christ said, the way to salvation is through me. No other way.
(Does that sound fair or rational to you?)
Yes it does, I'll bet there have been many times in your life where someone has told you about God.

Personally, as an American, many times. This argument fails to adress that to be fair and rational EVERYONE would have to be told about god. Many people have died before learning to speak, many have lived completely isolated from the outside world before Christians covered the globe. Even if from this point on everyoe gets to hear the word, it doesn't change the fact that many never got the chance.

Perhaps you're reincarnated until you hear the word?

If you continue to think you are to intellegent or rational to accept God you may face the concequences.

I believe if God is intelligent, then he will see that any human that HE GIVES rationality to will automatically reject him UNTIL PROVIDED HARD EVIDENCE. For the rational man, there is no choice between a seemingly rational path (science) and another path that tells you how to do everything, but declines to provide hard evidence.

God knows the world is set up so that you get ahead through rationality. Given that rationality is the cornerstone of society, what other means should god use to approach us?

Hi, I'm god. Look, I'm making your car float. Now that we've established that I'm in charge, are you with me?

This approach would be fair. It's not an even choice at the fork in the road until there;s *proof* that the fork goes somewhere. If the more successfull people take the rational tack, and it's better worn (few people go to heaven) than an unbiased person who comes to the junction and sees a note that could have been left by any ordinary (or mischevious) traveller saying to go the non-intuitive way is likely to be ignored.

In other words, God is collecting those half of those people who decide things randomly, and is deliberately filtering out the intelligent. If god designed a system like this, knowing no one in their right mind would choose it, it would seem god doesn't *really* want us.

The crux is this. The main road has a fork, the left is seemingly the rest of the main road (it goes to h**l) and the rihgt is a small dirt trail. This trail is labeled christianity. It looks no ifferent to the rational person than the identical trails he runs across that read "Hinduism", "Shinto" and "Norse". If you're going to do something non-intuitive, why choose Christianity, there are many other non-intuitive choices. The only choice that can stand over all others (and be thus be fair) is the most logical choice vs everything else. If God is fair, he will do everything possible (inclding manifesting far more regularly) to make sure Christianity is the seemingly logical path. So Christianity says do as I say and got to heaven, don't and go to hell. My uncle howard told me the same thing last week about Religion X. My family has always believed in religion X, why should I move to Christianity which no one from my country believes?

FreezingWeasel, It's probably a good idea to give people a chance to post a reply before posting another huge effort. Apart from making you look like a fanatic, most of the points you are making will likely go unanswered.

I have one thing to say, as a biologist:

"Does anyone here SERIOUSLY think that all this happened by accident."

Hoovooloo said something "insightful" earlier on: '...But he makes the arrogant fundamental(ist) mistake of projection - "if I don't understand it, it cannot be understood".' This is also known as the argument from personal incredulousy. It basically says that "If I cannot imagine it, then it cannot be".

I also do not see why everything *must* have a reason, why must life have a reason? Do you SERIOUSLY think that when you look into the eyes of an ape or chimpanzee or look at the genes of a monkey, a banana, or a bacteria that these things are not related to us? Oh, please. Theories like evolution happen for a reason, to explain observable phenomenon. Evolution does a bloody good job and each time a person blatantly rejects it due to the pressure coming from their religious upbringing I am gobsmacked.

Creationism is superficially appealing. It is superficially intuitive ("man creates complex stuff, we are complex, therefore something must have created us"). But if you dig just a little deeper and think about it in the light of objective reality and science then it is deeply flawed.

I'm off to bed.

Ste

Hi Eggser!
I don't think you're quite getting my point. The Abrahamic God owns everything, that park, the trees, the grass, the sky, the people (yes even the scruffy skatboarders too ). If he also know all that is, was and shall be then where is this infamous 'free will'. It's an illusion, don't you see?
The concept of 'free will' was invented by a bunch of wily greeks at the Council of Nicaea, when all the three hundred or so 'divinely inspired' gospels and other books were traded about until only 66 were decided upon (ever wanted to see the Gospels of Thomas, Jude and Mary Magdalene?).
The problem that faced these early church leaders is that their creed demanded total submission to 'the word of god'. This wasn't entirely appealing to the masses. Thus they wrote in the concept of 'free will'. "Wasn't it nice of our God, the ultimately powerful creator, to give you chaps free will" is a much nicer sales pitch than the alternative. Hellfire and Brimstone doesn't attract punters, at least not the rich and powerful (i.e. useful to a small growing Church), but freedom of choice and the promise of paradise just might.

A separate question:
What is God really going to do with what Dante called 'the virtuous pagans'? Can you honestly tell me that he will sentence to Hell someone who has lived a good, blameless life, but just not accepted him? How will he deal with Mahatma Ghandhi on judgement day?
How about those who have never heard of him?
I think this God has got some explaining to do.

Blessings,
Matholwch the Apostate /|\.