Let me start off by saying that I hate religion more than anything. More humans have died in the name of religion than from any other cause, probably all others combined. The main problem with religion is that all religions (that I know of) teach their members that their religion is the only "true" one and all others are heathens and worshiping false gods. This fact creates the intolerance that we see today. I challenge anyone that reads this, that considers themself to be religious to ask yourself this; do you feel that your religion is the only "true" one and that all persons of another faith are heathenous infidels? If yes, then you are all guilty of the same mindset that causes radical muslims to suicide bomb and shooting hundreds of innocent children. The difference is that they are far more dedicated to their faith than you are, and are willing to die or kill over it.

Another thing that really confuses/scares me is this. The concept that we know as karma is based on actions that cause emotional responses in other people. You do a good deed that results in joy for another person and you get positive points. Do something bad that causes someone else pain and suffering and you get negative points. It seems to me that radical muslims have equated acts that produce the most possible negative karma with acts that glorify their God and produce advancement within the religious structure and in some cases, a direct one way ticket to heaven (or whatever its called in Islam).

It is also funny that most muslims think of the USA as being on a holy crusade to rid the world of Islam. They veiw it as a Christianity vs. Islam. Little do they know that we are about the least religious society on the face of the earth. If only the rest of the world could loosen the stranglehold that religion has over them. We would all be much better off.

Let me close by saying, religion is worthless mind pollution. Free your mind. Expand your consciousness. Learn more about science and one day everyone will realise there are better things than to sit at the side of some imaginary dude in some floaty utopia and worse things than burning in eternal flames. It would only hurt for about 10 seconds, then either you would go unconscious from the shock or you would get used to it. Its all bullshit mind control scare tactics.

Phelonius, retired leader of the Rivervale Mafia

first off! I concur

secondly! no argument here

Lastly! I must admit I agree with you completely.

you are a whiney chicken head

have you read anything, at all, about buddhism? christianity and islam are far from the only religions you know..

There's about 900,000,000 Hindus out there. That's slightly more than the 850,000,000 people who describe themselves as some sort of combination of Athiest/Agnostic/Secular.

Little do they know that we are about the least religious society on the face of the earth.

But your commander and chief isn't .. And it is him who represents your Nation.
Every time he goes public saying let us pray, may god be with us etc etc you put your Nation into a christian aura. And when it is him who attacks a Muslim nation you should be able to understand that they feel it as an attack on their religion.

And especially this Little do they know
You have to be aware that most people there have no TV, don't see everything that goes on in the world. All they see is their state television or hear their radio repeating the religious quotes from Bush. Now combine that with seeing their dead childeren, their holy places attacked and their houses searched by dogs and their women pushed around .. Add to that seeing how their people get treated and humiliated in the US prisons ...

I think it's pretty simple to understand how for them .. it's an attack on their religion.

Palimax, where'd you get that information? I poked around, but couldn't find any (unbiased) sources that had statistics about religious populations.

Relgious population world wide.

Click Here (http://www.adherents.com/Religions_By_Adherents.html)

Phelonious, your post is chock full of misinformation and falsehoods, have thought-out arguements and no real understanding of the history of man and religion.

More humans have died in the name of religion than from any other cause, probably all others combined. No, im sorry, that would be "Land". Followed closely by "Gold".

The main problem with religion is that all religions (that I know of) teach their members that their religion is the only "true" one and all others are heathens and worshiping false gods. This fact creates the intolerance that we see today Just factually untrue. Hinduism is a great example of a religion that believes that all religions are united in brotherhood and are essentially different versions of the same thing. Islam recognizes Christ as one of the great prophets. Very few religions ascribe to this philosophy nowerdays and their membership and influence dwindles on a daily basis.

This fact creates the intolerance that we see today. Oh god, such a narrow view. So many ways to argue this totally undeveloped point.
As a way of irony, why dont I let my friend Mr. Hobbes argue with a passage from his book detailing human nature "Leviathan" written in the 1600s.
Human Nature

Human beings are physical objects, according to Hobbes, sophisticated machines all of whose functions and activities can be described and explained in purely mechanistic terms. Even thought itself, therefore, must be understood as an instance of the physical operation of the human body. Sensation, for example, involves a series of mechanical processes operating within the human nervous system, by means of which the sensible features of material things produce ideas in the brains of the human beings who perceive them. (Leviathan I 1)

Human action is similarly to be explained on Hobbes's view. Specific desires and appetites arise in the human body and are experienced as discomforts or pains which must be overcome. Thus, each of us is motivated to act in such ways as we believe likely to relieve our discomfort, to preserve and promote our own well-being. (Leviathan I 6) Everything we choose to do is strictly determined by this natural inclination to relieve the physical pressures that impinge upon our bodies. Human volition is nothing but the determination of the will by the strongest present desire.

Hobbes nevertheless supposed that human agents are free in the sense that their activities are not under constraint from anyone else. On this compatibilist view, we have no reason to complain about the strict determination of the will so long as we are not subject to interference from outside ourselves. (Leviathan II 21)

As Hobbes acknowledged, this account of human nature emphasizes our animal nature, leaving each of us to live independently of everyone else, acting only in his or her own self-interest, without regard for others. This produces what he called the "state of war," a way of life that is certain to prove "solitary, poor, nasty, brutish, and short." (Leviathan I 13) The only escape is by entering into contracts with each other—mutually beneficial agreements to surrender our individual interests in order to achieve the advantages of security that only a social existence can provide
A well formulated and thought out reasoning of why humans engage in conflict and there is ZERO mention of religion. Why? Because Hobbes recognized that it is only ever a superficial context. The real and underlying causes rest in the nature of the human animal. One reason can be easily replaced with another.

If yes, then you are all guilty of the same mindset that causes radical muslims to suicide bomb and shooting hundreds of innocent children. The more you learn about the motives of Al-Queda the more you learn that it is a political ideology, not a religious one. Islam by nature is a personal and introspective religion. The ******d bent of the goals of the radical muslim are a perversion of the tenants of the religion they profess. The Islamic Jihadist is able to "compartmentalize" his faith and his actions. He accomplishes this with a Machiavellian belief that the ends will justify the means.
Look at a suicide bomber. Take any indepth profile and read it. The motivations are rarely religious ones.

Little do they know that we are about the least religious society on the face of the earth. If only the rest of the world could loosen the stranglehold that religion has over them. We would all be much better off. Just plain out wrong. Everything about us is woven into the fabric of religion. We as a nation are not non-religious. We ARE secular. There is a difference.
Much like Florence and the other Italian city states that gave birth to the brilliance of the Renaissance, we have a cosmopolitian viewpoint in our urban centers that allows to be grounded in our traditions while branching out to more varied and individually focused pursuits.
But make no mistake, this nation colonized by Europeans seeking religious freedom, its government draw up by men who ascribed to a definite and more enlightened viewpoint of the nature of God and man, recognized that Church and State should be seperate in order that both should be successful and fruitful to its citizens lives.
Your entire moral background is founded in the Judeo-Christian morality that is so all encompassing that your cant even see the forest for the trees. Life and death, good and evil. No can no more change the influence that religion has on you than you can change your genetic makeup. It has been ingrained and reinforced for your entire life.
Lenin and Stalin tried to create a civilization free of religion, they failed. Once the tradition has root, it can only be incorperated. People dont WANT to have relgion removed from their lives, they want to be free to be able to approach it in the manner that they choose.

Free your mind. Expand your consciousness. Learn more about science and one day everyone will realise there are better things than to sit at the side of some imaginary dude in some floaty utopia and worse things than burning in eternal flames. Heh.
How about we look at the work of Michelangelo, one of the most brilliant men to have ever lived. An artist gifted with talent and insight that no artist since has been able to touch, yet inherent in his art is amazing insight, philosophy and struggle that when taken in scope is nothing short of amazing.
Take for example the centerpiece of his painting of the Sistine Chapel.
http://www.edgallardo.com/michada1.gif
There are several core points that need looking at.
First. Why is Man bigger than God? Physically, he is larger in body and looks more powerful. Nothing Michelangelo did was an accident. As a sculptor he has an amazing control of his art and his vision, to take massive block of marble and create the Pieta or David, he took this intellectual discipline when creating the ceiling of the Sistine Chapel. Everything has meaning, purpose and intentionality. So why is God smaller than Adam? Whats he trying to say?
Next. look at the shape that God approaches Adam in? Look familar?
http://neuroeconomics.econ.umn.edu/brain.jpg

http://www.thecaveonline.com/APEH/Michel.sistine.psych.gif

So on the ceiling of the Sistine Chapel we have God in the shape of the Human Brain? What is this message? Hold on that.

Next look at contact between the two figures.. God is stretching out, reaching, trying, while man sits idly back, almost uncaring, nonchalant.

Take the these 3 things and put them into context. We know that Michelangelo has a deep belief in God, but it was a new kind of faith. We know that men of that era were taking their faith in new directions, new places. One of the tools that they used was the study of the Kabbalah.
One of the primary messages in the Kabbalah is that the human brain is the primary instrument for communion with God.
Is the Human mind a useless tool when it comes to contact with God?
Are we adopting the view that the mind is a useless tool when it comes to contact with God? Or that communion with God is but a transcendental, emotional state of self-negation and acceptance?

No. It cannot be that the human mind -- our most important and God-like organ -- has no purpose in our attempt to communicate with our Creator

Take all three examples of symbolism and consider them together and you have a profound statement of faith and belief from one of the greatest minds to have ever existed. On the ceiling of the Sistine Chapel, in the center of the Vatican, under the nose of the Pope, we have a powerful re-examination of what religion is and how it is a personal quest and struggle of each individual man. God is man and Man is god. The two are entwined together and man can ONLY achieve any understanding of faith and and the nature of God by a intense lifetime of individual introspection and self discovery.


So in conclusion. There are more things, Phelonious, than are dreamed of in your philosophy.

Pwned!

Thats great LL. Glad to see you are so faithful. Otherwise, Phel's opinion, has some merit. It might be said that religion is the most common excuse given for the taking of human lives, since who is to question a leader who has a vision from God that commands that leader to raise armies (even when that leader just wants more land and riches?).Thanks to mainly Christianity and Islam...and who knows how many other beliefs from the more distant past that pre-date them both, countless people have died or should I say murdered.

Whether or not it was killing done under the guise of religion when the true nature of the conquest was conquest alone or if it was just gross missinterpretation of the Koran or the Bible, who is to say. Still, such events as the Crusades and the Holocost occured and the cries of Jihad by radical muslims that occur today. Nothing is more dangerous a weapon than a religious zealot with his or her sites focused on nothing more but atainment of the Afterlife, since its now a case of no respect for even their own life, let alone the lives of others. All cast a questionable light upon organized religion, and leave the more moderate members of "the flock" having to rationalize why such events could occur and how to prevent such events from occuring again.

'More humans have died in the name of religion than from any other cause, probably all others combined.'

- I used to use the same argument always, until LL pwned me in saying "You can fight a war over a piece of cake".
Sort of puts it in to perspective.

It's not religion that's the problem, it's some of the nuts that practice it.

Heh some guys here are so off its not funny. The thing is religion in itself isn't a bad thing so why are there so many problems? well a few things.

Religions are men creation there are in no way god creation, they were created to control people more easily ( see greek/roman empire and even egypt before). Its extremely obvious during middle age when they launch crusades in order to get land/gold under the name of god.

So I m going to agree with phelonius here, believing in god is fine, religions are the cancer of humanity. I have problems to think that people that actually studied history and just cultures in general could think that eating fish friday, going to church on sunday, praying 3x a day on a carpet or eating in a special way ( which at the base was created to avoid diseases and force people to apply it, its totally useless these days) will change anything once they die.

So in the end I ll ask one question I have never found the answer for ( after 15 years of christian education) which is mostly why I think religions are a load of bullshit:

If god is love and peace and he takes care of us so much. How do you explain the 2 following things:

1) why now that science can actually explain things there are next to 0 miracles

2) if god love us so much why does he let thousand of people die, get raped, priests doing all that crappy stuff on kids. Hostages beeing executed, civilian bombed etc. Before you try to put up the arguement of "free will". I d like to remind you that the 12 year old kid that explode into piece when one of your f18 bomb misstarget and explode in a house had 0 freewill.

2) if god love us so much why does he let thousand of people die, get raped, priests doing all that crappy stuff on kids. Hostages beeing executed, civilian bombed etc. Before you try to put up the arguement of "free will". I d like to remind you that the 12 year old kid that explode into piece when one of your f18 bomb misstarget and explode in a house had 0 freewill.

*stereotypical droning* Because God works in mysterious ways!

Very good post L2. I like new information from intelligent people. Kinu,here is my theory for your #2. The rapture has already occured and we are living in the "hell" as described in the revelations. Famine, war, plague, fire and brimstone etc, we are already living in hell on earth. Second, here is another question/philosophy to bash your local priest with. God created Everything . Not just the good stuff. He created the concept of sin. He created Satan. He created all the mechanisms by which humans harm each other. He is all powerful and omniscient. He intentionally created all things. Nothing was an accident or consequential. He is totally responsible for all things in the universe good and bad. So, do you believe that an all powerful God would do something like that, or do you belive that our existance is merely a scientific anomaly in the universe that is completely controlled by the forces of nature, science and evolution.

Phelonius

Second, here is another question/philosophy to bash your local priest with. God created Everything.
Yup, he did. He created light, but he didn't create darkness. Evil and darkness are not "things" to be created. Darkness is simply the absense of light, just as evil is the absense of God.

Your statement would be better said :

Religious institutions are one of the scourges of humanity.

Never thought I'd say this but... I'm with Crist0.

When you try to make a statement along the lines of, "most wars begin with religion," you're showing a very heavy Western bias. Yep, sorry to Western Europe, you all get grouped in with us here in America on this one.

For most Western countries, there is some existing idea of the sepparation of curch and state. Outside of the Western world, it's almost the opposite - in many Middle East countries the ties between -organized religion- as a political force and the ruling power of the countries are almost nondistinquishable. Remember the Taliban? Here you have a religious group in power whos motivations are polically run. So why do Islamic groups view the US as an enemy to the Muslim state? Because they have the exact opposite bias we do, and have a difficulty relating to a culture where a religious group does not completely control the government. The degree to which the US is or is not controlled by religious groups is up for debate in another thread. :)

You post shows an INCREDIBLE Western bias, looking at religion from largely a Christian viewpoint (look at your last paragraph - your views of the afterlife are Christian centered).

You have the concept of Karma completely wrong. Karma is typically better described as "cosmic dust" you are created with. As you go through various lifetimes certain actions and enlightenments allow you to brush off some of this dust, becoming less encumbered as you progress through lifetimes until you achieve release from the earthly realms. Sorta, it's more complicated than that.

Also, many religions accept other groups. Reference specifically Buddhism and Baha'i. Not every religion is exclusive....however....read on!

There is also this weeny wishy washy attitude that arrived with the ideals associated with postmodernism that goes along the lines that no one person can ever tell someone their beliefs are wrong. Or to put it another way, no one set of values can ever be completely right, and everyone is entitled to their opinion. The result of this is that people have begun to come with notions that believing your religion is the one true one and others are false is a bad idea. So....why bother believing it? If you can't say that your religion is the one true one, then what's the point?

The post has a Western bias mostly because Eastern faiths do not seem to encourage murdering other human beings. Eastern faiths also have more to do with Humanity's interactions with surroundings and honor to ancestry where as Western faiths (Islam included) tend to be more focused on adherance to words of prophesy and the rules of scripture.

Western faiths you have to prove yourself worthy of the afterlife or face the FEAR* of eternal damnation. Eastern faiths tend to suggest that you are already in a state of elightenment. All you have to do is maintain and respect that state and you are as they say...good to go. That is so much more of a better deal IMHO, as it grants so much ease of spirit where as Westerners have to spend a lifetime of devotion, praying and going to church etc etc and living in total fear that they might not have done what it takes to get a good seat before dying.

* Key word here. The basis of all Western religions is that unlying fear of the Great Unknown that is death, and the fear of screwing up in life and having to face an afterlife of suffering.

The big difference between East and West is that people in the Far East don't use faith as an excuse to kill shitloads of people. They find other excuses that tend to make more logical sense, such as "Our army can kick your armies ass, and we want that land you have over there with the nice fertile fields".

Only reason I point out the bias is he seems to be game to lump all religions into one category, and a somewhat narrow viewpoint.

I would consider Hinduism and several of the eastern religious/philosophies to include a fear of death/the unknown. In many ways they center around how to deal with existance once a mortal life has ended.

Many sects of Christianity do not require that someone prove themselves worthy, either. That's probably one of the biggest divisions in American sects at least - whether you go to heaven through works or faith alone. Many groups say faith alone, and that the individual only needs to believe and submit themselves to God's will.

On a side note, I would suggest that the groups who believe in work-based redemption are most likely the ones associated with causing problems. Some groups have an almost quota like requirement for recruiting new members - either door to door, or raise an army and kick your army's tail.

You know I almost posted on this thread, but then I realized that no matter how I worded my response I'd still be verbally kicking someone out there in the nuts.


Here's an idea. Religon is like your opinion. If it's asked for, give it. Otherwise keep it to yourself. We as a race seem to have made it our lifes work to ram our thoughts and ideas down other peoples throats. If we spent more time looking after our own instead of poking our noses where it doesn't belong, I think the world would be a better place.

From Phelonius:
Little do they know that we are about the least religious society on the face of the earth. If only the rest of the world could loosen the stranglehold that religion has over them. We would all be much better off. You need to qualify this statement several times over. The US cultural expression of religious views is dimmed by the separation of church and state, but religion is a powerful political force that consistently seeks to exert itself upon our culture and policy. Europe is, comparatively, far more secular; the religions of the Far East hardly strangle their people or governments; and it is in the Middle East where church and state are inseparable. Islam infuses all aspects of personal and civil life.

From akipt:
Yup, he did. He created light, but he didn't create darkness. Evil and darkness are not "things" to be created. Darkness is simply the absense of light, just as evil is the absense of God. I've never found this to be a particularly effective argument, since it seems to propose that there are places where God is not, that is, where God has no sway or dominion; this seems necessarily untrue given claims made of God. If God created Satan, and Satan brings about evil, then God is manifestly responsible for Evil. If God can bring light into darkness but does not do so, then it is responsible for the darkness' continued existence. The ambiguity of the terms doesn't help make the case for this argument either.

And, of course, if The Darkness releases any more singles in the US, God is responsible for that, too, and is clearly the epitome of Evil.

Kanyli:
Many sects of Christianity do not require that someone prove themselves worthy, either. That's probably one of the biggest divisions in American sects at least - whether you go to heaven through works or faith alone. Many groups say faith alone, and that the individual only needs to believe and submit themselves to God's will. This distinction is particularly salient in demarcating Catholicism and Protestantism. The latter strongly emphasizes personal faith rather than works, and any scripture that places primacy on works (such as in James, a book Martin Luther abhorred) is interpreted instead as adducing works as a lesser component of religious devotion. Protestantism gives a nod to works, but one must have faith to truly "prove themselves worthy."

Lastly, L2's view absolves religion of wrongdoing in the wars of mankind, but this strikes me as being as extreme -- and egregious -- as blaming religion for all conflicts. Many or most religions provide plenty of justification for making war on others, or -- clearly -- not enough reasons not to do so. The latter point strikes me as especially problematic, but paves the way for lengthier argumentation that I'll save for another post.

I don't often share my religious view cause it stems too many arguments. But i would like to give my opinion on the common "if god exsists how come bad things happen" comment.

Basically, God gave us free will. The ability to choose to beleive/follow/have faith in him. With that comes the free will to act outside of his "rules". "Bad" things happen when people take their free will and choose not to believe and follow what he shows.

There are hundreads of religions out there but strip down the basics and many of them end with: "Do unto others as you would have others do unto you" the Golden Rule. Christianity, this is known as the great commandment and is found in the new testament, granted its worded different'

So basically the bad things that happen is from people choosing to not follow God ( Allah, Buddah cause none of them preech violence) and the "evil" that exsist in us all is allowed to influence us more than the good (accented by faith) influences us.

There are some problems with that argument, however.

Free will seems to favor transgressors. The 9/11 victims, for instance, had no opportunity to use their "free will" to escape their fates. It's not difficult to imagine ways that a god could interfere with the execution of transgressions without actually impinging on the free will of the transgressors.

More importantly, this explanation only accounts for acts of moral evil. It does not take into account "natural" evils such as hurricanes, plagues and the like. Is ebola really a necessary component of "God's plan?"

Lastly, the idea of free will isn't really explored in the bible. Some books assume it, while others seem to suggest that things like salvation are out of man's hands. Indeed, it seems impossible for there to be free will in a universe created by an omnisicient god, for at the moment of creation, divine foreknowledge charts the course for that creation (not to mention that we are repeatedly told that God has a "plan" for it all, which suggests inescapable eventualities).

The logical conclusion of this line of reasoning is that the Christian god (through the oft-ascribed qualities of omniscience and timelessnses) already possesses the intimate experience of whatever company is ultimately due to end up in Heaven.

Basically, God gave us free will. The ability to choose to beleive/follow/have faith in him. With that comes the free will to act outside of his "rules". "Bad" things happen when people take their free will and choose not to believe and follow what he shows.
Since you said God, I'm assuming you mean the traditional holy trinity type God. If so, how does your theory explain something like Job? He supposedly got screwed for trying to do the right thing, no? If there is a God, he's obviously a sadistic fuck.

I am curious of the original posters' attitude toward the followers of Michael Valentine Smith.......


.....but then, I am not sure he Groks the simplicity.

If so, how does your theory explain something like Job? He supposedly got screwed for trying to do the right thing, no?
Are you asking or telling? When was the last time you read the book of Job for yourself?

Determining God is a "sadistic fuck" without even knowing the barest details of the story is a weak argument at best.

I grew up Southern Baptist and went to private Christian schools until 11th grade. Your assumptions about my background and/or religious knowledge are probably very far from reality.

And yes, that was a question. Hence the question mark. Maybe I'm wrong. If so, educate me. If ad homium is all you've got, you're not exactly blowing me away.

I'm not here to educate you. I have my own doubts and issues when it comes to what God's message really is. But when you make statements...pardon me, ask questions like:

He supposedly got screwed for trying to do the right thing, no?
I do have to wonder how long, if ever, its been since you read Job. Whether the story is an historical account or a parable is for others to debate but Job doesn't "get screwed" for doing the right thing.

And I didn't have to assume anything about your background. Thanks for the info though, it looks like you didn't pay much attention in those private christian schools your parents sent you to. I recommend you refund them the money they spent on your tuition.

How's that for ad hominem. :)

But make no mistake, this nation colonized by Europeans seeking religious freedom



I imagine you are talking about the English settlers who broke away from the Church of England and settled in what is now Massachusetts. I think history shows quite clearly that they did not want religious freedom- they wanted to found a country where their views would be the “right and only” views and their way would be the “right and only” way. They wanted the freedom to practice their views-



They couldn’t get that in England, because they didn’t have the power to force the change. They didn’t get that in Holland, either- but at least they didn’t have the Church of England on their ass.



Feed the “seeking religious freedom” crap to the first graders- or at least say “they fled persecution” That is only a small part of the story- the real reasons are social, economic and religious- and have very little to do with “religious freedom” and more to do with “religious control”.



Dig up a copy of some of the early laws the Puritans wrote. Mandatory attendance at the community church, mandatory taxation to the church (or should I call it a tithe?), moderation of views, a lack of separation between church and state- the list goes on and on, and very little has to do with “freedom”.



Want sources? Find them yourself- but you’ll have to dig through a lot of the mythology. The best place to go are the old Massachusetts laws themselves.

Mukaz, your argument's just as weak as you're claiming Sanchek's is. You need to justify your statements, as does he. It's not difficult to cite your sources...

I'm not here to educate you. I have my own doubts and issues when it comes to what God's message really is. But when you make statements...pardon me, ask questions like:

I do have to wonder how long, if ever, its been since you read Job. Whether the story is an historical account or a parable is for others to debate but Job doesn't "get screwed" for doing the right thing.

And I didn't have to assume anything about your background. Thanks for the info though, it looks like you didn't pay much attention in those private christian schools your parents sent you to. I recommend you refund them the money they spent on your tuition.
I know that in the end he got his payback, if that's what you're referring to. My point still remains.

Greystone said that he believes that bad things happen to people when they choose not to follow God's path for them. In light of that, I just find it kind of funny that there's this guy described in the Bible as being "a perfect and upright man", yet God decides to reward him by fucking around with him. That's the kind of stuff I'd expect from girls in middle school, not a supposedly perfect, benevolent God. Seriously. That's absurd.

So yeah, I did pay plenty of attention. I remember thinking then what a screwed up story that was then, and I haven't changed my mind. Thanks for being so concerned with my educational investment though. I'm touched.

I notice you still haven't actually provided any argument, opinion, or contribution of your own to the thread. I have now decided that the only thing worse than message board grammar Nazis are message board Bible verse Nazis. :(

Seriously.

Sentence fragment!

OH NO! Might God verily smiteth mine grammar down into ye olde lake of fire.

I always say that there is a huge difference between having faith in the all mighty and being religious.

Also the main problem here is not religion but the lack of tolerance.

There is this old phrase, "the fear of God". I, as a human know that fear is one of several very unpleasant emotions that the mind is capable of producing. For God so loved the world that he put the fear of eternal fire in them to keep them in line? People who support God need to accept the fact that "God created everything" means everything. If God only created light and darkness is the absence of light, that implies that either darkness existed before God and God is not absolute, or that there is something more fundamental than God. Don't be scared friends, I have the answer, It's called Physics :D

Phelonius

Gammer stopped counting when they put words and phrases such as "Ain't", "Bling Bling" and "For shizzle My Nizzle" in the dictionary.

Religion breeds Ignorance.

Don't be scared friends, I have the answer, It's called Physics Where's love and fear fit into the study of physics again? I must've missed that day of class.

Hrm, this'll be hard to type, after Shinpoker's deep post. I mean, how can I follow that up? (Just teasin', breathe easy :D ).

I don't pretend to understand the book of Job, but since it was brought up I can attempt to explain it a bit maybe?

Remember that for a Chirstian existance in this world is temporary and brief. The real rewards lie in heaven, namely in a relationship with God (hell being separation from God). Taken at the literal level, Job is the story of Satan testing the faith of one of God's followers. In the course of the book everything Job has is destroyed or taken from him, and his neighbors turn away from him. In the end however, because he remained faithful to God, he is rewarded with far more than he started with on the earthly level.

There's a bit more to it of course, but that's the short and sweet.

Now, the real kicker - no matter how vile or terrible life may be here, for the Christian mindset a fellowship with God, especially one that grows after death on this world, is worth anything. There are suggestions that the pain we experience now is only brief and fleeting, compared to the joys of the afterlife. Sort of an exercise in relative viewpoints.

As far as good people versus bad people - when compared to a God assumed to be pure and holy, would you even be able to tell the difference between two people?

Thormirr - interesting post about the distiction of works based vs. faith based being a Protestant/Catholic split. I was only thinking in terms of Protestant sects - groups like the International Church of Christ came to mind as focused on works. Or the Mormons, as well, but thats a whole different thread.

That time of year again? Guess I'll go post an anti-gay people thread too. Someone want to cover nerfing jboots in the General section? Oh, and we need a "Fuck RiP those fucking rim jobbers" thread too.

Oh and the main theme of Protestantism seems to be faith, which is as best I can recall loosely defined as Belief in the face of doubt, and since it would be pretty much impossible to doubt God's word if we could do no wrong (This is assuming that there was no such thing as evil and that Christianity, particularily Lutherans, are right) that would pretty much fuck up the whole faith thing.

But I'm hardly a theologian. I mean, if God gave us free will such that Adam could commit original Sin...then what the fuck is going to stop us from doing it again after the second coming? I mean, I imagine it'll have something to do with us losing the knowledge of how to commit evil and that Satan will be defeated...but wouldn't that make our worship hollow and empty?

Ah well. I'm sure I'm missing out on alot of points. It's been far too long since I've done any studying of the Bible and unfortunately, most lutheran schools are unfortunately more intent on trying to drill doctrine into the Children rather then explore it.

What I get a kick out of is how all the scriptures and writings were compiled by men, then said to be the word of God.

Am I saying they are false? Not necessarily, but more like half truths.

Think about it. Over the last 2000 years (this is the New Testament, not even gonna get started on the Old Testament), the Christian Bible has been translated over and over again, has had various books added or deleted, and has been tailored to various off shoots of Christianity. What am I getting at?
Basically what we are holding is what other men (because at that time it was the men that made the decisions, sorry ladies :( ) had decided was right for the Christian population. We could be holding a totally different book then what existed 2000 years ago (if anything even existed then).

Believe it or not, it was Servant of the Bones by Anne Rice that sort of got me thinking. I mean, here's this spiritual body that can manifest itself physically for various periods of time. He's been around since the Hebrew's were in Babylon. He picks up the Bible and starts reading and then starts asking questions about all the missing pages. Yes it's fiction, but it makes you think, is there something missing? Who knows? Who can say no?

Hehe, this stuff makes my head hurt. It's times like this that I like to think about the episode of Red Dwarf where they found the missing first page of the first bible. It started something like this...

"All persons in this book are fictitious and are not meant to represent any persons in real life.......etc, etc"

Genius, pure genius :D

Outdated argument from the '70's, Binuven. At one time that was a major criticism of Christianity, but textual analysis of ancient texts have shown it's a weak argument and that the text we have now hasn't changed a great deal.

Think Dead Sea Scrolls, as a minor example.

I'm going off my memory here - I can pull up sources after work if you really want - but out of the New Testament's 15,000 someodd changes the large majority are minor editing differences that don't affect doctrine (subjective, yes I know). I can think of a few passages known to be added at the time of the King James Bible, but they are drawn from other sections of the Bible and appear to be added to clarify the places they were put into. Granted, no one should be adding material to something like a religious book, but at least the changes have been incredibly minor.

Outdated argument from the '70's, Binuven. At one time that was a major criticism of Christianity, but textual analysis of ancient texts have shown it's a weak argument and that the text we have now hasn't changed a great deal. If you're discussing the full history of biblical texts, then this is not true at all. Binuven is correct that books have come and gone from the canon. The original process came to an end with Jerome and Augustine of Hippo in the early 5th century, but was never ratified by a pope until 1443 AD (when scholars were starting to question the authenticity of certain books). The formation of the canon even over those first few centuries was a byzantine process wherein books often won acceptance into canon simply due to popularity and widespread use (e.g., Jude) and were excluded due to lack of popularity (e.g., Enoch, which Jude cites) or lack of political support from the winning church.
Think Dead Sea Scrolls, as a minor example. The DSS do demonstrate differences from canonical texts however, particularly in Jeremiah and (I've heard) Samuel, due to authors showing a preference for one tradition over another (some prefer the Masoretic, some the tradition behind the Septuagint). This isn't an area I've studied much, so can't provide any more than that offhand.
I'm going off my memory here - I can pull up sources after work if you really want - but out of the New Testament's 15,000 someodd changes the large majority are minor editing differences that don't affect doctrine (subjective, yes I know). The New Testament (not a terribly large set of books) has over 1,000 passages with so many variants among the earliest copies that scholars cannot say with confidence just what the original meaning may be. 1 Timothy alone has 19 such passages, rendering 14% of that book open to question. Many of these differences cannot be attributed to scribal errors, but represent significant alterations made to the text. As another example, Mark 16: 9-20 (the "Marcan Appendix" or "pseudo-Mark") is almost universally held by scholars to be a later addition to the text.

Many differences are anything but minor and are a primary reason for the proliferation of translations which we see today.

Mukaz, your argument's just as weak as you're claiming Sanchek's is. You need to justify your statements, as does he. It's not difficult to cite your sources...
I don't need to justify anything as I'm not trying to convince anyone what I'm saying is the, pardon the pun, gospel truth. Sanchek is misrepresenting the story of Job and anyone who wants to can pick up the bible in any translation in their language of choice and get the relevant details.

Sanchek is already backtracking by now graciously admitting that God gave back to Job all that had been taken away and more. Something he conveniently forgot to mention when he was calling God a sadistic fuck.

God didn't fuck with Job. God removed his protection from Job. First from his possessions and family, then from Job's physical body. Lucifer could have left Job alone but chose not to.

Here though: http://bible.gospelcom.net/cgi-bin/bible?passage=JOB+1&language=english&version=NIV

Read it for yourself.

I make no claim that this is a factual account of historical events nor will I assert it is simply a parable meant to illustrate a particular teaching. That is a decision left to each individual to make in their search for truth.

Greystone said that he believes that bad things happen to people when they choose not to follow God's path for them. In light of that, I just find it kind of funny that there's this guy described in the Bible as being "a perfect and upright man", yet God decides to reward him by fucking around with him. That's the kind of stuff I'd expect from girls in middle school, not a supposedly perfect, benevolent God. Seriously. That's absurd.
It wasn't God and you obviously need to reread the book of Job. Seriously.

I notice you still haven't actually provided any argument, opinion, or contribution of your own to the thread. I have now decided that the only thing worse than message board grammar Nazis are message board Bible verse Nazis. :(
The act of posting, even if you view it as a negative comment, is contributing to the thread. Everyone here is welcome to decide for themselves the value of that contribution however and respond accordingly.

Sanchek is already backtracking by now graciously admitting that God gave back to Job all that had been taken away and more. Something he conveniently forgot to mention when he was calling God a sadistic fuck. Not quite right. God didn't return Job's original children -- seven sons and three daughters -- to him. Job had later children, but to prove his almighty point, God allowed his original children to die (Job 1:19). Not only do livestock also die, but so do the servants (in 1:16, where the "fire of God" falls from Heavan to consume them). "Sadistic fuck" may be extreme wording, but it can be reasonably applied, all things considered.
God didn't fuck with Job. God removed his protection from Job. "I didn't hurt that person, judge. I just released my pit bull in the yard with him. It was the dog, your honor; I had nothing to do with it." An entirely specious argument.

I don't consider this tale to be factual. To me, it's just one of many moralistic fables from the Old Testament, but to some it (and the rest of the bible) is precise history. And it seems rather sadistic to me.

It wasn't God and you obviously need to reread the book of Job. Seriously.

God didn't fuck with Job. God removed his protection from Job. First from his possessions and family, then from Job's physical body. Lucifer could have left Job alone but chose not to.
I actually did break out my dusty old Bible and reread it yesterday. This NIV stuff is like kiddie cliff notes, but using the version you linked:
The LORD said to Satan, "Very well, then, everything he has is in your hands
He's basically daring the devil to go fuck with Job. God was even the one that brought Job into the picture. HE was the one that pointed Job out to the devil, right off the bat. Here, let me draw a bullseye on this guy and then bet you that you can't shoot him, but I'm benevolent and great because I didn't physically pull the trigger? Uh, right.

Just because he doesn't do it himself doesn't make him any less a sadistic fuck for using Job as a pawn to basically stroke his ego at the devil.
The act of posting, even if you view it as a negative comment, is contributing to the thread. Everyone here is welcome to decide for themselves the value of that contribution however and respond accordingly.
Sorry, let me be more specific then. If you're going to call me out for supposedly not knowing what I'm talking about, you're going to have to give more reason than just saying so. Otherwise, your comment isn't backed up any more than the one you're trying to discredit. Hypocrite much?

So, now I've backed it up for you with a quote from your chosen translation of the source. I stand by my original comment, and have explained it clearly enough for anyone to understand. I'm not misrepresenting anything. I'm certainly not "backtracking".

At least my comment was relevant to the thread, instead of just being 101 different ways to say "not what Sanchek said" without providing any real opinion of your own.

I don't pretend to understand the book of Job, but since it was brought up I can attempt to explain it a bit maybe?

Probably should have noted that it was Jewish(old testament) based instead of Christian.

Not quite right. God didn't return Job's original children -- seven sons and three daughters -- to him. Job had later children, but to prove his almighty point, God allowed his original children to die (Job 1:19). Not only do livestock also die, but so do the servants (in 1:16, where the "fire of God" falls from Heavan to consume them). "Sadistic fuck" may be extreme wording, but it can be reasonably applied, all things considered.
God allowing Job's original children to die is a non-issue within the framework of the judeo-christian belief system. Job's children either followed their father's example and lived righteously and thus he would be reunited with him in God's presence at some point in the future or they failed to follow his example and would receive punishment in accordance with the covenant God made with the Jews. Job might at some point have suffered some guilt if his children died in sin and were damned but that would be conjecture on my part to assert that as fact.

Accepting that Lucifer is the source of the destruction of Job's family, possessions and servants the phrase "fire of God" becomes a failure of translation or the inability of the author to convey what he wants to say precisely. This is a perfect example of why rational believers can't accept the bible in its entirety as factual and literal document.

[QUOTE=Thormir]"I didn't hurt that person, judge. I just released my pit bull in the yard with him. It was the dog, your honor; I had nothing to do with it." An entirely specious argument.[QUOTE]

I don't think your analogy is particularly apt in this instance. God, if He exists, as the creator of all things is the final authority. He isn't required to justify His actions nor is He required to explain every reason He has for taking a particular action.

This situation is more similar to a network administrator removing a firewall from one of his servers. A disgruntled employee, knowing of the vulnerability, takes advantage of the situation and wreaks havoc on that particular server. The employee didn't have to do so but he did anyway.

This situation is more similar to a network administrator removing a firewall from one of his servers. A disgruntled employee, knowing of the vulnerability, takes advantage of the situation and wreaks havoc on that particular server. The employee didn't have to do so but he did anyway.
That analogy works, IF you also say that the network admin emails the disgruntled employee and dares him to break into the server.

Laying all the blame on the perp and none on the instigator is pretty damn short sighted. You can be sure no sane company would continue to employ that network admin after that.

This situation is more similar to a network administrator removing a firewall from one of his servers. A disgruntled employee, knowing of the vulnerability, takes advantage of the situation and wreaks havoc on that particular server. The employee didn't have to do so but he did anyway.

And you can bet your ass that both the disgruntled employee and network administrator would be jobless after the incident. Analogies are the true evil here, folks.

You guys can argue all day, but you're never going to reach a reasonable conclusion. Too much of this argument relies perception and interpretation, two things that make for poor playing fields.

God allowing Job's original children to die is a non-issue within the framework of the judeo-christian belief system.What we're talking about is whether this god was "sadistic" or not, not how this pertains to belief systems of the afterlife. In human terms, given the conditions noted above, I'd say that term can legitimately apply in the book of Job.
Accepting that Lucifer is the source of the destruction of Job's family, possessions and servants the phrase "fire of God" becomes a failure of translation or the inability of the author to convey what he wants to say precisely.So the writer of the book didn't mean what he wrote? In any case, it doesn't matter. God paints the target on Job's chest and tells Satan to have his way with him. God is fullyresponsible for what happens to Job, being the final arbiter. Satan is the gun, but God is pulling the trigger.
This is a perfect example of why rational believers can't accept the bible in its entirety as factual and literal document.Actually, it's a mediocre example. There is plenty else wrong with the bible that prompts even believers to disavow it as a historical document.
, if He exists, as the creator of all things is the final authority. He isn't required to justify His actions nor is He required to explain every reason He has for taking a particular action.Thus, the Judeo-Christian worldview is morally bankrupt. If the system's deity can decide that inflicting harm and murder is "good," then good and evil are simply arbitrary at the whim of the deity. This sort of anything goes mentality is more akin to the criminally insane than the general conception of omni-benevolent entities.

I actually did break out my dusty old Bible and reread it yesterday. This NIV stuff is like kiddie cliff notes, but using the version you linked: We can go with King James if you like but I thought NIV would be better for those not particulary inclined work their way through the thees and thous.

He's basically daring the devil to go fuck with Job. God was even the one that brought Job into the picture. HE was the one that pointed Job out to the devil, right off the bat. Here, let me draw a bullseye on this guy and then bet you that you can't shoot him, but I'm benevolent and great because I didn't physically pull the trigger? Uh, right.
Now we're talking about differences in interpretation of the event. Quoting the passage in context we get:

8 Then the LORD said to Satan, "Have you considered my servant Job? There is no one on earth like him; he is blameless and upright, a man who fears God and shuns evil."
9 "Does Job fear God for nothing?" Satan replied. 10 "Have you not put a hedge around him and his household and everything he has? You have blessed the work of his hands, so that his flocks and herds are spread throughout the land. 11 But stretch out your hand and strike everything he has, and he will surely curse you to your face."
12 The LORD said to Satan, "Very well, then, everything he has is in your hands, but on the man himself do not lay a finger."
Then Satan went out from the presence of the LORD .

Lucifer asserts that the only reason Job is righteous is because God protects him from all harm. God, bound by His covenant with the Jews, can't just take everything from Job Himself.

But He can lessen the degree to which is protecting Job and does so leaving Job vulnerable to loss. God doesn't command Lucifer to then inflict harm on Job's family however and He does limit the scope of Lucifer's power over Job.

Sorry, let me be more specific then. If you're going to call me out for supposedly not knowing what I'm talking about, you're going to have to give more reason than just saying so. Otherwise, your comment isn't backed up any more than the one you're trying to discredit. Hypocrite much?
My original reply had as much fact and content to it as your original assertion. The onus of proof isn't on me, its on you. Let's recap a bit, shall we?

you said:

He supposedly got screwed for trying to do the right thing, no?
If that is a legitimate question, as you would have had me believe early on, then when you first posted it you had very little idea of the actual story of Job and now are trying to cover up that lack of knowledge with references to your southern baptist upbringing, christian education and out of context quotes from the bible.

If it is a rhetorical question then its not a question at all, but a statement couched in question form intending to lead the reader to agree with your interpretation without any discussion of the topic in question as it assumes everyone already agrees with you.

I know its fashionable in our "freedom from religion" society of today to try and label believers hypocrites for the slightest of reasons but doubt I meet the standard here.

So, now I've backed it up for you with a quote from your chosen translation of the source. I stand by my original comment, and have explained it clearly enough for anyone to understand. I'm not misrepresenting anything. I'm certainly not "backtracking".

At least my comment was relevant to the thread, instead of just being 101 different ways to say "not what Sanchek said" without providing any real opinion of your own.
My comment was relevant however much you want to deny it. You were either ignorant of the story of Job or trying to assert your interpretation as fact neither of which sits very well with me and I said as much.

edit: quote formatting > me :(

Actually, it's a mediocre example. There is plenty else wrong with the bible that prompts even believers to disavow it as a historical document.
I agree completely and I've said as much in the past. That doesn't affect my belief that God's message can be found in the bible and other spiritual writings.

Thus, the Judeo-Christian worldview is morally bankrupt. If the system's deity can decide that inflicting harm and murder is "good," then good and evil are simply arbitrary at the whim of the deity. This sort of anything goes mentality is more akin to the criminally insane than the general conception of omni-benevolent entities.
The Judeo-Christian God is not omni-benevolent. If He were there would be no hell, no punishment for sin. There would be no sin at all and no need for forgiveness. And because I believe this I'm labeled a heretic by christians.

God is benevolent to those who exercise their free will, choose to follow Him and seek to do His will.

But He can lessen the degree to which is protecting Job and does so leaving Job vulnerable to loss. God doesn't command Lucifer to then inflict harm on Job's family however and He does limit the scope of Lucifer's power over Job.Come now, God isn't going into this arrangement ignorant of the results. He knows precisely the kinds of things that Satan will do and is complicit in the torment inflicted on Job and the deaths of Job's children (who, apparently, aren't covered under the covenant's health care plan). This in no way requires interpretation: God has Satan torment Job in order to test Job's faith.
The Judeo-Christian God is not omni-benevolent. If He were there would be no hell, no punishment for sin. There would be no sin at all and no need for forgiveness. And because I believe this I'm labeled a heretic by christians.I refer to these individualistic heresies as "Choose your own adventure" Christianity. :p I would tend to agree, but nonetheless God is widely touted as omnibenevolent, with excuses offered up for Hell.
God is benevolent to those who exercise their free will, choose to follow Him and seek to do His will.The trick is that God has seemingly provided us with a mishmash of conflicting information from which we imperfect humans are supposed to discern its will. This is in itself not benevolent and actually contravenes free will. Certainly there are numerous well-meaning folks attempting to live "godly" lives but who struggle to understand just how to go about it given the available materials. By not providing good information, God actually interferes with their exercise of free will (the "free will defense" is tossed about quite liberally by would be apologists, but it has its share of problems).

I know its fashionable in our "freedom from religion" society of today to try and label believers hypocrites for the slightest of reasons but doubt I meet the standard here.

I don’t care if you’re a “believer” or not. The hypocrisy I’m pointing out is that you felt the need to comment about my knowledge of the Bible, after reading my post; without backing up your own post an iota more than I did my own. Like I said, at least my opinion was about the subject of the thread.

It’s fairly obvious… You’re still sticking to your double standard. Even freely admitting it:

My original reply had as much fact and content to it as your original assertion. The onus of proof isn't on me, its on you.
As for me asking a question in my original post, I’m not sure why that bothers you so much. I suppose it’s a conditional rhetorical question, if you want to be anally picky about it. I was really asking if I had remembered the story correctly, but if my recollection was correct then I was also stating my opinion about it. Is that honestly so complicated?

It’s not as if I’m alone in thinking that the story is pretty twisted. Read the thread. No one in their right mind is going to view it as anything other than fairly fucked up. I think Thormir’s last paragraph sums it up nicely, actually.

Later in the thread, I went back and re-read the entire book. Of course, twenty years later, I didn’t remember exactly how many servants died, but the story was still as I remembered it.

Speaking of hypocrisy, I love how you called my quote out of context, yet yours isn’t any better. That’s great that God protected Job on day one. I mean, at least the sadistic fuck was decent enough to only kill off his children, animals, and servants. Oh wait, you didn’t mention that in the very next chapter of the book, he gave the devil the green light on Job himself. Who needs to re-read the thing now?

The Judeo-Christian God is not omni-benevolent. If He were there would be no hell, no punishment for sin. There would be no sin at all and no need for forgiveness. And because I believe this I'm labeled a heretic by christians.
And no punishment for those that he himself labels as “a perfect and an upright man”, right? I guess it’s all okay, as long as he hooks up his cosmic game show contestants with nice parting gifts for their pain and suffering.

You can’t really be serious… Tell me this is a late April fool’s joke, please.

You argue about a shrub when a forest is in front of you.

First.. The story of Job is a universal theme.
Take for example the ancient Greeks. The Illiad was a story that was part truth and part fiction, an idealization of the Etruscians, a historical narrative and a theological undertaking all at once.
But in this we see the story of Job, as the Gods strip a man of everything for their reasons. We can also look to Hinduism for a simular story, related by Krishna in the Bhagavad Gita
There is a Dweller on the Threshold , whose influence on the mental plane is far more trying than any physical terror can be. [It] is formed of the despair and despondency of the neophyte, who is called upon to give up all his old affections for kindred, parents and children, as well as his aspirations for objects of worldly ambition, which have perhaps been his associates for many incarnations. When called upon to give up these things, the neophyte feels a kind of blank, before he realises his higher possibilities. . . . All before him seems darkness; and a sort of pressure comes upon the soul, under which it begins to droop, and in most cases he begins to fall back and gives up further progress. But in the case of a man who really struggles, he will battle against that despair, and be able to proceed on the Path." -- Notes on the Bhagavad Gita, pp. 2-3
Its called a universal theme. Wether it be Job, or Ulyssess, or Krishna or the struggles and agonys of Prince Siddartha (aka Buddah) as a an asthetic.

What does the struggle to understand God teach us of ourselves? Thats the point. God is man and Man is god.
Darwin taught us that the physical and mental nature of man is a constant evolution. Did man emerge with the knowledge to build a nuclear reactor? Why wouldnt the Ultimate Question that sets man apart from the rest of living creatures, the Desire to "know", take a Darwinian path? We pare away the unessential to come to a higher state. That higher state opens new possiblities for us. Evolution may not be a proof against the existance of God, but a verification of his plan, one we live in the midst of.
You take this snapshot of a moment in time of Mans spirtual quest from thousands of years ago and giggle that it doesnt make sense in todays world. No Shit. How much sense does a chariot make in an age of automobiles.
You want to go through Job line by line and raise questions.. Have at it. Thomas Aquinas already did it a few hundred years ago. Go argue with him.
The universe is vast and our breadth of knowledge is miniscule. To proclaim you have answered the question that countless millions of men have struggled with over 1000s of years over 100s of cultures is as dogmatic and shortsighted as the people who you rail against. At least have the insight to know you have no fucking idea, just like the rest of us.

To me, the Hindu story is fundamentally different than the one of Job. There's no outside force at work there. While the parables may teach similar values in the end, there's no higher being playing craps with the Hindu neophyte's life.

God is man and Man is god.
Depending on how you mean that, I think I agree.

Bah, play nice. I was enjoying a religious thread that didn't turn nasty for a change. The fact that we've fallen to debating Job - as Lleauric claims has happened for 1000's of years - says there's still something worth talking about here. Shoot, we even went from a post that was full of generalizations and quickly taken apart to a reasonably intelligent debate.

You want to go through Job line by line and raise questions.. Have at it. Thomas Aquinas already did it a few hundred years ago. Go argue with him.
By all means, you're supposed to ask questions when you read things like this. Here's some - ask why this story is included in the cannon at all? If the story is true, or at least if something happened that prompted the writing of the story, why was it recorded and passed down?

Stories from mythology don't have to have a deep resounding point to them, very often they simply explain something about the culture, or pass along important elements of the culture. If you assume the Bible is the Word of God through man, then Job is supposed to be included for a reason. It shows a very different side of God, and a more direct side than most of the other books do. There's something significant in that, even if you/we don't fully understand it just yet.

L2:

It doesn't matter if Job is some universal theme. We're discussing Job as a book of Judeo-Christian scripture. Whether god is man and man is god is a point well outside Judeo-Christian belief, so outside the realm of this particular discussion. I might like the idea, but it's not really pertinent here. Physical evolution and the evolution of knowledge are quite different animals, but your point about paring away the inessential is solid enough. Thing is, who decides what is inessential? I'd say the bible (and Koran, etc) and all that goes with it can be tossed, but quite a few people on this planet state otherwise.

Your point about automobile vs. chariot is inapt. We're not trying to discuss the culture of Job's time in terms of our own culture, but rather the implications of a deity's actions in terms of the (allegedly) timeless message of the bible. You're attempting to project your own belief system over our dialogue, but that's like talking touchdowns and tackles at a golf match. We could use your worldview as a referent in speaking of Job, but we're not.

You seem to suggest that studying the bible (or other ancient manuscripts) is pointless simply because it's been done in the past. This is unspeakably foolish; we've learned a tremendous amount about the bible and the era of its creation since Aquinas.

Lastly, longlasting questions often are answered, and there's nothing dogmatic or short-sighted about it. I don't claim to have all the answers, but I do ask valid questions and raise valid points. You can join the discussion using the terms and referents in place, start a new discussion with your own worldview as its centerpiece, or ignore it altogether, but don't try to shit on those already in the dialogue with your metaphysical space cadet "choose your own adventure" brand of wishy-washy faith. Without recourse to the toilet paper of reason you'll only stain the underwear of your credibility.

Lastly, longlasting questions often are answered, and there's nothing dogmatic or short-sighted about it. I don't claim to have all the answers, but I do ask valid questions and raise valid points. You can join the discussion using the terms and referents in place, start a new discussion with your own worldview as its centerpiece, or ignore it altogether, but don't try to shit on those already in the dialogue with your metaphysical space cadet "choose your own adventure" brand of wishy-washy faith. Without recourse to the toilet paper of reason you'll only stain the underwear of your credibility.


LMAO, now that is pure ownage!

Sanchek, my apologies in advance. Today has turned out to be pretty busy at work and I won't have time to respond much but, despite my occasionally harsh replies I'm enjoying the debate. :)

I don’t care if you’re a “believer” or not. The hypocrisy I’m pointing out is that you felt the need to comment about my knowledge of the Bible, after reading my post; without backing up your own post an iota more than I did my own. Like I said, at least my opinion was about the subject of the thread.
As was mine. I disagreed with your assessment that God is sadistic based on an incomplete summary of what happened to Job. If I erred at all it was in thinking your question was rhetorical rather than a legitimate request for information.

It’s fairly obvious… You’re still sticking to your double standard. Even freely admitting it:
What I admitted to was responding to you according to the standard you set in your post before mine. That isn't a double standard. If, now that we have started discussing the actual text in question, I were to revert to not providing details and just insisting you were wrong without backing up that accusation then I would be deserving of the label hypocrite.

As for me asking a question in my original post, I’m not sure why that bothers you so much. I suppose it’s a conditional rhetorical question, if you want to be anally picky about it. I was really asking if I had remembered the story correctly, but if my recollection was correct then I was also stating my opinion about it. Is that honestly so complicated?
No, its not complicated now that you've clarified. Forgive me for not seeing your question as a request for information.

I'm not here to convince you that God isn't sadistic or to convert you or anything silly like that. If, after we're done, you still think the same way then that is your prerogative. Using Job as an example of God's sadism isn't very useful though when you've left out relevant details of the story but we'll get to that soon.

Later in the thread, I went back and re-read the entire book. Of course, twenty years later, I didn’t remember exactly how many servants died, but the story was still as I remembered it.
We've only barely touched on the beginnings of the book of Job. There are 42 chapters and you are still missing or ignoring relevant details.

Speaking of hypocrisy, I love how you called my quote out of context, yet yours isn’t any better. That’s great that God protected Job on day one. I mean, at least the sadistic fuck was decent enough to only kill off his children, animals, and servants. Oh wait, you didn’t mention that in the very next chapter of the book, he gave the devil the green light on Job himself. Who needs to re-read the thing now?
Actually, I did mention the fact that God later gave Lucifer permission to inflict Job's body in a response to Roliel on pg 2. I just didn't do it in a post directed specifically at you.

And no punishment for those that he himself labels as “a perfect and an upright man”, right? I guess it’s all okay, as long as he hooks up his cosmic game show contestants with nice parting gifts for their pain and suffering.
Here is the core of the issue. God says "Have you considered my servant Job? There is no one on earth like him; he is blameless and upright, a man who fears God and shuns evil." and then proceeds to allow Lucifer to lay waste to everything God has previously blessed Job with.

As you work your way through the entire book though, and hear Job's explanation to his friends of his woes and his desire to plead his case before God Himself it becomes apparent that while Job may have been "blameless" he wasn't without sin.

Job's sin was believing that all the good he did in his community, before he was afflicted, was the work of his own hands and not God working through him to bring His blessings to those around Job. This is illustrated in the conversation God has with Job at the end of the book. Job realizes his sin, repents for himself and his friends and is restored. That is how the author of the book presents it.

Now, some very valid questions arise from these details and everyone should seek the answers for themselves.

How can someone be "blameless" in God's eyes yet also be sinful?

Within the context of God's covenant with the Jews, was it appropriate for God to punish Job in this manner or is it inconsistent with God's own words?

I have my own answers to those questions but I want to keep my responses as free of my personal beliefs as possible. You see, I might be completely wrong and I wouldn't want to lead anyone astray.

There are other questions too but they are more relevant to people who believe than those who do not. And the bottom line is that anyone determined not to believe isn't going to change their mind because of anything I say.

To proclaim you have answered the question that countless millions of men have struggled with over 1000s of years over 100s of cultures is as dogmatic and shortsighted as the people who you rail against. At least have the insight to know you have no fucking idea, just like the rest of us.
I have the answer, and I'll look you straight in the eye and say so- and the ironic part is that you can look me right back in the eye and say I'm full of shit. I think I recall you saying that faith is a personal thing and different views should be respected. The above paragraph might be seen as a flip-flop on that point.

I think that some of the lawsuits brought out by the atheist crowd lately have really damaged their cause. If the vast majority of people on a high school football team want to have a team prayer, let them- that is what religious freedom is all about. They have every right to pray to a god; you have every right to chant "there is no god" right next to them as they do it.

The problem occurs when somebody does that and everyone gets their panties in a bunch and tries to force legislation to limit the other side's right to do as they see fit or think what they want. It is a dangerous trap to fall into- because it is so easy to do. Once any side in the debate takes the position of "We are right, and you have to agree with us and (pray in school... not allow prayer in school... whatever).

Job's sin was believing that all the good he did in his community, before he was afflicted, was the work of his own hands and not God working through him to bring His blessings to those around Job.So much for free will =(

I wonder if god gets dental..

Do you really need religion to be a good person? . It is still your own life to live, so live it in the best manner you know how. Infants start out fresh and pure, ignorant of the concepts of religion. Will that same child be considered evil if never exposed to religious viewpoints?

Religion recieves far too much credit for events in the world of Humanity, and thus reflects poorly upon Humanity as a species of intelligent creatures. It seems hard to believe that some entertain all of our scienitific and social progress to being nothing more than "God's Will". Who is to say that "God" is nothing more than the forces of Nature which are gradually being understood by Humanity as time marches on? In the overall scheme of things, why would God wish to spend so much devotion and energy on one species who reside upon one small world tucked away in the corner of one galaxy among the hundreds of thousands in the one known Universe...when there could of course be as many universes as there is everything else. God, if anything, represents all that is outside of accepted current realms of Human senses and Human intellectual understanding. Religion is constantly fluid and is constantly being redefined every new discovery, which really seems to suggest that it maybe nothing more but a purely Human creation.

Mukaz, I'm busy at work today too, sorry. :(

Without quoting each bit of your post, the entire thing still boils down to the same fundamental issue for me. No matter how you justify it, the fact is that God pointed Job out to Satan and opened him up to all that he endured.

"All's well that ends well" doesn't work for me. The bottom line is that God used Job to basically win a bet with the devil, and at a fairly great cost to Job in the interim. Even if Job wasn't such a devout man, that would have been twisted enough. Him being one of God's most loyal followers just makes it even sicker.

The story reminds me of a kid I used to know with a really great dog. He'd kick the dog around, show off to us how the dog would still follow him around and obey him, and then give the dog a treat for being loyal through the abuse; so he could do it again. Sadistic fuck.

Sanchek, did you beat the living heck out of that putz? I would have, over and over again.

Was God unjust in letting Satan take Job's family, wealth, and finally his health? Is it unjust for all the evil that exists in our world? There are diseases and death! Why would God let this happen? Perhaps we should blame God. Accourding to the bible, we bring it upon ourselves. Simply, because Adam chose to rebel against God. Our human nature became vile, people became no longer children of God, but rather enslaved to sin. Sin is our master and we obey it, who can claim they do not commit evil, even hurting the people we love? Sure, we can try to live good lives, but we are not perfect. If Job falls under the catagory of being human, than he too has commited evil. He may have been blameless in that he tries to live a good life, but as the bible claims ALL HAVE SINNED. The bible tells us that the wages of sin, is death.

So how is it unjust of God to let Satan destroy what Job has when Job is guilty of death?

Satan was telling God that Job only follows him because of the good things that God gave to him, simply saying, "Take the good things you give away and he will hate you." So God was confident that Job followed God not because of the good things, but because of love, and truely Job showed it, being faithful to the end. So if God gives things, he can take them away. Since we are rebels, we deserve nothing but death, anything God gives, is not because of anything we do, but because of his kindness.

Also about the actual topic... The bible commands to not kill, not to take revenege, but to live peaceful. Islam is about peace. Hinduism and its offsprings(such as buddhism) tell them to live in peace. I do not see many religions saying "Go kill those who don't believe in our god" It is not the religions themselves that cause wars, but PEOPLE, we want our religion to be the right one, anyone who says different can die. THOSE MUSLIMS ARE SAYING JESUS WASN'T GOD LETS KILL THEM! It's foolishness, LOVE everyone, love those who say your religion is bull, who cares what religion they believe. The simple fact is, everyone needs love, so why not love everyone?

Heh, I can't wait to see the rebuttles to this. ;p

Lets get back to my original topic, enough about Job. I hear on the news frequenty that the radical Muslims that engage in terrorism are not representatives of mainstream or true Islam. Islam does not condone violence or retribution upon infidels. If this is the case, why does the mainstream Muslim community sit idly back and watch the violence continue? I don't see any Muslim protests denouncing the violence and condemning the radicals for giving Islam a bad name. Lack of protest on their part appears to me to be endorsement. I am not a practicing Christian, but if some people were commiting acts of terrorism against another group and claiming they were acting in the name of Jesus and to promote Christianity, I would definately protest and get involved.

Secondly, humans all throughout history have witnessed events and occurances that were unexplainable by current knowledge and sciences. Any time this has happened, humans have used certain words to describe these occurances. Some names that come to mind are Magic or miracle. The case always is, that as history and knowledge progress, things that were once labeled as magic or miracles were explained with science and were no longer mysterious. Can you imagine if you could travel back to the time of Jesus with a lighter? My belief is that religion is nothing more than the creation of the collective imagination of primitive humans seeking answers to very deep questions. That is why religion is being shed by the intelligent, advanced first world people of today, and still held on to with a death grip by the less advanced, third world nations. The key to eliminating terrorism, or more accurately, radicalism, is knowledge. We need to give radicals something else to do besides fester hate and work each other up about the evil infidels. They need jobs, internet, eq and pot and everything will be OK :D

Phelonius

Well, my point is this.
The parables in the OT are really just snapshots. They encapsulate mans feeling toward God at a given moment. To try to apply them to a direct context today is an exercise in futility, or an attempt to isolate a scenario and apply pointed logic at it.
Was God cruel in Job? Sure. But that was really the nature of life back then. Shit happened and there was no remote explaination for it. Disease, famine, floods... God can seem just as cruel today, if you look to him as some sort of all encompassing controller. People look for evidence of God like a detective looks for evidence at a crime scene, they scour for his fingerprints on their daily lives. I think science has told us pretty definitivtly that to look there is the wrong place.
Life is a paradigm.
Hobbes was right when he called it 'nasty brutish and short' and outlined the shortcoming of man.
But just as right was Walt Whitmans boundless celebration of every single moment of life as a miraculous gift from God.
I believe a leaf of grass is no less than the journey-work of the stars.
Walt Whitman To say God is 'mean' is a contradiction.

Despite what Calvin proclaimed we have a freewill. We create our reality, collectively and individually.
The fault, dear Brutus, is not in our stars,
But in ourselves, that we are underlings.

--From Julius Caesar (I, ii, 140-141) To say God is the purveyor of cruelty takes freewill out of our hands, it says we have no control over our lives. Jobs misfortunes occured not on the whim of God, but on the decisions he made.

Can you really tell me the worth of a tree by taking a polaroid of an acorn?

Can you imagine if you could travel back to the time of Jesus with a lighter?
I really don't believe people in a time with torches would be amazed by a lighter and believe it is some kind of miracle from God. The miracles back then are still not possible today, who can bring a man who has been dead for days back to life only with words? You may claim he wasn't dead, sure. What about a person who has not walked in his life, their legs would have very little no muscle. To see this person who throughout your life has needed help to survive, suddenly jump up and run away after a man simply said get up and go home. Your theory of miracles being nothing but something not yet explained would be fine, except it wasn't a few miracles, it was many.

That is why religion is being shed by the intelligent
That is a very arrogant claim, with very little truth to it.

Is religion really the scourge of humanity? Or is it humanity that is the scourge? If there was no religion, there would be something else to blame. Money perhaps? Yes, money is a great tool, but is it the scourge of humanity? No, it is the people who abuse it.

Also, there are many muslim groups against terrorism. That ARE protesting terrorism.

I really don't believe people in a time with torches would be amazed by a lighter and believe it is some kind of miracle from God. The miracles back then are still not possible today, who can bring a man who has been dead for days back to life only with words? You may claim he wasn't dead, sure. What about a person who has not walked in his life, their legs would have very little no muscle. To see this person who throughout your life has needed help to survive, suddenly jump up and run away after a man simply said get up and go home. Your theory of miracles being nothing but something not yet explained would be fine, except it wasn't a few miracles, it was many.

Erm, what's your point in saying this? Are you claiming such 'miracles' actually happened?

I'm claiming that what these people saw wasn't just something that wasn't explained yet. It was something out of the ordinary that does not natrually occur. Which is why science still cannot explain it. Basically something that shouldn't be happening. It's not normal for a man who has been paralyzed their whole life to get up and walk.

Assuming the events actually ocurred?

Job eh?

read This (http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0345316509/103-8343683-6289432?v=glance)

Assuming the events actually ocurred?
I'm not here to debate whether any religions are true, rather IF miracles did happen that they weren't something common that wasn't explained yet by science.

Simply, because Adam chose to rebel against God. Our human nature became vile, people became no longer children of God, but rather enslaved to sin. Sin is our master and we obey it, who can claim they do not commit evil, even hurting the people we loveI guess I'm directly responsible for slavery in the US, then, even though my ancestors weren't even on the continent during that time period.

Let me ask this: if the starting point is not a blank slate, and everyone starts "in the red zone" (ie: in "sin"- which is a myth in itself) how is that just? Before anyone says "Everyone starts at the same point!" ask yourself this:

Why would a just and caring god start everyone at a disadvantage?

The bible tells us that the wages of sin, is death.Isn't that the explanation for WHY our motal coils die as those of the beasts- we must die to shed the sin?

Satan was telling God that Job only follows him because of the good things that God gave to himAgain, so much for free will. Work *as hard as you want" and still you'll only get what God thinks you are worthy of getting. Sounds like a masterful explanation for the "haves" to throw at the "have nots"- and Christianity was nothing if not a wonderful means of control over the masses.

who can bring a man who has been dead for days back to life only with words
Maybe Jesus never died, and was simply in a coma? Hell, up until a hundred years ago, it wasn't always possible to be sure when a person was dead- which is why there was a "wake". Mistakes still happen today where "dead" people are still alive.


It's not normal for a man who has been paralyzed their whole life to get up and walkUnless they were faking the injury all along. That, or epinephrine > muscle atrophy.

Blyst, you speak based on the science that we have today and weather or not you think it could explain the miracles that are wrtten about in the bible. My point is this, not only would todays technology baffle early man, but tomorrows technology will baffle us just the same. How can you speculate that the technology in 100, even 1000 years will not be able to achieve your "miracles" and things even beyond that? Have you ever seen the sketches of the "grey aliens"? Ever notice that their heads are huge and their limbs are totally atrophied and practically useless? It is because they have learned to manipulate the environment with their minds and dont need appendages anymore. So the concept of some being touching or even thinking another being to improved health isnt hard to fathom.

Phelonius

Let me ask this: if the starting point is not a blank slate, and everyone starts "in the red zone"
People start out innocent, BUT that is not the point, the point is we have a human nature which is fallen, because Adam was the father of EVERYONE, then everyone is from his flesh. Everyone inherits the nature because we come from him.

Why would a just and caring god start everyone at a disadvantage
As I said before, we all start innocent, but commit sins, it is unjust to not punish us for our sins. That is why Christ came, because we inherit Adam's nature, Jesus had to take our punishment so we may be right with God. God is caring and just, so he is just by punishing sin, but also caring because he sent his son (who willingfully gave up his life, he was not forced) to take our punishment.

Isn't that the explanation for WHY our motal coils die as those of the beasts
We die because we sin, we cannot live forever once we sin. But if the punishment of sin is death, pretty much the ultimate punishment for a mortal, than is having your wealth/health/family taken away that much less? Even so, Job did deserve anything he had, his wealth/health/family were gifts from God. Sure he may have worked hard to gain wealth, but Job was given a LOT more than what he could have worked for.

Again, so much for free will.
If you examine freewill, we have none. Who can control if they die? Who can control if they become paralyzed, ill, or blind? Perhaps the only people who had freewill was Adam/Eve, but they chose to rebel, becoming slaves to their sin, losing their freewill and having a cursed placed on the earth.

Christianity was nothing if not a wonderful means of control over the masses
Than those "christians" were never christians at all. Rather Christianity is about freechoice, choose to follow Jesus or don't, accept what he offers or don't. Jesus simply offered to take your punishment, its up to you if you want him to. It is not about controlling anyone.

Maybe Jesus never died, and was simply in a coma?
Actually, I was talking about the men Jesus brought back to life. Though you seem to think Jesus, who was scourged, beat, mocked, and crucified (don't forged he had a huge hole in his side from a spear draining his blood!) had some way after 3 days in a tomb (no medical attention), had holes in his feet/hands (wrists if you want to get technical) pushed a huge stone out of the way, beat up roman guards, and ran away, with NO blood trail. I have one word... Amazing.

Unless they were faking the injury all along. That, or epinephrine > muscle atrophy.
That's a lot of fakers, blind people, paralyzed, lepors(who you could tell visually were not fakers)... Sure you could use epinephrine to explain some of the paralyzed, but hey, you could say Jesus was an alien who used future technology.

PheloniusRM, so you're saying it was something from the future that came back in the past? Perhaps aliens with advanced technology who traveled to earth? I am confused on what you are trying to say. I can understand both those ideas, but if it is neither I am quite lost.

If you examine freewill, we have none.

Rather Christianity is about freechoice

Interesting contradiction.

Actually, I was talking about the men Jesus brought back to life. Though you seem to think Jesus, who was scourged, beat, mocked, and crucified (don't forged he had a huge hole in his side from a spear draining his blood!) had some way after 3 days in a tomb (no medical attention), had holes in his feet/hands (wrists if you want to get technical) pushed a huge stone out of the way, beat up roman guards, and ran away, with NO blood trail. I have one word... Amazing.

You're still relying on stuff you can't prove for your argument. You're either believing in some pretty kooky stuff, or you're bad at getting your real point across.

Interesting contradiction.That was a poor choice of words. In context when talking about freewill I mean actions that happen in life. Such as death, illness, or accidents. When I was talking about freechoice, i ment that Christianity is not to be forced on anyone. I appologize for the confusion.

You're still relying on stuff you can't prove for your argument. You're either believing in some pretty kooky stuff, or you're bad at getting your real point across.Esbat was talking about Jesus being in a coma while being put in the tomb. I was trying to say that for the story to fit as Jesus only being in a coma, its pretty incredible. The first sentance was just explaining my quote as I wasn't talking about Jesus, but the second line is a respone to his post.

Yea... im tired and not making sense... sorry :( Now that I read my last few posts, maybe i should be going to bed...

Time to play catch up. L2 first:
The parables in the OT are really just snapshots. They encapsulate mans feeling toward God at a given moment. To try to apply them to a direct context today is an exercise in futility, or an attempt to isolate a scenario and apply pointed logic at it. So just how is the modern theist supposed to examine or use their scriptures? You seem to be saying that the bible (and other ancient scriptures) have no application today, which is quite the opposite of what 99+% of believers would state.
Now onto Blyst:
Simply, because Adam chose to rebel against God. Our human nature became vile, people became no longer children of God, but rather enslaved to sin. This is like being sentenced to prison because you're grandfather once killed a man for snorin' too loud. I'm not responsible for the actions of some mythical forebear and should not be punished for those actions.
So how is it unjust of God to let Satan destroy what Job has when Job is guilty of death? Depends on how you look at the covenant, I think. But whether it's just or not wasn't so much the question as whether it's sadistic.
What about a person who has not walked in his life...Your theory of miracles being nothing but something not yet explained would be fine, except it wasn't a few miracles, it was many. Yes, that Vespasian was really something. You were talking about Emperor Vespasian, right? Whom Suetonius tells us (in The Twelve Caesars) healed the blind and lame? Or perhaps it was one of the other dozens of miracle workers in antiquity.
That is a very arrogant claim, with very little truth to it. Not so, as a matter of fact! Research has indeed been published that shows how religious belief declines as education level increases. Oddly, belief in pseudoscience and the paranormal (ESP, UFO abductions, ghosts, etc) did not show a similar decrease. But yes, there is actual truth to the claim.
I'm claiming that what these people saw wasn't just something that wasn't explained yet. It was something out of the ordinary that does not natrually occur. Which is why science still cannot explain it. I don't think "science" has put much effort into trying to prove or disprove any of the miracle healing stories from antiquity. How could it possibly do so?
That is why Christ came, because we inherit Adam's nature, Jesus had to take our punishment so we may be right with God. God is caring and just, so he is just by punishing sin, but also caring because he sent his son (who willingfully gave up his life, he was not forced) to take our punishment. So many problems with this it's hard to know where to start. God punishes us because of an ancestor's actions, then sends his son to make it all right (but sends him to a tiny, backwater province and exposes him to perhaps a few thousand people). Most of the world doesn't hear about it for centuries on so has no opportunity for salvation.

As for "willingly giving up his life," this is applying an entirely inappropriate degree of pathos to the situation. If Jesus was "sent" to provide a blood sacrifice (because as the bible tells us, god demands blood) and Jesus is part god (as Christianity states, making him party to divine decision making), then to dwell on his decision making is to give it unwarranted gravity. Even more overblown is the notion of sacrfice, that Jesus took our punishment and gave his life for us. If we accept the Gospel accounts of the story, Jesus was indeed tortured and it no doubt hurt like hell (so to speak). He is crucified and dies a few hours later (rather than a couple days later, which was normal for crucifixion victims). If you buy into the non-canonical words of Nicodemus, Jesus descends to Hell for a bit, but he then rises majestically to Heavan to sit at the right hand of God (kind of, since he's also part God, at least according to the Trinity doctrine).

I'd be much more impressed with the story if Jesus descended into Hell and stayed there, enduring the eternal torture reserved for sinners who a) don't accept Jesus, or b) were born in a time and place ignorant of the Gospel message. That would be true sacrifice. Having one really shitty day before ascending to eternal paradise just doesn't qualify.

-Thormir
"I come not to bring peace but a sword!" -- the prince of peace

Blyst, if when you label technology as "future" or "past" you are limiting the scope to only human technology then someone would be coming from the future to the past. If, however you belive that there are many other advanced societies on other planets in the universe, then all at the same moment in time there are planets that are thousands (maybe millions?) of years advanced of us and retarted of us. I was basically referring to the theory that Jesus was an alien that traveled to Earth. I think the theory states that Jesus, Mohammed, and Buddah were all missionaries from the same time/location? When you try to speculate about aliens coming here to interact with the primitive people, use this example. Remember when the spanish sailed to mexico? Or when the pilgrims sailed to North America? They were an advanced people traveling the great void (ocean or space). They mat native people much less advanced than themselves. They could have administered medicines to the sick natives to cure ailments that were debilitating. The natives could have then written some stories about the "miracles" that the travellers performed. Just because the bible which has been rewritten who knows how many times, says he healed them with a touch, doesnt mean he really took the time to administer some ointment or medicines or took someone in a room, etc.

Phelonius

People start out innocent,In the Christian tradition, people do not start out innocent- they start out tainted by original sin. If an unbaptized baby dies- straight to hell.

because Adam was the father of EVERYONE, then everyone is from his fleshEhhh... what about those other people who were around at the same time the Bible mentions? Was Adam sleeping around on Eve? Or, is it possible that, at best, Adam is the "all father" of the Jewish people and nothing else? In which case, he has nothing at all to do with me.

But wait! There is more!

Even after original sin is removed through baptism, one must then accept Jesus as the blood sacrifice for the forgivness of all future sins. Failure to do this results in a one way ticket to hell upon death.

Hmmm... yeah. Way to stack the deck. You have to join the program ASAP to avoid eternal suffering in some otherworldly punishment realm, and then you have to stick with the "program", attend the meetings, give the cult leaders 10% of your earnings and (if possible) try to get more people to join the cult. Kick ASS!

i ment that Christianity is not to be forced on anyone.Yet, if Christian dogma is to be taken at face value, anyone who does not follow their teaching goes... STRAIGHT TO HELL!

It is kind of a very subtle "protection" scheme. Join the church, give us money, buy into our philosophy or... GO STRAIGHT TO HELL! I'd be surprised if La Costra Nosa didn't learn a thing or two about protection from the church. :p

Besides, if Christian beliefs are not to be forced on anyone, how does one explain the drive to put Christian teachings into the public schools in the US? Or the Inquisition? Yes, times have changed, but spend some time around some radical Evangelical Christians in the bible belt of the US, and it becomes clear that the only thing stopping them from grabbing the tongs and busting out the rack is that they lack the force of arms to get away with it.

First, if anyone is wondering, I do not believe in any religions.

This is like being sentenced to prison because you're grandfather once killed a man for snorin' too loud. I'm not responsible for the actions of some mythical forebear and should not be punished for those actions
My response was to that assume the bible and everything in it is true. I am not trying to defend it against people who think its a myth. The bible points that we are screwed because of Adam.

Depends on how you look at the covenant, I think. But whether it's just or not wasn't so much the question as whether it's sadistic
Was it sadistic? That's the same as the story of the pharo, he was created to evil. The bible says everything is used to glorify God. If hes Sadistic, its up to him, can he not do what he wishes with what he creates?

Yes, that Vespasian was really something. You were talking about Emperor Vespasian, right? Whom Suetonius tells us (in The Twelve Caesars) healed the blind and lame? Or perhaps it was one of the other dozens of miracle workers in antiquity.
I'm not claiming these stories are true, rather if they did happen, its not just something science hasn't explained.

Not so, as a matter of fact! Research has indeed been published that shows how religious belief declines as education level increases. Oddly, belief in pseudoscience and the paranormal (ESP, UFO abductions, ghosts, etc) did not show a similar decrease. But yes, there is actual truth to the claim.
Education is far different than intelligence...

I don't think "science" has put much effort into trying to prove or disprove any of the miracle healing stories from antiquity. How could it possibly do so?
The topic was that miracles are now explained by science.

God punishes us because of an ancestor's actions, then sends his son to make it all right (but sends him to a tiny, backwater province and exposes him to perhaps a few thousand people).
God punishes us for our own sins, we inherit our evil nature from Adam (NOT his sins). Where else would he send him? To a hindu country? He was promised to the Jews, and the Jews were in the backwater province. He did not come for gentiles, but rather only the Jews.

Most of the world doesn't hear about it for centuries on so has no opportunity for salvation.
The Jews in the old testament were said to be said by Jesus because of their faith that one day he would come. So possibly, if someone doesn't know Jesus exactly, they would be Judged on what they do know.

If Jesus was "sent" to provide a blood sacrifice (because as the bible tells us, god demands blood) and Jesus is part god (as Christianity states, making him party to divine decision making), then to dwell on his decision making is to give it unwarranted gravity.
Demands blood in that its the only sacrafice he will accept. There is no alternative, so Jesus could come willingfully to shed his blood and still be a worthy sacrafice.

If you buy into the non-canonical words of Nicodemus, Jesus descends to Hell for a bit, but he then rises majestically to Heavan to sit at the right hand of God
Jesus as Paul said, "Tasted second death, so we wouldn't have to." Basically saying, he ascended to Hell. Breaking his eternal relationship with his Father. Apparently that breaking of the eternal relationship was a big enough sacrafice to take the penalty.

I'd be much more impressed with the story if Jesus descended into Hell and stayed there, enduring the eternal torture reserved for sinners who a) don't accept Jesus, or b) were born in a time and place ignorant of the Gospel message. That would be true sacrifice. Having one really shitty day before ascending to eternal paradise just doesn't qualify.
That brings it back to the sadistic idea, are not those who go to hell go there willingfully? To me, the doors of hell will be locked on the inside. It would be torture to force a person to go to "heaven" and worship God for eternity, praising God every day. Hell is perhaps not what we believe to be, but rather the absense of God.

Phelonius,
I was basically referring to the theory that Jesus was an alien that traveled to Earth.
That is a totally different idea than what you were proposing. From what you wrote before, it seemed as if these "miracles" were something that are not out of the ordinary, eg. Mushrooms, to someone back before science would eat them and have visions, believing they are from some divine being, while today we know it is poisons affecting the brain.

Just because the bible which has been rewritten who knows how many times
That is getting into the bible has been corrupted, we are assuming its the same now as it was back when originally written.

hey we arent screwed cause of Adam, its cause of that evil mynx Eve! never forget that....now back to serious conversation

In the Christian tradition, people do not start out innocent- they start out tainted by original sin. If an unbaptized baby dies- straight to hell.
That is catholic belief, not mainstream christianity.

Ehhh... what about those other people who were around at the same time the Bible mentions? Was Adam sleeping around on Eve?
That the bible mentions? It mentions 2 people were created, Adam and Eve. Unless you are refering to how the bible has two creation accounts, one where it says God created people, than says God created Adam and Eve. That was the writing style at the time, to start off with a very general summary, than again in detail.

Even after original sin is removed through baptism, one must then accept Jesus as the blood sacrifice for the forgivness of all future sins. Failure to do this results in a one way ticket to hell upon death.
That is catholic beliefs, I thought we are talking basic christian beliefs =p Only thing needed, from reading the bible, is believing in Jesus as clearly stated by Paul in the book of Romans. Which can be done at any age, not at birth.

Yet, if Christian dogma is to be taken at face value, anyone who does not follow their teaching goes... STRAIGHT TO HELL!
Assuming this were possible... If you are on deathrow and a man is willing to take your death so you may live. You can accept him and live, or you can reject him and die. If you reject him there isn't anyone else offering to take your penalty.

It is not that you have to believe christianity, but accept that Jesus blood is a worthy sacrafice for God.

how does one explain the drive to put Christian teachings into the public schools in the US? Or the Inquisition?
I don't understand that myself, I personally believe religion should stay out of public schools. The inquisition had nothing to do with Christ, along with Crusades, and whatever holy wars that "christians" faught. Jesus commanded to tell people about him, not to kill them =/

It all comes back down to people, not religions, we will fight for power, greed, etc. Is a christian who fights to have their religion to be the best any different from a person fighting for a piece of land?

My response was to that assume the bible and everything in it is true. I am not trying to defend it against people who think its a myth. The bible points that we are screwed because of Adam. Quite so, and my point is that we are screwed unjustly, per my analogy above.
Was it sadistic? That's the same as the story of the pharo, he was created to evil. The bible says everything is used to glorify God. If hes Sadistic, its up to him, can he not do what he wishes with what he creates? Arguably yes, but that doesn't mean God isn't sadistic (indeed, it may support the point). Pharaoh gets such a bad rap. =/
Education is far different than intelligence... But the two can be linked. I'm sure there are some dumb PhD's out there, but that's not the norm. My point is that the study supports that link.
God punishes us for our own sins, we inherit our evil nature from Adam (NOT his sins). Where else would he send him? To a hindu country? He was promised to the Jews, and the Jews were in the backwater province. He did not come for gentiles, but rather only the Jews. I agree that Jesus was concerned only with Jews, but Christians believe otherwise ("Go ye and preach to all nations..."). You don't necessarily have to send Jesus anywhere else, but the message could be given universally (written in the clouds over all nations, for instance).
So possibly, if someone doesn't know Jesus exactly, they would be Judged on what they do know. This actually makes it better to be ignorant of the gospel message, since then a person who lives a good life cannot be screwed for not believing Christian doctrine.
Basically saying, he ascended to Hell. Breaking his eternal relationship with his Father. Apparently that breaking of the eternal relationship was a big enough sacrafice to take the penalty. This doesn't follow from the text. I assume you mean "descended" to Hell? But there's nothing about breaking any relationship with the Father, and Jesus still allegedly ends up in Heavan, so no real sacrifice. This argument is completely nullified if one accepts the Trinity.
Hell is perhaps not what we believe to be, but rather the absense of God. The bible states otherwise, citing anguish inducing darkness in some places and eternal fire in others.
That is catholic belief, not mainstream christianity. It's a matter of debate among Protestants whether unbaptized children go to Hell. Some say yes, regrettably so, others that there is an "age of accountability," before which children are safe from such a fate. This explanation seems ad hoc to me rather than something straight out of the bible.
It mentions 2 people were created, Adam and Eve. And it mentions they had Cain and Abel. Abel dies, Cain flees to Nod and marries. Esbat's question is, "Where did the wife come from?"
That was the writing style at the time, to start off with a very general summary, than again in detail. Mainstream biblical scholarship accepts that the two accounts represent distinct traditions. Read the accounts closely, the order of creation differs somewhat in each. I'm not aware offhand of other examples of this "writing style" you allege. Any contemporary examples?
It is not that you have to believe christianity, but accept that Jesus blood is a worthy sacrafice for God. Isn't that up to God to decide? Hell, I'd be willing to accept a pop tart is a worthy sacrifice.
Jesus commanded to tell people about him, not to kill them =/ "I come not to bring peace but a sword."
It's fashionable to claim that the Inquisition and Crusades had nothing to do with Christianity, but that's a modern conception. Truth is, while greed certainly played a role in such ventures, there were plenty of truly pious Christians who absolutely believed that they were acting in God and Christ's name (just as the same holds true among Muslim extremists today).

Quite so, and my point is that we are screwed unjustly, per my analogy above.
If Adam was basically the represenative for the whole planet, and he chose for everyone, we got screwed because of our leader, so I am not quite sure if I would call that unjust.

Arguably yes, but that doesn't mean God isn't sadistic (indeed, it may support the point). Pharaoh gets such a bad rap. =/
Depends which pharaoh, just like all leaders, theres nice ones, and theres jerks. If you look at the overall picture of Job, that he was blessed, he was chosen by God to prove a point, yea he went through crap, who hasn't? If Job was the righteous follower of God that he was said to be, to me it is not sadistic at all, as Job would die for a chance to show his faith to God.

But the two can be linked. I'm sure there are some dumb PhD's out there, but that's not the norm. My point is that the study supports that link.
Education is all about not quiting, stick with it no matter what and you will suceed. I still disagree that you must be moronic to believe in a religion, which is funny because Athiesm is a religion =P

I agree that Jesus was concerned only with Jews, but Christians believe otherwise ("Go ye and preach to all nations..."). You don't necessarily have to send Jesus anywhere else, but the message could be given universally (written in the clouds over all nations, for instance).
Jesus came for the Jews, and the Jews alone. The Jews rejected him as the messiah, so Jesus gave it to everyone, as similar to his parable about the feast, and no one could attend, so the master invited people off the street. So now that the Jews rejected the messiah, the gift is open for everyone.

This actually makes it better to be ignorant of the gospel message, since then a person who lives a good life cannot be screwed for not believing Christian doctrine.
Depends, its all about faith, you can reject what little you know just as easily as a christian doctrine.

This doesn't follow from the text. I assume you mean "descended" to Hell? But there's nothing about breaking any relationship with the Father, and Jesus still allegedly ends up in Heavan, so no real sacrifice. This argument is completely nullified if one accepts the Trinity.
Yea, descended, my bad. It all comes down to the idea, that Jesus, although fully God, gave up his independence, to become dependant on the Father. When Jesus said, "Eli Eli, Lema Sebachtani" (my god, my god, why have you forsaken me) he felt abandonded by the Father, his only hope for the ressurection, perhaps feeling that he would never be ressurected. With that hope gone, one would assume he felt he was going to hell for eternity, he could easily regain his independance and leave easily. Instead he chose to save the world, not himself, perhaps the idea of the sacrafice was that Jesus would rather go to hell for eternity, so we may not. (Not stating this is true, it is simply a theory)

The bible states otherwise, citing anguish inducing darkness in some places and eternal fire in others.
Darkness is the absense of light, and the bible states God is light. So once God is gone, so are what he gives, accourding to the bible thats happiness, joy, love, etc. Sounds like anguish to me.

It's a matter of debate among Protestants whether unbaptized children go to Hell. Some say yes, regrettably so, others that there is an "age of accountability," before which children are safe from such a fate. This explanation seems ad hoc to me rather than something straight out of the bible.
Romans 10:9 "For if you confess with your mouth that Jesus is Lord and believe in your heart that God raised him from the dead, you will be saved."

I see nothing about baptism at birth. Paul clearly states throughout this verse, you ONLY need to believe, and confess with your mouth. Some people may say, "You have to add this verse and that!" But the bible(except the old testament, or Hebrew bible if you want to call it that) was non-existant when this letter was sent to the christians in Rome.

And it mentions they had Cain and Abel. Abel dies, Cain flees to Nod and marries. Esbat's question is, "Where did the wife come from?"
Simple, he married his sister. Females were not mentioned at birth, as the male was the family line. You may say incest is a sin, but the reason it is wrong, is because of genetic defects. If Adam and Eve were created perfect, than the gene pool would be clean.

Mainstream biblical scholarship accepts that the two accounts represent distinct traditions. Read the accounts closely, the order of creation differs somewhat in each. I'm not aware offhand of other examples of this "writing style" you allege. Any contemporary examples?
It is more of an oriental style of writing, which Moses was most likely to use. It talks about how god created people, than goes into more detail as who these people were.

Isn't that up to God to decide? Hell, I'd be willing to accept a pop tart is a worthy sacrifice.
I mean if Jesus was a blasphemer than his death means nothing to God. If Jesus was God's son, as Jesus claimed to be, his death would be worthy to take away sin. You can accept that he was a madman, liar, alien, or son of God.

"I come not to bring peace but a sword."
That verse is often taken our of context. In context, he is talking about choosing Jesus means your family, and friends may become your enemy. There will be no peace, people will hate you, persecute you. The sword was not literally a sword for that would contradict all his teachings. The whole section has nothing to even do with strangers but people you know. Yes, these christians may have killed in the name of Jesus, but the bible clearly states "Our battle is not with flesh and blood, but the unseen rulers of heavenly realms."

If Adam was basically the represenative for the whole planet, and he chose for everyone, we got screwed because of our leader, so I am not quite sure if I would call that unjust. Adam doesn't represent me. Neither I nor anyone else declared this to be the case. If he is forced on us as our representative, then it only compounds the injustice.
Depends which pharaoh, just like all leaders, theres nice ones, and theres jerks. If you look at the overall picture of Job, that he was blessed, he was chosen by God to prove a point, yea he went through crap, who hasn't? If Job was the righteous follower of God that he was said to be, to me it is not sadistic at all, as Job would die for a chance to show his faith to God. I'm referring to the pharaoh of Exodus. You're forgetting the point already made, that Job's children, animals and servants suffered divine execution in order to prove God's point. Sure, all of them "might" have been happy to die for such a chance to show faith, but as we saw with Abraham and Isaac, it wasn't necessary to do so.
Education is all about not quiting, stick with it no matter what and you will suceed. I still disagree that you must be moronic to believe in a religion, which is funny because Athiesm is a religion I disagree on all 3 counts. Sticking to an educational program requires intelligence to make it to the next level (and one might argue that persistence demonstrates some intelligence). I never said that one must be moronic to believe in a religion. Atheism is most certainly not a religion; that is mere claptrap bandied about by the truly moronic.
Jesus came for the Jews, and the Jews alone. The Jews rejected him as the messiah, so Jesus gave it to everyone. Hmm...where is this stated in the bible? Not the rejection, but Jesus changing his mind.
Depends, its all about faith, you can reject what little you know just as easily as a christian doctrine. But if you know nothing about the Gospel message and therefore cannot be held accountable , then it's clearly better to be ignorant of that message.
(Not stating this is true, it is simply a theory) The bible doesn't tell us, so it's an open question. I've pointed out (in a long ago post) problems with the one theory I've heard on Jesus' "cry from the cross." I'm not familiar with any others. I think your theory suffers from its anti-Trinitarian underpinnings, however.
Darkness is the absense of light, and the bible states God is light. So once God is gone, so are what he gives, accourding to the bible thats happiness, joy, love, etc. Sounds like anguish to me. The bible alludes to less existential and more physical forms of suffering, however. And given what else God "gives" (a la Job), absence from God doesn't seem all that bad to me. But that's not how Hell is presented.
I see nothing about baptism at birth. Paul clearly states throughout this verse, you ONLY need to believe, and confess with your mouth. Some people may say, "You have to add this verse and that!" But the bible(except the old testament, or Hebrew bible if you want to call it that) was non-existant when this letter was sent to the christians in Rome. Right, so a baby (who cannot confess with his mouth and who almost certainly cannot believe in his heart) who dies goes to Hell. Note that what you say regarding this letter applies equally to any other contradicting texts in the NT.
Simple, he married his sister. Females were not mentioned at birth, as the male was the family line. This is an assumption with an excuse. As well, it seems reasonable to mention a first daughter from the first family. But a greater problem with the explanation is that Cain fled his family. It seems terribly unlikely that his sister traveled with him into exile. If there was some motive that would drive her to do this, it should certainly be mentioned.
It is more of an oriental style of writing, which Moses was most likely to use. It talks about how god created people, than goes into more detail as who these people were. So you accept that Moses was the author of Genesis (or perhaps the entire Pentateuch)? Interesting. But you don't explain why Moses would be most likely to use an "Oriental style" of writing. Again, any contemporary examples?
You can accept that he was a madman, liar, alien, or son of God. C. S. Lewis or Josh McDowell? Anyway, you can also accept that Jesus was legend (did not exist), simply mistaken, misinterpreted, or lore (existed, but not represented historically in the bible). The latter 3 seem most likely, all things considered.
That verse is often taken our of context. Let's look at the passage:
Matthew 10: 32"Whoever acknowledges me before men, I will also acknowledge him before my Father in heaven. 33But whoever disowns me before men, I will disown him before my Father in heaven. 34"Do not suppose that I have come to bring peace to the earth. I did not come to bring peace, but a sword. 35For I have come to turn " 'a man against his father, a daughter against her mother, a daughter-in-law against her mother-in-law-- 36a man's enemies will be the members of his own household.'[5 (http://www.biblegateway.com/cgi-bin/bible?passage=MATT+10&language=english&version=NIV&showfn=on&showxref=on#footnote_171921359_5)]
37"Anyone who loves his father or mother more than me is not worthy of me; anyone who loves his son or daughter more than me is not worthy of me; 38and anyone who does not take his cross and follow me is not worthy of me. While Jesus focuses on familial relations, he also generalizes to "the earth," and refers to "whoever," meaning anyone at all, strangers or no. You say the sword was not a literal sword (or, it seems, a figurative sword such as the "sword of war"), but you do not provide an alternative explanation.

Adam doesn't represent me. Neither I nor anyone else declared this to be the case. If he is forced on us as our representative, then it only compounds the injustice.
Were you there? No? Than you have no voice in the matter, its like past presidents, though their decisions affect you today, you did not choose them.

I'm referring to the pharaoh of Exodus. You're forgetting the point already made, that Job's children, animals and servants suffered divine execution in order to prove God's point. Sure, all of them "might" have been happy to die for such a chance to show faith, but as we saw with Abraham and Isaac, it wasn't necessary to do so.
I would have to say that his family/servants wouldnt suffer at all. They get to leave earth and all the horrible things, to go straight to heaven? Yea, thats sadistic! Animals, they die to human hands all the time, its nothing special. Unless your some animal rights nut, than its not that big of a deal. Abraham was to see if he would obey God, even if it ment to kill his son. Job was a different case, it was to see if God took away the good things given to Job, would he curse Gods face.

I disagree on all 3 counts. Sticking to an educational program requires intelligence to make it to the next level (and one might argue that persistence demonstrates some intelligence). I never said that one must be moronic to believe in a religion. Atheism is most certainly not a religion; that is mere claptrap bandied about by the truly moronic.
So your saying you need to have a high intelligence in order to pass? Its all about persistance, an average person can work hard, and study, its a game of memorizing, something everyone can do if they try. I would say athiesm IS a religion as it is a belief in God, that there is no God, along with theism, pantheism, pan-en-theism, deism, etc, they are all religions. Perhaps not in the sense of an organized religion, but is a religion none the less.

Hmm...where is this stated in the bible? Not the rejection, but Jesus changing his mind.
Jesus didn't "change his mind", it was known all along that the Jews would reject him. Paul stated in Romans that the gift was now open to the gentiles in Romans 11:30 "Once, you Gentiles were rebels against God, but when the Jews refused his mercy, God was merciful to you instead."

But if you know nothing about the Gospel message and therefore cannot be held accountable , then it's clearly better to be ignorant of that message.
But if the bible is true, than no one can know nothing. Everyone knows something about God.

The bible doesn't tell us, so it's an open question. I've pointed out (in a long ago post) problems with the one theory I've heard on Jesus' "cry from the cross." I'm not familiar with any others. I think your theory suffers from its anti-Trinitarian underpinnings, however.
anti-Trinitarian? Jesus did not stop being God, but chose not to use his right as God. Phillippians 2:5 "Your attitude should be the same that Christ Jesus had. 6Though he was God, he did not demand and cling to his rights as God. 7He made himself nothing" It says he gave up his right as God, can he stop being God? No, than he would never have been God in the first place, he can only choose not to use it, to become dependant on the Father. How you see this as anti-trinitarian I do not know.

The bible alludes to less existential and more physical forms of suffering, however. And given what else God "gives" (a la Job), absence from God doesn't seem all that bad to me. But that's not how Hell is presented.
The Job story was God allowing Satan to take away what God had given him. Perhaps the reason the bible alludes to more physical forms of suffering because we cannot understand what hell will truely be. We know fire is painful when you get burned, so if the fires of hell is symbolic, we know that we will be in great pain.

Right, so a baby (who cannot confess with his mouth and who almost certainly cannot believe in his heart) who dies goes to Hell. Note that what you say regarding this letter applies equally to any other contradicting texts in the NT.
If a baby dies, is it no innocent? What sins has it commited? But if God said, babies under a certain age go to heaven, people would be slaughtering them left and right to make sure they go to heaven. If God is just, than there is no worries of what will happen. Id also like to see these so called "contradictions."

This is an assumption with an excuse. As well, it seems reasonable to mention a first daughter from the first family. But a greater problem with the explanation is that Cain fled his family. It seems terribly unlikely that his sister traveled with him into exile. If there was some motive that would drive her to do this, it should certainly be mentioned.
Throughout the old testament it is male1 begot male2, male2 begot male3, male3 begot male 4, etc. There is no mention of the first daughter born. It does not say Cain fled his family, it states that he left the presence of God and settled in the land of Nod. Cain was most likely married before he left as how could their be women in a land that was unpopulated? It does not mention when he was married, only that his wife became pregenant.

So you accept that Moses was the author of Genesis (or perhaps the entire Pentateuch)? Interesting. But you don't explain why Moses would be most likely to use an "Oriental style" of writing. Again, any contemporary examples?
It is popular belief that Moses wrote the first 5 biblical books, and it is believed to be the writing style in the area/time. If you look carefully Genesis 1 is the explanation of the 6 day creation. Genesis 2 is a more detailed explantion of day 6. I do not know an examples offhand, but even if its not written in oriental style its clearly day 6 recap in chapter 2.

C. S. Lewis or Josh McDowell? Anyway, you can also accept that Jesus was legend (did not exist), simply mistaken, misinterpreted, or lore (existed, but not represented historically in the bible). The latter 3 seem most likely, all things considered.
Neither, Jesus simply stated that he was who he claimed to be, or he was a blasphemer. From popular viewpoint, he was an alien. There are many views of him, all are fine, expect being a goodman or good teacher.

Let's look at the passage
An alternate explanation would be there would be great times of persecution, such as the Romans. The "sword" is the gospel, and by telling it to people, you may be persecuted, hated, despised, etc, the gospel does not bring peace, but conflict.

Were you there? No? Than you have no voice in the matter, its like past presidents, though their decisions affect you today, you did not choose them. Past presidents do not choose the status of my soul. Their policies can be overturned by my actual representatives. I am not held personally responsible for their actions.
I would have to say that his family/servants wouldnt suffer at all. They get to leave earth and all the horrible things, to go straight to heaven? Yea, thats sadistic! Heh, wow, the lengths gone to to justify murder. The NT states (somewhere) that Jesus was the first to Heavan. How that corroborates with Enoch is a matter of dispute, but it's there. Job doesn't discuss the disposition of the childrens' and servants' souls, however. You're basically addint to the text to prove your point.
I would say athiesm IS a religion as it is a belief in God, that there is no God, along with theism, pantheism, pan-en-theism, deism, etc, they are all religions. Perhaps not in the sense of an organized religion, but is a religion none the less. Going to pass on the education issue since it's peripheral to the discussion; we simply disagree. So, you say atheism (i before e, excapt after...th, ya know) is a religion as it is a "belief in God, that there is no God?" That's about as irrational a claim as I've ever seen (and I've seen many). Atheism, properly stated, is the lack of belief in a god. There is no religion here. There is no supreme being, no eschatology that doesn't share universal terms (i.e., "we die"), no worldview. It's a lack of belief. That ain't religion in any sense of the word.
Jesus didn't "change his mind", it was known all along that the Jews would reject him Okay, so he was simply disingenuous. He preached to some of the Jews knowing they would reject them and later castigates them for what he knew would happen all along. What a guy!
But if the bible is true, than no one can know nothing. Everyone knows something about God. Unsupported claim, vague terms.

I'll answer the rest later, off to the bloody dentist.

That is catholic belief, not mainstream christianity.


Catholic doctrine is mainstream- in fact, all of the splinter sects are heretical (and, of course, DOOMED TO HELL!)


That is catholic beliefs, I thought we are talking basic christian beliefs =p

No. The requirement to accept Jesus as your savior is about the only thing that ties the various Christian faiths together.

The inquisition had nothing to do with Christ, along with Crusades, and whatever holy wars that "christians" faught. Jesus commanded to tell people about him, not to kill them =/

The people with the hot pokers and iron maidens called themselves Christians, and thought what they did was right and just. Just as the people I was talking about might do the same thing- evidence Jimmy Swaggart’s recent comment about gay people: “And I'm gonna be blunt and plain; if one ever looks at me like that, I'm gonna kill him and tell God he died." Remember, this man is a preacher!


[quote] Simple, he married his sister. Females were not mentioned at birth, as the male was the family line. You may say incest is a sin, but the reason it is wrong, is because of genetic defects. If Adam and Eve were created perfect, than the gene pool would be clean.

Yes, the prohibition against incest didn’t appear until the book of Leviticus.

HOWEVER: The Bible also takes pains to make it clear that "Only the decendants of Adam can be saved". To me, this means that there are people who might not be decended from Adam- otherwise, why bother to make the distinction?

If we look at the book of Genesis in a Torah, we find the answer: The Nephalim.


"The B'nai Elohim saw the daughters of Adam, that they were fit extensions.
And they took wives for themselves from all those that they
chose...The Nephilim were in the earth in those days, and even
afterwards when the B'nai Elohim came in to the daughters of Adam,
and they bore to them -- they were Powerful Ones which
existed from ancient times, the men of name"

As such, there is *at least* another paternal line on the Earth other than those descended from Adam.


Also, if you wish to use the argument that Adam and Eve were without genetic defect, you must also think that god is directly responsible for the introduction of genetic mutation- punishment for eating the fruit. WAY TO GO GOD!

Holy cow. Too many quotes and long posts. Those with ADHD have long since abandoned this topic. :p Please truncate this for the benifit of those surfing at work (when they should be working). :D

Past presidents do not choose the status of my soul. Their policies can be overturned by my actual representatives. I am not held personally responsible for their actions
Can you choose who your parents are? Can you choose if they were abusive? Would your life be different if you had other parents? All the people who affect your life, also affect your soul, is it any different? It is simply, how it works. You cannot choose your ancestors.

Heh, wow, the lengths gone to to justify murder. The NT states (somewhere) that Jesus was the first to Heavan. How that corroborates with Enoch is a matter of dispute, but it's there. Job doesn't discuss the disposition of the childrens' and servants' souls, however. You're basically addint to the text to prove your point.
I assume you are talking about ascending into heaven. First you must understand the jewish concept of "heaven", firstly they believed in 3 heavens, the first is the atmosphere of earth, second is the stars, and other planets, thirdly the realm where God's throne is. The people who "ascended" to heaven did not enter the realm where God's throne is, rather only Jesus did. There is no contradiction here.

Heh, wow, the lengths gone to to justify murder
I am not justifying murder, it was not God who took their lives, but Satan. You may say, God should haven't allowed him, but what is the difference between God allowing Satan to cause other problems in peoples lives. Why did God allow my wife to die? Why doesn't he heal me of my illness? People have no problem blaming God, but to thank him for something is a whole different story.

Job doesn't discuss the disposition of the childrens' and servants' souls
After everything was done with, God doubled everything Job had but the humans, he only gave him back what he had, because his family is waiting for him in heaven, there is no need to replace them when they are perfectly fine.

It's a lack of belief.
But isn't lack of belief a belief none the less, although this may sound like a contradiction, you are SURE there is no God, you are SURE there are no angels. You have no absolute proof, so it is yet, a belief, not a fact.

Okay, so he was simply disingenuous. He preached to some of the Jews knowing they would reject them and later castigates them for what he knew would happen all along. What a guy!
Jesus had to fullfill the promise to the Jews, although the Jews had broken their promise, God would not break his. Yet, he has not turned his back on them, he has not rejected the Jews and chosen the Gentiles. He has given the gift of salvation to the gentiles to make the Jews jealous, so they too, might be saved.

Unsupported claim, vague terms.
Jesus said, that he would write the law of God in the hearts of everyone, that they would know right from wrong, no one would have to say to a relative "You should know God!"

I'll answer the rest later, off to the bloody dentist.
D'oh!

Catholic doctrine is mainstream- in fact, all of the splinter sects are heretical (and, of course, DOOMED TO HELL!)
If your not in teh catholic church you will burn in hell!

No. The requirement to accept Jesus as your savior is about the only thing that ties the various Christian faiths together.
Catholics believe babies must be baptised at birth, or they suffer in hell. Many, if not most protestants do NOT believe in baptism at birth. The requirements to accept Jesus are quite different throughout the different sects in christianity.

The people with the hot pokers and iron maidens called themselves Christians, and thought what they did was right and just. Just as the people I was talking about might do the same thing- evidence Jimmy Swaggart’s recent comment about gay people: “And I'm gonna be blunt and plain; if one ever looks at me like that, I'm gonna kill him and tell God he died."
The TV evangelist who slept with prostitutes and goes on TV saying "I HAVE SINNED!!" Almost as bad as benny hinn, throwing the holy spirit at people like a baseball! Testify!! NOW SEND US YOUR MONEY!

"Only the decendants of Adam can be saved"
Id be interested to read that verse, do you happen to know where its from?

If we look at the book of Genesis in a Torah, we find the answer: The Nephalim
The nephlim or "giants" in english were a hybrid of demons (or aliens!! wuwu!! if you believe in that kinda thing...) and women. They came AFTER cain had a wife, and, they no longer exist, as the flood wiped them out. They did not exist before God had created Adam and Eve.

Also, if you wish to use the argument that Adam and Eve were without genetic defect, you must also think that god is directly responsible for the introduction of genetic mutation- punishment for eating the fruit. WAY TO GO GOD!
Uh... dude, thats the whole point of the curse... Adam/Eve disobeyed, so they were punished, along with the earth which they had authority over, since God had gave them it. The curse brought disease, illness, genetic defects, death, etc.

Those with ADHD have long since abandoned this topic.
I have ADHD... and I havn't abandonded it. It keeps my fingers busy actually. :D

Many, if not most protestants do NOT believe in baptism at birth. The requirements to accept Jesus are quite different throughout the different sects in christianity.



The point stands: All Christian faiths require some measure of acceptance of Jesus as Savior as the means to salvation.



Id be interested to read that verse, do you happen to know where its from?



It isn’t a verse, but rather the obliteration of the Nephilim- wasn’t that the entire purpose of the flood itself (to kill all of the evil people?) As such, they were not even given a chance to repent or find Jesus- they were all killed out of hand.



The nephlim or "giants" in english were a hybrid of demons (or aliens!! wuwu!! if you believe in that kinda thing...) and women. They came AFTER cain had a wife, and, they no longer exist, as the flood wiped them out. They did not exist before God had created Adam and Eve.



It is a mistranslation. Nephlim means “those who fell” in Hebrew. The implication is that they were around before Adam and Eve, but until Adam and Eve had procreated, they didn’t have anything suitable with which to mate.


I wish I had a copy of the Torah and could read Hebrew =). I'm going a bit outside my limited expertise here.

Forgot this bit:

Uh... dude, thats the whole point of the curse... Adam/Eve disobeyed, so they were punished, along with the earth which they had authority over, since God had gave them it. The curse brought disease, illness, genetic defects, death, etc.
Again, this shows a remarkable disregard- Two people made a mistake, and each and every person from then on has to pay the price.

More to the point: it seems god, in a fit or pique damaged his creation, which was without defect at the time - much like a child having a tantrum.

It isn’t a verse, but rather the obliteration of the Nephilim- wasn’t that the entire purpose of the flood itself (to kill all of the evil people?) As such, they were not even given a chance to repent or find Jesus- they were all killed out of hand.I'm talking about the one where "Only the decendants of Adam can be saved." I would be interested to see where that has come from, as you point out the bible makes it clear. The people who died in the flood were preached to by Noah for 120years to repent from sins, none of them turned from it, they simply laughed at Noah.

More to the point: it seems god, in a fit or pique damaged his creation, which was without defect at the time - much like a child having a tantrum.Thats the whole idea of Adam/Eve having authority, with that authority came responsibility, their responsibility was to not disobey God, they did, they suffered the penalty, and because they had authority over the whole earth, everyone else got screwed too. If you want to view God as a child having a tantrum, thats fine.

I question what is the relevance of this topic. It has gone from religions being the scourge of humanity to some debate over christianity. I ask, is there any reason to continue?

Edit: Where did this idea of "those who fell" come from? The word n@phiyl is translated Giant. Just as we would call giants a race, so n@phiyl were called giants because of their sheer size. The only idea of "those who fell" I could understand would be Demons, as demons fell from heaven.

Edit2: I looked up the nephilim verse in the Septuagint(basically the old testament in greek, which the Jews accept) it uses "gigantas" which has nothing to do with "those who fell" but rather simpy put, giants.

To continue (and sorry, Lummus, it's not easy keeping this kind of thing short). I'll do what I can to be brief.

It says he gave up his right as God, can he stop being God? No, than he would never have been God in the first place, he can only choose not to use it, to become dependant on the Father. How you see this as anti-trinitarian I do not know.It has to do with divine foreknowledge. The Phillipians verses talk of Jesus taking on human form and being of humble mien. This says nothing regarding Jesus' knowing of himself, his purpose, or his divine origins. You seem to suggest that Jesus' omniscience (as part of the triune god) is somehow removed, but that seems incoherent (and not justified by the text, rendering it ad hoc).
The Job story was God allowing Satan to take away what God had given him.Stating that all that Job had was the result of God and not his own efforts seems contrary to the idea of free will. Also, it seems that God allowed Satan to do much more than take away God's bonus plan. Children, servants, livestock and Job's own health are stripped from him. Now, if it's your opinion that each of us owes everything to our hypothetical entity, then that point is moot, but the free will problem remains.
If a baby dies, is it no innocent? As you say, he "got screwed" by Adam. If you consider Adam screwing the entire human race to be just, then babies going to Hell should be a cakewalk. One follows from the other.
was most likely married before he left as how could their be women in a land that was unpopulated?I consider it odd that nothing was mentioned of Cain's wife or family when he talks to the lord of his being a "fugitive and vagabond." Granted, this is myth so it's somewhat moot, but it does demonstrate the need to invent explanations to cover for such oddities. For the sake of brevity, we might consider this point moot, if not settled definitively.
It is popular belief that Moses wrote the first 5 biblical books, and it is believed to be the writing style in the area/time.I know that Mosaic authorship is a popular belief. I'm asking if you subsribe to this theory. Indeed, I'm curious about your theology. You've stated that you "have no religions" (or somesuch), but I wonder at the particular style of your conviction (if, for example, you're an Inerrantist). This isn't some sort of appeal to motive, mere curiousity.
Genesis 2 is a more detailed explantion of day 6. I do not know an examples offhand, but even if its not written in oriental style its clearly day 6 recap in chapter 2.The conventional belief is that they are two different (though similar) accounts from two separate traditions. We can see several differences between these accounts. One (for brevity's sake), is the order of fowl relative to man. In Genesis 1, the fowl come first; in 2 man comes first.
Neither, Jesus simply stated that he was who he claimed to be, or he was a blasphemer. From popular viewpoint, he was an alien. There are many views of him, all are fine, expect being a goodman or good teacher.Jesus is said to have stated these things. I'm supposing the rest of the paragraph is meant to be facetious.
[Now I loop to the response to my partial post. Wheee!]

Can you choose who your parents are? Can you choose if they were abusive? Would your life be different if you had other parents? All the people who affect your life, also affect your soul, is it any different? It is simply, how it works. You cannot choose your ancestors.So free will is completely out the window then? But again, the analogy is flawed. I cannot choose my parents, but if they committed crimes I would not be held accountable for those crimes.
First you must understand the jewish concept of "heaven", firstly they believed in 3 heavens, the first is the atmosphere of earth, second is the stars, and other planets, thirdly the realm where God's throne is. The people who "ascended" to heaven did not enter the realm where God's throne is, rather only Jesus did.I'd be interested in a source for this. Otherwise, if you agree to state simply that, "Good and evil aren't relevant, as God can simply do what it wants," I think we can close out this portion of the discussion, as no objection I make will matter to that view.
I am not justifying murder, it was not God who took their lives, but Satan.It is entirely clear that God is culpable. If I release my pit bull upon you to test your reflexes, I'm at fault for whatever suffering you endure, not the dog. The rest of that paragraph doesn't really apply, as God presumably hasn't singled you out for punishment, but is simply letting the world do its work.
But isn't lack of belief a belief none the less, although this may sound like a contradiction, you are SURE there is no God, you are SURE there are no angels. You have no absolute proof, so it is yet, a belief, not a fact.No, that's not how it works. I accept propositions based on evidence. The proposition "There is a God," I find, lacks evidence. Therefore, I do not accept that proposition. To go one step further, I can examine all the arguments put forth that a god exists. While I cannot be definitively certain that there is no god, I can assess the probability to be so close to 0 that to say, "There is no god" makes sense, even if it's not quite what is meant.
Jesus had to fullfill the promise to the Jews, although the Jews had broken their promise, God would not break his.God's promise was never fulfilled, however. The Jews never occupied all of the land promised to them (and had to fight tooth and nail for what they did get). Fomenting jealousy among rivals hardly seems godly.
Jesus said, that he would write the law of God in the hearts of everyone, that they would know right from wrong, no one would have to say to a relative "You should know God!"He doesn't seem to have done a very good job, as millions of people have lived and died completely ignorant of God's rules of right and wrong and of the gospel message. Some fundamentalist types (e.g., Craig) assert that nonetheless, everyone has the ability to accept God/Jesus whether they've heard of them or not, but this is fallacious to say the least. One could easily say the same about any god that is or ever was.

I'd love to address respondents to other posters, but the anaesthetic is wearing off, and I need to go hit the punching bag. Cheers,

Thormir

No problem, Thormir. Its a heavy topic! I just wanted to read it all, but I was stuck with only 10 minutes on hand to read about 10 pages of serious content. :D

I wrote up a big response to all your questions, but it is irrelevant. This topic has gone no where other than distant from the original topic. If we persist there will be no end. I find no reason to continue, as there is no answer. This topic has become boring as it is some pointless debate.

How could a debate that has lasted for over 2000 years be boring? ;)

Take six children from birth, and raise them each in accordance with the teachings of one book: 1 to the Bible, 1 to the Torah, 1 to the Quran, 1 to the Urantia Book, 1 to the Tibetan Book of the Dead, and 1 to Robert Heinlein's "Stranger In A Strange Land".

Teach the lessons from these books daily to these children, and reinforce the child whenever they show positive responses to the teachings, and/or memorization of the lessons. When each reaches the age of 16, which will have the correct religion on which to base their life?

One of the biggest faults of all religions is that the religious leaders are human and have egos, and it becomes less a matter of having faith in the written word so much as believing the texts the way the religious teacher/leader wants you to believe.

/nod Blyst. I wouldn't say it's irrelevant, and I don't find it boring at all (so long as posters refrain from over-used and trite arguments, which hasn't been a problem here). But you're right in that we can go in circles for a long, long time. I keep at it for the mental exercise and because sometimes a novel point is made that I've not considered before.

Bylimet, your point can be made in another way, too. The "truth" of the major religions is said to be universal, yet revelation to that truth relies primarily on demographics. The modern world has changed this somewhat -- the US is home to people of many faiths, for instance -- but these are the exceptions that prove the rule. The "universal" religions we see today are regional faiths that survived (while others failed) and proliferated.

To dogleg this thread in yet another direction (but one akin to the original post): What if religion is the scourge of humanity? Let us, for a moment, accept this proposition as true. What could reasonably be done to remedy the situation? By reasonably, I mean without obliterating most of the world's population, as that would fly in the face of any moral position superior to the religious positions we'd be trying to remove from popular expression.

One possible answer is requiring philosophy and logic classes for all high school students. While one can follow the dictates of logic and reason to theistic conclusions (e.g., Aquinas), they seem like good starts to cancelling out propositions based on faith alone. Any other ideas that don't include mass slaughter/imprisonment?

Voltaire opined, "If God did not exist it would be necessary to invent him," perhaps having in mind the difficulty of providing a suitable substitute for religion. As philosopher Leo Strauss might have put it, perhaps religion is truly necessary for the masses, and while the philosophical and religious leaders may recognize theism as invalid, it would be best not to reveal this to the general population and to instead support the myths and traditions of society regardless of what the truth might be. Perhaps there are "different kinds of truth for different kinds of people."

Personally, I hate to think that religion is a necessary requirement for civilized society. I'd like to think that we're better than that, and I maintain that there are better alternatives. But reaching those alternatives requires a degree of thought and education that seems unlikely to penetrate the critical mass necessary to swerve the population from theism to any given superior worldview. Religion might be the scourge of humanity, but we may be stuck with it, and realistically better off that way.

Still liking this thread, just haven't had time to post.

So, lets take Thormir's assumptions for a moment. The question of whether religion is necessary or not - without it, I'm curious where you would establish a moral basis for your laws? In the US, we are, IMHO, somewhat fortunate that our laws were based off of standards of a Christian religious community. (Did I really just say that? In this forum? Quick, stone me!) That is to say, one set of standards was used to create laws governing general protection of life and property.

The system, however, isn't flawless. Debates over conservative laws regarding abortion, prohibition, and gay marriage come to mind first - issues where the public is very clearly divided, both within the religious community and outside of it. So one would have to weigh the extent to which those laws have been worth tolerating while other laws were worthwhile to guage the value of a society established with a strong religious basis - and remember that those other laws include not stealing, not murdering, punsihment for crimes, etc. Things I think it's safe to assume the majority of people would agree with for the moment.

In order to say that religion isn't necessary, assuming that all religions are false, would require you to find some other moral standard. And if the relativists are to be believed, then what's right and wrong is unique for each individual, and who are you to tell me anything is wrong? So...um...how do we set up the laws of a civilized community? Or is there some common thread of morality somewhere, innate in humans and not requiring teachings of a religion?

One thing of note - philosophies can quickly become religions in their own right. I know several athieists who pursue their beliefs with a certain zeal, for example. So if you're basing your society off a lack of religion, that sort of belief has to go as well.

I think I started out wanted to try to address religion as the scourge of humanity. I got lost. :rolleyes:

The "truth" of the major religions is said to be universal, yet revelation to that truth relies primarily on demographics.Care to expand a bit on that, I'm not quite sure what you mean. I would have thought the opposite, and said that a large part of the spread of religions relies on the fact that almost anyone anywhere can adopt a certain belief set as their own. Or do you mean that certain religions were only shared with certain communities, IE Christianity in the Middle East?

Care to expand a bit on that, I'm not quite sure what you mean...Or do you mean that certain religions were only shared with certain communities, IE Christianity in the Middle East? Right. If you are born in Iran, your religious views have far less to do with some form of revelation and more to do with being born in a heavily Muslim country. On a somewhat related note, it's been proposed (by Susan Blackmore, I think) that religious belief persists due to memetic evolution (meme being Dawkins' notion of any given thought or idea). Successful religious memes withstand the test of time better than unsuccessful religious memes, but also evolve, transforming as society transforms, in order to maintain their success.
Back to my puzzle, your point about moral foundations is well taken; that's part of the overarching problem of removing religion (assumed for the sake of argument to be a "scourge of humanity") from popular expression.

Is religious-based morality purely objective? Different sects within the same faith often have different views on moral questions, so while there may be objectivity within a given tradition, this doesn't stretch across traditions. It doesn't seem any better a scenario than that presented by non-theistic systems (e.g., secular humanism, objectivism, utilitarianism, etc.). Perhaps more pertinent a question: Is Christianity (for example) effective in actualizing its tenets? History seems to suggest otherwise (note how often in this and similar threads we see, "Well those weren't real Christians" in response to historical movers and shakers).

While we've had and have systems of government (particularly communism) that incorporate atheism as a tenet of their systems, I don't know of any nation that's adopted a philosophy such as secular humanism, which might prove superior to alternatives. The problem that follows is "enforcing" a doctrine of that nature without compromising that very doctrine (such as occurred in Christian regimes, for instance). In our hypothetical scenario, we may have a perfect (or, at least, superior) solution, but how to implement it? Tricky!

How about aliens? If Aliens were to descend on to the planet, either for conquest or as missionaries, wouldnt that change the thinking of just about everyone on the planet? Christianity would certainly take a huge hit on credibility, as I am sure most other religions. Certainly if it were for conquest, I think the world would unite and shed all previous domestic issues. The question is how do we get from where we are today, to the global utopia world?


Phelonius

Since we don't have much (well, any that we know of) experience with aliens in the real world, it's a tough question to answer. I think most religions would take the view that they are just more of God's children that need to hear the Gospel message/learn submission to Allah and continue on their way. Much easier than trying to figure out how they fit into scripture. Others may view them as demons/angels regardless of the metallic vehicles they emerge from or their own protestations. It's an intriguing set of scenarios, but unlikely enough to merit a serious time investment.

Your final question is the million dollar kicker. I suspect answering it to be much easier than implementing that answer.

The question of whether religion is necessary or not - without it, I'm curious where you would establish a moral basis for your laws?
Historically, the first religions to have a moral law code were probably Judaism and Zoroastrianism. In Mesopotamia, for instance, they didn't believe their gods were concerned with their daily activities at all (at least, from a moral standpoint). The same was true for Egypt originally, when the religion was mainly practiced by Aristocratic/Governmental society. In both cases, law codes were developed, and were not based on principles set forth by their religions (the famous one here being the code of Hammurabi).

Hello all - now that the dust has settled on all the Judeo/Christian squabbling (a couple of days ago, when the thread popped up and Blyst started his push, I almost posted a one-liner along the lines of: "Thormir! Put down that scalpel!" because I knew what was coming, and sure enough he was also reading the thread at that moment ;) ) and the thread has moved on to an area where an intellectually lazy humanist can contribute, I'll go ahead and stick my toes in the pool :)

One doesn't necessarily need a god, or an organized faith in order to have a moral basis for laws (see above), but I would submit that implementing any 'morality'-based system (unless one is going to try to impose it by force of arms, which runs counter to the 'moral', i.e. internally generated, part) requires that its adherents subscribe to, or one might say, have 'faith' in, that model.

Examples of non-religious faith based myths that people subscribe to abound - one of the most obvious is the "myth of America": the idea that this is a place where people are bound into a common community regardless of race, creed, or origin, and that everyone has limitless opportunity, and somehow the very fact that we *are* Americans demands certain standards of behavior of us. Yes, America *is* the land of opportunity in many ways, and our Constitution guarantees us certain legal rights, but part of what makes the US what it is is the 'religious' *belief* that being an American is part of being something special, and it tempers the hopes, dreams, and actions of those who subscribe to the myth (for good and ill).

I think it is possible to use/expand 'secular' myths such as this to benefit the whole of humanity (whoops, my bias is showing /adjusts slip ;) ), or should I say, to encourage 'moral' behavior and shape more positive ethical systems than what most of organized religion has given us over the last few millenia. You see an expanded view of this myth in many individuals who identify as 'world citizens', for example - that all human beings are one people *and* special, and that our humanity demands certain responsibilities/behaviors of us.

One of the things that some Buddhists do as part of loving-kindness meditation (and this can be seen in Hinduism and some other faiths as well) is to practice thinking benevolently of, and having compassion for, first themselves, and then their familes and loved ones, and then their friends, and then those they are neutral towards, and then finally their enemies. In some variants this is expanded to include the inhabitants of their city or state, and then the entire world (and in some native american practices this included the concept of mitakue oyasin, or 'all my relatives', including the plants and animals). While it's not completely transparent or effortless, I think that this is a decent example of how a practice, which requires no dogmatic religious faith whatsoever, can shape positive or 'moral' behavioral outcomes in people through the insight and awareness that other human beings *are* just that, fully human beings, too.

It is, of course, possible to work at implementing a moral code from a purely pragmatic 'enlightened self-interest' angle (one does not kill or steal because one does not wish to be killed or stolen from (a la Golden Rule), one does not degrade one's environment and in doing so steal from/jeopardize one's children), but as Thor has mentioned, I think it's probable that the great majority of humanity requires a bit more to 'hold onto' than that.

Regards,
Nydia Ywalmoriel

Geez, lots to catch up on, but the paycheck's gotta be taken care of first. :)

Without quoting each bit of your post, the entire thing still boils down to the same fundamental issue for me. No matter how you justify it, the fact is that God pointed Job out to Satan and opened him up to all that he endured.
I don't deny it.

"All's well that ends well" doesn't work for me. The bottom line is that God used Job to basically win a bet with the devil, and at a fairly great cost to Job in the interim. Even if Job wasn't such a devout man, that would have been twisted enough. Him being one of God's most loyal followers just makes it even sicker.
From the viewpoint of a non-believer who thinks we have only the time from birth to death given to us this is still a reasonable assessment. The problem is that this viewpoint ignores the perspective of the author of the book and the foundation of beliefs it is based upon.

The covenant God establishes with the Jews, and later extends to Gentiles, carries with it the promise of eternal benefits. For a person who believes they have an eternity of communion with God to look forward to, and I believe the author of Job to be such a person, the time we spend on earth, the things we accomplish or experience in that short span of time and their costs have a different meaning than to someone with nothing to look to beyond a hole in the ground or some ashes scattered in the wind.

The story reminds me of a kid I used to know with a really great dog. He'd kick the dog around, show off to us how the dog would still follow him around and obey him, and then give the dog a treat for being loyal through the abuse; so he could do it again. Sadistic fuck.
If in Job's situation God allowed Lucifer to destroy all his loved ones and possessions then gave them back and let Lucifer destroy them repeatedly you might have a point. That's not how the story is given to us though.

God lets Lucifer take Job's goodies and kill his children but Job doesn't react the way Lucifer predicts. Lucifer asks for permission to harm Job himself and God gives Lucifer the go ahead. Still Job doesn't react the way Lucifer said he would but Job's sin is revealed. God is acting within His rights as set down in His own covenant with the Jews and in a way that gives Job a chance to reconcile himself with God. God then returns Job his health, more possessions than he had before and more children.

The dynamic is very like what happens when a parent must discipline or punish their children.

My daughter has certain rules she has to abide by when she's in my home. If she doesn't follow them there are consequences. At times she has been angry at me, and I with her, over the situation and the punishment but underneath it all our love for each other doesn't cease. I've spanked her three times in her entire life, does that make me sadistic? I've taken away things I've given her because she mis-used them or it was appropriate as a disciplinary measure. Does that make me cruel? And when its all said and done we continue on with our lives. She has a new respect for my rules and why they exist. She obeys them because she understands them better and knows that the rules exist because of my love for her, not because she's afraid of the consequences if she disobeys. (at least this is what I hope :) )

Now, I can't answer why the author of the book skims over the issue of the state of Job's first children's souls although he mentions Job making intercessory sacrifices on their behalf and at the end of the book God clearly states that he considers Job righteous enough to ask for forgiveness on behalf of others and to grant that forgiveness.

You are still welcome to God a sadistic fuck if you wish. I don't agree that God's actions are inconsistent with His covenant with the Jews and as such not sadistic at all.

God lets Lucifer take Job's goodies and kill his children but Job doesn't react the way Lucifer predicts. Granted, I regard the story as a moral fable, but it strikes me that maybe Satan just fooled God into allowing him to kick the crap out of one of the latter's favorite servants. That strikes me as just the sort of thing Ol' Scratch would do (or at least something I would do, and the Devil ought to be a 1000 times more devious than I). http://69.50.212.152/images/smilies/devil.gif

Satan's just had more time to practice than you have Thormir. ;)

The question of whether religion is necessary or not - without it, I'm curious where you would establish a moral basis for your laws?

Morals without religion should be the goal towards which we all strive.

Religion enforces its morals (in many cases) through fear of punishment not only in this life, but in the afterlife as well. The concept of "sin" is a great example of this. Karma is another example that can be used outside a Christian reference- the better you behave, the sooner you can break free of the cycle.

Even outside the bounds of religion, most people operate in a way that they think is right based on what society dictates. They follow the law, and may even disregard laws that they think are without merit (case in point: speeding, crossing a street in the middle of a block).

There is a theory about moral development thought up by a man named Lawrence Kohlberg. His classification can be outlined in the following manner:

Pre-conventional, Stage 1: Obedience and Punishmen
Pre-conventional, Stage 2: Individualism, Instrumentalism, and Exchange
Conventional, Stage 3: "Good boy/girl"
Conventional, Stage 4: Law and Order
Post-conventional, Stage 5: Social Contract
Post-Conventional, Stage 6: Principled Conscience
I can’t go too greatly in depth about the whole theory, if you google “Lawrence Kohlberg” and “ethics” I’m sure you’ll find enough background to satisfy you.

Now, looking at the chart, it is easy to see why convincing someone not to steal a candy bar from a store is more difficult to do from a higher stage than from a lower one- Don’t steal it because you’ll get in trouble if you get caught is about as basic as you can get. Expanding this, adding in a god who knows everything you do at all times and will punish you- maybe not now, but when you die- adds an element of “you’ll get caught no matter what”. Santa Claus serves this same purpose.

There is often much hue and cry about how quickly anarchy would happen if people did not have the “fear of god” and the specter of eternal damnation hanging about in their mind. To me, this represents a huge shortcoming in the ethics and morals of religious teaching. We must teach people to be good citizens and enable them to make sound ethical choices outside the realm of religion. I wish I had a sure method to do this- but I don’t.

The dynamic is very like what happens when a parent must discipline or punish their children.
Not so much. I'm quite sure you told your daughter *why* she was being punished, what the boundries of the punishment were and when it would end.

You also administered the punishment yourself- you didn't have somoene who didn't like your child (but most importantly, didn't like you) do it.

Also, if we extend your dynamic to Adam and original sin, it would be fair to punish your great-grand children for the time your daughter ate that apple she wasn't supposed to.

Not so much. I'm quite sure you told your daughter *why* she was being punished, what the boundries of the punishment were and when it would end.

You also administered the punishment yourself- you didn't have somoene who didn't like your child (but most importantly, didn't like you) do it.
Its not a perfect analogy, no, but I think its a far better example than Sanchek's of the principle involved as it relates to the story of Job.

Also, if we extend your dynamic to Adam and original sin, it would be fair to punish your great-grand children for the time your daughter ate that apple she wasn't supposed to.
I'm not extending the dynamic to Adam and "original sin" though. To do that we would have to dive into the mire of conflicting dogmas among christian faiths and that's outside the scope of the discussion I was having with Sanchek.

Is it normal for a human to be able to kill another human, by sawing off his head with a small knife, while looking into his eyes as the human screams and squirms? No, a normal person would have a conscience that would not allow them to perform such an act. It is a deviant, abnormal brain that can do this without any remorse whatsoever. This natural instinct is in all but a very small minority of humans. Was it created by religion? No, it is human nature. Human nature (assuming people's brains all work properly) should allow people to develop a society with rules and standards that is absent of religion and "the fear of god" to keep people in line. There are 2 very simple rules to follow when deciding if you should do something or not. 1; Does it make you feel good? 2; Does it make someone else feel bad? If the answer is yes, and no then you are good to go. Unfortunately, there are way too many people who are not intelligent enough to follow a simple plan and have no problem committing acts of terrible violence that effect many people and absolutely zero remorse about it. If you look at society from a stand point of evolution, you see that the ratio of bad people with deviant brains to normal people with consciences is going in the wrong direction. We should stop this process and not allow deviant people to reproduce.

Phelonius

Speaking of which, how about the genocide in Darfur? Muslims killing tens of thousands of innocent people, including women and children? Is that normal behavior? Is that justifiable by anything written in the Koran? These people are just hard core deviants. They are basically on a Muslim vs Christian crusade over there.

On a side note, which should actually be another thread, I would like someone to answer a question. As a concerned, pro active american who is too old to join the military, what can I do as a citizen to fight terrorism and extremism in America and abroad? I actually wrote to my congressman and I was told to continue about my daily life and have faith in the government and their policies to handle the problem. I don't buy that BS. I can almost guarantee you the next time we have a large scale terrorist attack on american soil there will be riots and some hard core lynching witch hunts. Guess where I will be? :mad:

Phelonius

I can almost guarantee you the next time we have a large scale terrorist attack on american soil there will be riots and some hard core lynching witch hunts. Guess where I will be? :mad:

Phelonius
Hopefully not with the deviants doing all the lynching and rioting. You'd have to be sterilized.

Phel, here is something in responce to that question you asked about terror prevention:

Click Me (http://forums.ayonae.ro/showthread.php?p=72486#post72486)

Is it normal for a human to be able to kill another human, by sawing off his head with a small knife, while looking into his eyes as the human screams and squirms? No, a normal person would have a conscience that would not allow them to perform such an actWhich is why enemies are often de-humanized in times of conflict. This creates an atmosphere of our group vs. them, where our group is right, and they are sub-humans who must either be brought into the right or eliminated.

Us vs. Them style thinking pervades almost all human organizations, from high school cliques to holders of the highest public offices. Abandoning that style of thinking is a major step toward (for lack of a better word offhand) enlightenment.

Catching up from the day!

On aliens - I certainly don't subscribe to said theories, but there are many people who attribute some characters/events in the Bible/other historical religious books to be either related to extra-terrestrial beings or connects aliens/devils to aliens. I'm far too lazy to reference or even remember where, but I've stumbled across them several times. There's a great book on the internet somewhere (the complete text) relating Satan to aliens - and interesting read, if nothing else. Wish I could remember what it's called. Anyway, point is, it isn't a foriegn notion, and I think Thormir is right when he says most religious groups would just adope the newcomers into their belief system.

(From Esbat) Religion enforces its morals (in many cases) through fear of punishment not only in this life, but in the afterlife as well.
I sorta disagree. But only sorta. Part of most religions is the idea that following their belief code will result in happier living here. As in, their religious laws are based on being beneficial in this life. Karma as well - the better you live, you'll be happier and hurt others less.

This is why the question of why can't a saint (easter religion saint) do whatever they want once achieving enlightenment is nonsense - they wouldn't want to go crazy and take over the world, they understand why it's wrong. Or a Christian, who's sins have been paid for by Christ's death. The question comes up, "Can they do whatever they want and ask forgiveness later?" Theoretically yes - but they won't want to, because ideally they'll understand why their laws exist.

The catch is how you come to a moral agreement that society can live with. Esbat brought up stealing a candy bar, which is a good start. Maybe I don't like the guy who runs the store, and this morning on the way to MY job he cut me off and almost made me wreck my car, and made me late for work. Doesn't he OWE me something? Can you explain why he wouldn't, outside of a predefined moral framework?

1; Does it make you feel good? 2; Does it make someone else feel bad?
Phelonius' two steps fail here. What if they've already done something to make me feel bad? Or what if my action only makes some people feel bad - as with gay marriage, or even murder? Should we or should we not have taken down Sadam? Or that punk college kid who plays loud music and lets his dogs bark all night, throwing trash in your yard and hitting on your wife? What if I kill him?

I don't know what the deeper step is, without going through religion. I'm not entirely sure it is bad to have a religious basis - except we have ample evidence of religious based systems doing horrible horrible things. And, well, religious based systems doing great things (Mother T, for example).

Nydia - glad you chimed in - but the catch to the American system is it was still based on religious ideals from a majority group. Even as different religious sects began setting up shop, they were basically under the Christian umbrella. The religious freedom and other social ideals are still based around laws and standards set down by the Christian faith.

Where do 'negative' religions fit in, btw? Like true Satanism, or a handful of other fringe religions? Their moral code is often vastly different from mainstream beliefs.

I'm also not convinced that religion is based completely on ignorant beliefs. Many very well educated people still profess some sort of faith, even those within the science and philosophical community.

Rather than the abolishment of religion, or worse yet turning religion into the scapegoat for all of humankind's mistakes, it might be better to ask if an enlightened society can truly turn towards religious freedom and tolerance. The real deal, that is, where people are both free to express and practice their religions freely.

Not that it has much to do with the current discussion, but some interesting things I found while look for the alien/demon connection.

http://www.seekye1.com/CSA-UFO-Bible.htm - Not a bad read. If memory serves (not interested in reading it now) this is the one I read way back when.

http://www.bibleufo.com/links_90.htm - This one's just kinda silly, IMHO, but interesting to look at. Be sure you look at vehicles and the introduction, and don't believe everything you read. :)

Anyhow, since it was asked what people would think if aliens landed. The connections between demons and aliens seem to have grown considerably since I last looked at it. Presumably you could find information on what most religions think of the possibility of aliens on the 'net, just try to sepparate fact from paranoia.

Man...you people are seriously fucked up. There are 15 year old goth chicks who keep a live journal that are more stable then you guys.

What I find funny though, is all you people who preach, "Why don't you fucking Christians just leave other people alone?" won't fucking leave Christians alone.

Now if you'll excuse me, I'm going to go be like most normal human beings and masturbate to lesbian porn instead of masturbating over my own psuedo-intellectualism. Seriously, stop listening to your college professors. They're full of shit.

The catch is how you come to a moral agreement that society can live with. Esbat brought up stealing a candy bar, which is a good start. Maybe I don't like the guy who runs the store, and this morning on the way to MY job he cut me off and almost made me wreck my car, and made me late for work. Doesn't he OWE me something? Can you explain why he wouldn't, outside of a predefined moral framework?

You were in his blind spot, and he couldn't see you. How does that make it OK to steal his candy?

Or, if it was intentional (ie: he was being a dick) explain to me how two wrongs make a right?

Eye for an eye? :)

He wronged me, so by the most basic forms of laws (Roliel brought up Hamurabi's), he's all mine!

(And for the record, no, I don't subscribe to that model of thinking.)

A lot of people think "an eye for an eye" is carte blanche to extract any type of revenge on someone that has wronged you.

However, it is more logical to think that the basis for "an eye for an eye" was based on curbing an escalation of revenge.

In other words, if somebody caused you to lose an eye, the most you could do was pluck out their eye- instead of killing them and their kids, for example.