Originally posted by Seandroid
I've never understood the concept of the devil being the creator of hell but God using it to his disposal for people he doesn't think are hip enough to go to heaven. So in other words God and the devil are bros and they work together and frequently eat tea and crumpets or something?
Does that make any sense to anyone else?
It doesn't; however, that's not really how Christians believe it works. There are two established schools of thought on the process... one; God denies entry into heaven and "the devil" takes the individual to hell (so God won't let you in... I got a place for you)... two; the inidividual denies themself entry into heaven and is left in the state of "hell" along with "the devil" who was cast from God's sight (hey, you don't think you belong with God... well, you might as well hang with me). The whole notion of the devil torturing people beside a lake of burning oil is really from Dante rather then the Bible.
Posted by Fledz on Dec-30-2010 12:33:
quote:
Originally posted by Moongoose
Oh they find ways for that. These people will go to extraordinary ways to rationalise their irrational beliefs. In that case i think the argument would be that what we are seeing is micro evolution and while micro evolution is possible macro evolution is impossible therefore goddidit.
Sadly I've heard this used before. Fucking crackpots Posted by Moongoose on Dec-30-2010 12:37:
Well in that case why bother being christian at all? If there are no repercussions and the only difference after death is who you hang out with isnt it better to hang out with the devil because according to the bible he is much less of a prick than god. No evernal torment in the lake of fire? Fuck it then, im with the devil, he sounds like a fun guy.
Posted by Moongoose on Dec-30-2010 12:41:
quote:
Originally posted by Fledz
Sadly I've heard this used before. Fucking crackpots
I know, they will go to great lenghts to try and explain their way around scientific fact, then call you stupid, for believing such a "ridiculous and improbable" tale/lie. A facepalm moment if there ever was one.
Posted by Moral Hazard on Dec-30-2010 12:58:
quote:
Originally posted by Saka
For me the Bible is too accurate, and science just backs up the fact that there has to be a creator.
Saka, I think everyone in this thread will recognise that me telling you the above statement is one of the most mind numbingly ill-thought ever uttered in any theology thread on this board is about as big a condemnation there could be. 1) the Bible is so inaccurate in so many ways that most Christian churchs (including the RCs, Anglicans and Eastern Orthos) stress that the Bible cannot be understood or accepted as litteral. 2) Science can only have any position on things that are observable; subsequently, science cannot hold any position on God(s).
quote:
The "math" for evolution does not in any way add up.
If any group ever had a vested interest in disproving evolutionary theory it is the Vatican. The fact that the Vatican fully accepts evolution as the most probable explenation for how life on earth developed suggests to me that greater minds then yours, mine, or anyone in this thread have already conceeded the fight you're trying to advance.
I'm willing to accept there being validity in most theological beliefs; however, arguing that the Bible is a better explenation of the origins of life than evolutionary theory is beyond the pail.
Posted by Moral Hazard on Dec-30-2010 13:09:
quote:
Originally posted by Moongoose
Well in that case why bother being christian at all? If there are no repercussions and the only difference after death is who you hang out with isnt it better to hang out with the devil because according to the bible he is much less of a prick than god. No evernal torment in the lake of fire? Fuck it then, im with the devil, he sounds like a fun guy.
The value in any belief system is what one gleans from it while living, not after death; IMO. That said, Christains by and large would argue that the state of hell is one devoid of the love of god (which is to say all love/joy/happiness/etc.), which results in unbearable torment... not really the way I'd like to spend eternity. I should also point out that very few Christian churches hold that only Christians get into heaven; the RCs hold the position that the Catholic faith is the "most perfect" (whatever the fuck that means) path to god but by no means the only. Incidentally, the satan of the Bible (trace the word satan back and you discover that is actually only means opponent meaning opponent to god, which is concept that only entered into Judaism from Zoroastorism following the Jew's exile to Babalon) is not one in the same as the popular image of "the devil."
I'm not trying to push any belief here, just pointing out that while you probably think your argument above is clever rhetoric is actually only addresses your thoughts on what people believe rather then any established belief system.
Posted by Nrg2Nfinit on Dec-30-2010 13:30:
quote:
Originally posted by Moral Hazard
Saka, I think everyone in this thread will recognise that me telling you the above statement is one of the most mind numbingly ill-thought ever uttered in any theology thread on this board is about as big a condemnation there could be. 1) the Bible is so inaccurate in so many ways that most Christian churchs (including the RCs, Anglicans and Eastern Orthos) stress that the Bible cannot be understood or accepted as litteral. 2) Science can only have any position on things that are observable; subsequently, science cannot hold any position on God(s).
If any group ever had a vested interest in disproving evolutionary theory it is the Vatican. The fact that the Vatican fully accepts evolution as the most probable explenation for how life on earth developed suggests to me that greater minds then yours, mine, or anyone in this thread have already conceeded the fight you're trying to advance.
I'm willing to accept there being validity in most theological beliefs; however, arguing that the Bible is a better explenation of the origins of life than evolutionary theory is beyond the pail.
There you go Saka, a reasonable theist. While I dont agree with everything moral hazard has to say, to me it seems his explanations are intelligible and worthy of discussion.
Posted by pkcRAISTLIN on Dec-30-2010 13:54:
quote:
Originally posted by Moral Hazard
Incidentally, the satan of the Bible (trace the word satan back and you discover that is actually only means opponent meaning opponent to god, which is concept that only entered into Judaism from Zoroastorism following the Jew's exile to Babalon) is not one in the same as the popular image of "the devil."
bollocks. there is a fallen angel who is destined for epic final conflict against the creator of the universe, and we can all pick a side if we want. don't fuck up the story
personally ill be fighting on the lord's side coz he's bringing the biggest guns.
Posted by yukii on Dec-30-2010 15:13:
Posted by Capitalizt on Dec-30-2010 16:00:
quote:
Originally posted by pkcRAISTLIN
bollocks. there is a fallen angel who is destined for epic final conflict against the creator of the universe, and we can all pick a side if we want. don't fuck up the story
personally ill be fighting on the lord's side coz he's bringing the biggest guns.
I'm with the talking snake..He's the only one that told the truth and encouraged Adam + Eve to stop being mindless drones. See you on the battlefield bitch.
Posted by Moral Hazard on Dec-30-2010 16:25:
quote:
Originally posted by pkcRAISTLIN
bollocks. there is a fallen angel who is destined for epic final conflict against the creator of the universe, and we can all pick a side if we want. don't fuck up the story
Sorry Paul, I know you love that book but the whole war kinda ended in 68CE when the anti-christ killed himself.... or if you want to take a more liberal view; in 313 when Conny decided Jesus was the dude.
Posted by yukii on Dec-30-2010 16:30:
quote:
Originally posted by Capitalizt
I'm with the talking snake..He's the only one that told the truth and encouraged Adam + Eve to stop being mindless drones. See you on the battlefield bitch.
this is going to be my Sig as soon as I get home from work lol
Posted by Intellekshual on Dec-30-2010 16:37:
Religion is for me an excercise in flowery ignorance. I have inherently little respect for any devout follower or even passive believer in a religion. I am MUCH more lenient with Buddhists about this than Christians, Muslims & Co, and you can take a swing at why that is.
I'd be happy to see all religion gone.
Oh and:
quote:
The total amount of suffering per year in the natural world is beyond all decent contemplation. During the minute that it takes me to compose this sentence, thousands of animals are being eaten alive, many others are running for their lives, whimpering with fear, others are slowly being devoured from within by rasping parasites, thousands of all kinds are dying of starvation, thirst, and disease. It must be so. If there ever is a time of plenty, this very fact will automatically lead to an increase in the population until the natural state of starvation and misery is restored. In a universe of electrons and selfish genes, blind physical forces and genetic replication, some people are going to get hurt, other people are going to get lucky, and you won't find any rhyme or reason in it, nor any justice. The universe that we observe has precisely the properties we should expect if there is, at bottom, no design, no purpose, no evil, no good, nothing but pitiless indifference.
Posted by woscar on Dec-30-2010 16:38:
"Debating creationists on the topic of evolution is rather like trying to play chess with a pigeon; it knocks the pieces over, craps on the board, and flies back to its flock to claim victory."
- Scott D. Weitzenhoffer
Posted by Halcyon+On+On on Dec-30-2010 16:43:
quote:
Originally posted by pkcRAISTLIN
bollocks. there is a fallen angel who is destined for epic final conflict against the creator of the universe, and we can all pick a side if we want. don't fuck up the story
personally ill be fighting on the lord's side coz he's bringing the biggest guns.
/cue Dragonforce song
Posted by floyd741 on Dec-30-2010 16:49:
Posted by Capitalizt on Dec-30-2010 16:59:
quote:
Originally posted by woscar
"Debating creationists on the topic of evolution is rather like trying to play chess with a pigeon; it knocks the pieces over, craps on the board, and flies back to its flock to claim victory."
- Scott D. Weitzenhoffer
Posted by Zyklon_Jay on Dec-30-2010 17:01:
quote:
Originally posted by woscar
"Debating creationists on the topic of evolution is rather like trying to play chess with a pigeon; it knocks the pieces over, craps on the board, and flies back to its flock to claim victory."
- Scott D. Weitzenhoffer
stolen
Posted by Halcyon+On+On on Dec-30-2010 17:12:
quote:
Originally posted by Esiotrat
Religion is for me an excercise in flowery ignorance.
Is reason really all it's cracked up to be?
To what end is it truly valuable?
Woman (because they're emotional and ignorant): "I love you, honey"
Man (because they're stoic and enlightened): "I know I am coerced by social conduct to reciprocate in similar mannerism, but what I "feel" toward you is not the ingenuity of empathic communication, but rather the random result of seemingly random-firing particles we have fabricated an entire industry of supposed "free will" out of, for the sole purpose of fostering sustainable survivability that transcends post-tribal values on a global scale. Let us mate."
Posted by DaRoZa on Dec-30-2010 17:15:
quote:
Originally posted by Moral Hazard
2) Science can only have any position on things that are observable; subsequently, science cannot hold any position on God(s).
thanks for talking a bit of sense into saka, i do strongly disagree with this part though.
science can't hold a position on the basic concept of god, but all religions are full of supposed scientific facts attributed to god. while most people won't take these facts such as genesis' creationism literally, there are ones central to christianity like the virgin birth and resurrection that would be scientifically testable had the right equipment been present. if jesus body was found today and they discovered 50% of his DNA was liquid gold - or if a controlled experiment was done that showed anonymous prayer increases brain surgery survival rates - would you still say science has no position on god?
Posted by Moral Hazard on Dec-30-2010 17:27:
quote:
Originally posted by DaRoZa
thanks for talking a bit of sense into saka, i do strongly disagree with this part though.
science can't hold a position on the basic concept of god, but all religions are full of supposed scientific facts attributed to god. while most people won't take these facts such as genesis' creationism literally, there are ones central to christianity like the virgin birth and resurrection that would be scientifically testable had the right equipment been present. if jesus body was found today and they discovered 50% of his DNA was liquid gold - or if a controlled experiment was done that showed anonymous prayer increases brain surgery survival rates - would you still say science has no position on god?
Indeed, I would maintain that science has no position on god. Since science is the study of the observable it cannot have any position on something that is entirely unobservable. So, unless the nature of god were such that god is observable and mesurable (which seems to be at odds with most conceptions of god) then it is outside the purview of science. With the two hypotheticals you advanced I would suggest that the only position one could take would be that a seemingly human body were found with 50% DNA shared with gold (clearly not possible) and that anonymous prayer showed some demonstrable improvement in brain surgery survival rates; respectively. Neither of those two things can be extropolated to god as matters of testable fact (an improvement in survival rates amongst persons undergoing brain surgery due to prayer does not necessarally mean that a divine power was involved or otherwise exists); subsequently, anyone who used such phenomona to claim proof of god would be making a claim beyond what the data actually supports, which would not a position that can be described as scientific since it's conclusions cannot be tested and verified.
Posted by Capitalizt on Dec-30-2010 17:34:
quote:
Originally posted by Halcyon+On+On
Is reason really all it's cracked up to be?
To what end is it truly valuable?
It is valuable in separating true claims about the world from false claims...in discerning reality. Emotional attachments and reactions are not necessarily irrational, but they are non-rational..not easily subjected to scientific testing or verification. Acting on emotion rather than reason can bring pleasure and have great value to the human experience, but emotions have no value when it comes to learning what is objectively real about the universe (independently of any human mind).
Posted by Zyklon_Jay on Dec-30-2010 17:35:
do you really believe that women were created from a rib?
Posted by Moral Hazard on Dec-30-2010 17:46:
quote:
Originally posted by Zyklon_Jay
do you really believe that women were created from a rib?
Just a quick point of order... it's only Eve that is claimed to have been fashioned from a rib per genesis and she would be the second woman (to anyone taking a litteral read of that particular myth). Moving forward from that A&E's boys married and banged women from outside the garden... which suggests there was at least one breading couple outside of Eden who were contemporaries of A&E... which brings the overall rib content down to 25% by the third generation... moving forward to today the rib content must be next to nothing. This would seem to be the same problem I have with "hog-tails" the BBQ pit near my house... seems the rib content is constantly decreasing.
Posted by Zyklon_Jay on Dec-30-2010 17:49:
so if eve was a white woman made from ribs, we now know why black men can't get enough of white women.
