|
God hates fags... (pg. 16)
|
View this Thread in Original format
| Moral Hazard |
| quote: | Originally posted by pkcRAISTLIN
bits and pieces through the years. but i dont feel like wasting time eating dog just so i know how bad it tastes.
|
I'd recommend you read it, if for no other reason then it is a rather decent bit of philosophy. Besides, if you wish to take a position against something then you really should know what you're taking a position against. |
|
|
| elFreak |
| quote: | Originally posted by Jake Benson
Samsung sucks. My Samsung phone won't T9 "Israel" but it will T9 "Palestine." Yeah I understand being pro one and anti the other, but that doesn't mean the WORD doesn't exist. Stupid Asians!
:whip: |
where i am from samsung owns everything, even fags and god. |
|
|
| josh rising |
i was walking back to my dorm from my car and some d-bag yelled "you're a fag" down from a few floors up. i didn't look, and it coulda been to someone else, or even a different word than "fag", but it pissed me off.
i guess that's my contribution to this thread. |
|
|
| Jake Benson |
| quote: | Originally posted by josh rising
i was walking back to my dorm from my car and some d-bag yelled "you're a fag" down from a few floors up. i didn't look, and it coulda been to someone else, or even a different word than "fag", but it pissed me off.
i guess that's my contribution to this thread. |
Someone called me a fag for being on the phone, so I shouted back "NO YOU YOU"RE A ING FAG AND YOU FAG YOUR MOTHER FAG F*CKER!" And then everyone was looking at me weird and I was like "What? So what if I was on my cell phone I was in the right lane!" and drove off.
| quote: | Originally posted by elFreak
where i am from samsung owns everything, even fags and god. |
Samsung doesn't own me. And god doesn't exist. |
|
|
| pkcRAISTLIN |
| quote: | Originally posted by Moral Hazard
God isn't after blind faith, he/it is after our love. In order to love something you must first accept that it exists, which is why revealation is necessary; however, as I stated earlier, giving full revealation (leaving no doubt) would result in people being compelled to love god rather then choosing. |
would it? i am somewhat doubtful, given that were god to exist he certainly wouldn't be receiving any love from people like me. questions and demands for certain justifications undoubtedly, but love? Not so sure. Wouldn't it be a far more open and honest to show oneself and then let people decide or not to provide the deity with love. Throughout biblical history there were examples (in no uncertain terms) of god's power and wrath, so its not like he has an aversion to providing absolute and indisputable proof.
If all that god wants is our love, and to receive our love he can only impart a loosely-derived message via the bible, how about the thousands (or millions) of people that were born, lived and died well before god's message could ever reach them*? Was god less concerned with them, was the love of the middle eastern and then european peoples more than enough, so that entire continents were ignored? Yes, all peoples have some kind of religious belief system, but many of them were not even remotely christian in nature "back in the day".
| quote: | Originally posted by Moral Hazard
As far as why send Jesus to die for our sins... to gain a greater kinship with his people. Jesus, while referred to as the son of god is really part of god (for the sake of this argument you must allow that God exists because none of this matters if you exclude that possibility... so presume the existance of god... just for a few minutes). God took human form so that he could experience first hand the life of a human (think Star Trek TNG where Picard got hit by that probe thing and was given the experience of living a life in a dead civilization). |
Oh come on, if I can remember you're a catholic the least you could do is remember I hate star trek :p
| quote: | Originally posted by Moral Hazard
So, Jesus was/is the part of God that lived as man, to give to God full knowledge of what the life of man is. God didn't give Jesus up to death as a way of Jesus being punished on behalf of man for the collective sins of man, rather, by living as Jesus - by experiencing the draw of sin first hand - God was moved to forgive the sins of man. |
That doesn't sound like much of an "all knowing" god to me.
| quote: | Originally posted by Moral Hazard
You know that I went on a very long journey to find my faith... this is the very question that prompted that journey. I'm afraid that after 18 years I don't have an answer that would satisfy you. This is not to say I don't have an answer. I fully believe that the holy spirit is at work in the world, not by direct intervention by by divine inspiration. I know that you're looking for the big miracles, the pillars of fire; however, the time of revealation is past. The work of god in the world in now the work of those moved by the holy spirit. Why has God stopped with the big shows? I can't say, I still haven't been able to reconsile that. |
A long journey? Or a long trip? :p look, I totally understand where you're coming from, and it is a nice answer, but as you rightly say, not one that will satisfy me. 20th century man for instance, provided many stunning situations where an interventionist god would surely have done something, especially in the case of his "chosen" people. Unless of course he's reverted to his old personality that forced people to walk in the desert for no good reason? Seems awfully fickle for an all-knowing power if you ask me.
*indeed, what about all those people that died having worshipped other gods in direct opposition to the commandment because they werent hanging with moses as he cut the tablets?? |
|
|
| pkcRAISTLIN |
| quote: | Originally posted by Moral Hazard
I'd recommend you read it, if for no other reason then it is a rather decent bit of philosophy. Besides, if you wish to take a position against something then you really should know what you're taking a position against. |
Ahhhh, but that would only be the case if my opposition to religion was related to doctrine, rather than the influence of said doctrine in things like politics. I have tried on multiple occasions to get through it, but its just too painful to read. I don’t really need to be a biblical scholar to know that laws, customs and decisions should be motivated by reason and not by someone's interpretation of a 2000 year-old document, or that blowing oneself up isn't justifiable by reference to some unsubstantiated novel written by persons unknown.
I don't challenge the general message of jesus, coz he sounded like a pretty decent chap with some pretty decent ideas for how to conduct oneself. I am far more concerned with what rules people enforce onto others because they think they know what jesus wants. |
|
|
| Moral Hazard |
| quote: | Originally posted by pkcRAISTLIN
would it? i am somewhat doubtful, given that were god to exist he certainly wouldn't be receiving any love from people like me. questions and demands for certain justifications undoubtedly, but love? Not so sure. Wouldn't it be a far more open and honest to show oneself and then let people decide or not to provide the deity with love. Throughout biblical history there were examples (in no uncertain terms) of god's power and wrath, so its not like he has an aversion to providing absolute and indisputable proof. |
I have to disagree with you. If there was absolutely no doubt that there was a god and that he/it was responsible for creating everything that exists or ever existed including us then it is a near certainty that we would be compelled to love him (at least most people would, as most people love their parents even if they are terrible parents). If my presumption that most people would be compelled to love god if they were certain of his existance then an undeniable revealation would negate free will. While the bible (and all religious texts from all the great religions) contain stories in which God revealed himself in no uncertain terms that revealation was only certain to those that directly witnessed the events, the rest of us are left to judge whether or not we believe the stories told about that revealation thus we still have a choice in whether or not we love God.
| quote: | | If all that god wants is our love, and to receive our love he can only impart a loosely-derived message via the bible, how about the thousands (or millions) of people that were born, lived and died well before god's message could ever reach them*? Was god less concerned with them, was the love of the middle eastern and then european peoples more than enough, so that entire continents were ignored? Yes, all peoples have some kind of religious belief system, but many of them were not even remotely christian in nature "back in the day". |
I believe I adequately answered the first part of this: God wants us to choose to love him, not be compelled to love him, thus he must leave doubt. With regard to those that lived prior to revealation I can offer two arguments. First, love of god does not require loving a particular description of god from any of the great religions. Since everything is from god and god is everything then loveing god mearly requires that one recognizes the divine in everything and that they love (love anything). In this way it does not matter if one loves Yaweh in particular, just that they recognize the divine and accept or give love. Second, your argument regarding God only being concerned with the love of those from Abrahamic traditions is only valid if one believes that God only revealed himself to the peoples of the bible in the manners described therein. I reject this out of hand. If one takes the time to understand all the great religions of the world they will find that they are more the same then different with those differences being mainly stylistic in nature and easily explainable as being influenced by what existed in the pre-existing society at the time of the revealation or the evolution of that society since.
| quote: | | Oh come on, if I can remember you're a catholic the least you could do is remember I hate star trek :p |
Sorry, I remembered you were a big fan of Sci-fi and fantasy, but couldn't recall any particular position on Star Trek... I took a shot.
| quote: | | That doesn't sound like much of an "all knowing" god to me. |
I find it strange that so many people believe that if God exists he must be all knowing, all powerful, and benevolent... none of the great religions profess this in their source material.
| quote: | | A long journey? Or a long trip? :p look, I totally understand where you're coming from, and it is a nice answer, but as you rightly say, not one that will satisfy me. 20th century man for instance, provided many stunning situations where an interventionist god would surely have done something, especially in the case of his "chosen" people. Unless of course he's reverted to his old personality that forced people to walk in the desert for no good reason? Seems awfully fickle for an all-knowing power if you ask me. |
I'm not sure that I would agree that the Isrealites journey through the desert served no good reason... If you took the time to read the stories and understand them then you'd likely agree. Since you're illequiped for that discussion I'll not bother with it any further. As far as God not interviening in this century, again, I cannot offer an answer that would satisfy you, as my only answer is "the time of revealation is past" for the reasons outlined earlier (which, honestly, doesn't completely satisfy me either). You're question does remind me of a great story from a Nazi prison camp (I cannot say with any certainty if this is a true story or a parable someone wrote after the fact). The story has it that a young boy was hanged in the prison camp, immediately after one of the gards asked a prisoner "where is your god now?" to which the prisoner replyed "with him, on the gallows." Essentially the story is saying that God is with us in the world, comforting those who suffer, protecting those in peril.
| quote: | | *indeed, what about all those people that died having worshipped other gods in direct opposition to the commandment because they werent hanging with moses as he cut the tablets?? |
Answered above. |
|
|
| Moral Hazard |
| quote: | Originally posted by pkcRAISTLIN
Ahhhh, but that would only be the case if my opposition to religion was related to doctrine, rather than the influence of said doctrine in things like politics. I have tried on multiple occasions to get through it, but its just too painful to read. I don’t really need to be a biblical scholar to know that laws, customs and decisions should be motivated by reason and not by someone's interpretation of a 2000 year-old document, or that blowing oneself up isn't justifiable by reference to some unsubstantiated novel written by persons unknown.
I don't challenge the general message of jesus, coz he sounded like a pretty decent chap with some pretty decent ideas for how to conduct oneself. I am far more concerned with what rules people enforce onto others because they think they know what jesus wants. |
If what you state above is true then should you not be challenging religious authority rather then religion itself much less the accuracy of the bible and ultimately the existance of God. If your concern is the influence of religion on politics and the actions of man then your challenges should be toward polititions and men. |
|
|
| CybaSumo |
| gee.. i did not know about that!? |
|
|
| pkcRAISTLIN |
| quote: | Originally posted by Moral Hazard
I have to disagree with you. If there was absolutely no doubt that there was a god and that he/it was responsible for creating everything that exists or ever existed including us then it is a near certainty that we would be compelled to love him (at least most people would, as most people love their parents even if they are terrible parents). If my presumption that most people would be compelled to love god if they were certain of his existance then an undeniable revealation would negate free will. While the bible (and all religious texts from all the great religions) contain stories in which God revealed himself in no uncertain terms that revealation was only certain to those that directly witnessed the events, the rest of us are left to judge whether or not we believe the stories told about that revealation thus we still have a choice in whether or not we love God. |
so, it is ok for god to reveal himself to some people, but not to others? yes, "we are left to judge whether or not we believe the stories told", but don't you think the contradictory (and sometimes obviously wrong) information in the bible (or other book) would be a little less convoluted and ambiguous if god really did intend it to provide a basis for faith for those living far away or after the times of revelation?
i mean, think about it. if you are correct and god wants people to have a choice to love him, and that choice (for modern western man for instance) is 100% reliant on the stories told in the bible. and then god doesn't even bother to get the stories straight or accurate or consistent? sorry, but i don't think jehovah had a moral hazard-esque journey and examination in mind when imparting his wisdom and knowledge to the people. god's love wouldn't be complicated, the average person is too stupid for that.
Indeed, when god brought down the 7 plagues upon egypt, how does that reconcile with your position of god only showing himself in quiet, small gatherings (like when moses got stoned and carved some tablets in his spare time).
| quote: | Originally posted by Moral Hazard
I believe I adequately answered the first part of this: God wants us to choose to love him, not be compelled to love him, thus he must leave doubt. |
quite a lot of doubt though, wouldn't you say?
| quote: | Originally posted by Moral Hazard
With regard to those that lived prior to revealation I can offer two arguments. First, love of god does not require loving a particular description of god from any of the great religions. Since everything is from god and god is everything then loveing god mearly requires that one recognizes the divine in everything and that they love (love anything). In this way it does not matter if one loves Yaweh in particular, just that they recognize the divine and accept or give love. |
so are you really going to argue that every single religion that has existed is in some way related to the one true, almighty god? why then is there the commandment of not loving any god before me? how about (for instance) the pantheon of the egyptian gods. they sound like they're in contravention to the real deity (and god certainly seemed to punish them fairly severely for their lack of faith). How's that for "free will"?
So, there are certainly examples of heretic belief systems existing in relevation times, just as there are today.
Where is the evidence that the one true god "visited" each of the many many many peoples of the world throughout history to impart the chance for every man, woman and child that has ever lived to enjoy a free choice to love him?
| quote: | Originally posted by Moral Hazard
Second, your argument regarding God only being concerned with the love of those from Abrahamic traditions is only valid if one believes that God only revealed himself to the peoples of the bible in the manners described therein. I reject this out of hand. |
well, i am merely using examples from the belief system that I am most familiar with. But you would have to say that jesus was a pretty important religious figure, and that his sacrifice and example is what legends (hence the chance for people in the 21st century to make the willing choice to love god) are made of. So where are the similar examples from non abrahamic religions that provided reason enough to give the people a choice to love god?
| quote: | Originally posted by Moral Hazard
If one takes the time to understand all the great religions of the world they will find that they are more the same then different with those differences being mainly stylistic in nature and easily explainable as being influenced by what existed in the pre-existing society at the time of the revealation or the evolution of that society since. |
but what about the religions that are not so "great"? where do they come into it?
| quote: | Originally posted by Moral Hazard
I find it strange that so many people believe that if God exists he must be all knowing, all powerful, and benevolent... none of the great religions profess this in their source material. |
well, i think its fair to say that a being that created the universe possesses an awesome amount of power and knowledge. mind-boggling so. Surely the fact that "god loves you" and that message is repeated pretty regularly (at least in the new testament) is evidence enough of his benevolence? He bends over backwards to allow us free will? He provides us with a glorious after life? That reeks of benevolence to me.
| quote: | Originally posted by Moral Hazard
I'm not sure that I would agree that the Isrealites journey through the desert served no good reason... |
right, so not letting moses (who had sacrificed nearly everything in the service of his lord) set foot in the promised land served as another fine example of god's desire for man to have free will. you've gotta admit, the whole concept of free will is fairly moot if the creator of the universe is going to punish you perniciously every time you exercise that free will. its like free will with a gun to your head. didn't they march for 40 years in the desert coz god was unhappy about the golden bull? forgive me as i am obviously unschooled when compared to you.
| quote: | Originally posted by Moral Hazard
If you took the time to read the stories and understand them then you'd likely agree. Since you're illequiped for that discussion I'll not bother with it any further. |
awwww, is moral hazard unhappy PKC hasn't done his bible study? perhaps you might view this as an opportunity to educate someone that feels differently to you about something? i for one would love to hear your educated and rationalised reasoning behind why it was ok for god to send his chosen people into the desert until all their original ancestors had died, after they had dared to worship another (and god hadn't even provided them with their commandments at this stage) after he deemed it ok to leave them as slaves for 400 years previously? how's that free will to love god looking now?
I don’t necessarily have to know the bible like the back of my hand to know that some of the narrative leaves me scratching my head.
| quote: | Originally posted by Moral Hazard
As far as God not interviening in this century, again, I cannot offer an answer that would satisfy you, as my only answer is "the time of revealation is past" for the reasons outlined earlier (which, honestly, doesn't completely satisfy me either). You're question does remind me of a great story from a Nazi prison camp (I cannot say with any certainty if this is a true story or a parable someone wrote after the fact). The story has it that a young boy was hanged in the prison camp, immediately after one of the gards asked a prisoner "where is your god now?" to which the prisoner replyed "with him, on the gallows." Essentially the story is saying that God is with us in the world, comforting those who suffer, protecting those in peril. |
that's all very nice and all, but i just don't find it credible. man is not a finished creature. we are but merely a child in our evolutionary path, we need god today as much as ever, and i find the argument that "the time for revelation is over" to be less compelling than the position that we are now just much better equipped to explain things in the natural world without creating myths surrounding natural phenomenon.
though im unsure how that explains scientology :mad: |
|
|
| pkcRAISTLIN |
| quote: | Originally posted by Moral Hazard
If what you state above is true then should you not be challenging religious authority rather then religion itself much less the accuracy of the bible and ultimately the existance of God. If your concern is the influence of religion on politics and the actions of man then your challenges should be toward polititions and men. |
oh, ill challenge the (few) points and issues i think i understand, but really its more about challenging the special authority of superstition to influence the public sphere. its almost unavoidable that i will be pulled into the existence debate.
I don’t pretend to be nearly as knowledgeable as you concerning any and all religions, but I also don’t think you need to be an expert (whatever that means, how can you be an expert in the unknowable anyway?). God knows (ha) that some of the people that penned the bible weren't either experts or particularly knowledgeable. If an incomplete and imperfect understanding were ok for them, who am I to judge?
And really, your knowledge and understanding (as awesome and interesting and compelling as I might find it) is just one of a million different interpretations of god. Just because you know far more than me about it and have been able to reconcile many of the huge problems in theistic thought, doesn't mean you're any more right than the person who doesn't believe yet knows all about religious teaching. |
|
|
|
|
