Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[SHAD0Wdump]

Alright, I could tell that I was struggling to answer the line of thought that BFEL presented, indeed to the point where I sort of flounder about, I've done this before. I cede that I don't necessarily have an answer that proves God isn't self-centered, but I'm sure there is someone that does.


 But I do have a response that I came up with after the fact, whether it is good enough for you or not is up to you to decide.

 I feel we have enough data concerning the existence of Jesus to say that he did indeed exist and was who he said he is, the book I mentioned earlier so far has me convinced until proof that can battle it is presented. If that is to be believed, then we had the very personality of God amidst us, and he had the sheer force of will and foreknowledge of the fact to die for us in an excruciating way. If that doesn't suggest he is not self-centered, I don't know what can.

DCT is a dark path to be going down. After all, if right and wrong are nothing more than the arbitrary whims of God, then we could consider all the actions of deranged cult leaders nothing more than misguided attempts to do the right thing. They thought God was speaking to them, after all. What if God spoke to you? Would you kill and torture if you thought it was what your deity wanted from you?

Now in another line of thought, this one somewhat disturbs me. I could very well be missing something. But a deranged cult leader either is doing this for his own interests, or no matter what the state of his grey matter, he really believes he is doing the right thing. So I'm not sure what is incorrect about your statement.
 As for the 'Would I X horrible thing', I'd be very, very skeptical of what I'd be hearing told to me if it suggested I do something so contrary to what I believe.

[Jelle]

Take the bible, for example. The document as we know it originated 400 years after the death of Christ, when the church edited it heavily. Much was cut from it, much was undoubtedly altered in translation, and more simply ceased to be referenced  by mainstream Christianity (for example, the prohibition on shaving and the wearing of mixed cloth are not followed, despite being directly adjacent to the ban on homosexuality, which is followed and exceeded).

Now this is something I'm curious about. I've recently read a book titles 'The Case for Christ' by Lee Strobel, and in it he cites quite a few theologians about the authenticity of the new testament and the existence of Christ. They date the original texts to within a generation of Christs death, even down to as early as 30 years after.
 Is there any proof against this?

I was under the impression Christ wasn't revered until later in the middle ages as well. Not entirely sure where I heard it from, it's not a subject of interest to me, but I do remember having heard it. If I were to wager a guess I'd say the texts on Christ date way back then, but did not become prevelant until later.
Someone should do some research on it, now I'm kind of curious as well.

Edit: Blargh not the easiest subject to find solid information on. I'm leaving this for someone else to find out. 

[MetalSlimeHunt]

As for the 'Would I X horrible thing', I'd be very, very skeptical of what I'd be hearing told to me if it suggested I do something so contrary to what I believe.

So you don't actually care about what God thinks is right, you care about what you think is right. Haven't you heard the Word?

[SHAD0Wdump]

As for the 'Would I X horrible thing', I'd be very, very skeptical of what I'd be hearing told to me if it suggested I do something so contrary to what I believe.

So you don't actually care about what God thinks is right, you care about what you think is right. Haven't you heard the Word?

God also often speaks through angels in the bible and it also mentions Satan likes to masquerade as one. We are very much encouraged to check our sources.

[MetalSlimeHunt]

As for the 'Would I X horrible thing', I'd be very, very skeptical of what I'd be hearing told to me if it suggested I do something so contrary to what I believe.

So you don't actually care about what God thinks is right, you care about what you think is right. Haven't you heard the Word?

God also often speaks through angels in the bible and it also mentions Satan likes to masquerade as one. We are very much encouraged to check our sources.

And yet I am the one with the Biblical support here. Or are you saying you believe that God has allowed Satan to put things of his own in the Bible? Guess there's no reason to trust any of it then, hell, perhaps God doesn't exist and it's just Satan messing with you.

I mean, what's it going to be? The Bible says not to rely on your own understanding. That's the opposite of source checking.

[SHAD0Wdump]

And yet I am the one with the Biblical support here. Or are you saying you believe that God has allowed Satan to put things of his own in the Bible? Guess there's no reason to trust any of it then, hell, perhaps God doesn't exist and it's just Satan messing with you.

I mean, what's it going to be? The Bible says not to rely on your own understanding. That's the opposite of source checking.

From what I've interpreted, where the bible says to not rely on our own understanding, it means that we should not make assumptions about the future. When it comes to 'thou shalt kill' we should not accept in cases of murder because God is not supposed to be self contradicting, if he has actively said we should not do a thing, then we should not do it.

 However the issue here is the bible does have rules about stoning, the act of executing those who have performed heretical  or 'unjust' acts. So there's definitely cases where in the bible God has ordered us to kill.

 So that does seem like a rough thing. In society today? Completely unacceptable.

 I'd say the only possible way for such things to be justified by human kind is to assume trust in God that he will take care of things appropriately after death. But as for an answer to this one that would satisfy a person's morals regarding this? I wouldn't dare try to judge this.

 Simply put, who do you think has a better sense of what is right or wrong? You? Or a being who created everything assuming he exists? If you assume such a being doesn't exist, I'd be hard pressed to find anyone to convince you if you don't believe and won't believe Jesus exists as he claimed himself to be.


By the way... On a small side note...

Guess there's no reason to trust any of it then, hell, perhaps God doesn't exist and it's just Satan messing with you.

So you are assuming satan exists without God existing in the first place?

[MDFification]

Take the bible, for example. The document as we know it originated 400 years after the death of Christ, when the church edited it heavily. Much was cut from it, much was undoubtedly altered in translation, and more simply ceased to be referenced  by mainstream Christianity (for example, the prohibition on shaving and the wearing of mixed cloth are not followed, despite being directly adjacent to the ban on homosexuality, which is followed and exceeded).

Now this is something I'm curious about. I've recently read a book titles 'The Case for Christ' by Lee Strobel, and in it he cites quite a few theologians about the authenticity of the new testament and the existence of Christ. They date the original texts to within a generation of Christs death, even down to as early as 30 years after.
 Is there any proof against this?

The individual gospels date back to a generation or two after the death of Chirst; however, a great many gospels were deemed heretical in the 4th Century CE, such as the Gospel of Judas and the Gospel of Eve. Essentially, at one point Christian doctrine was much more large and varied than it is today (heck, the Gospel of Eve included eating semen as a religious rite!) and the church picked and chose what it wished to put forward as Christian. Christianity was in a state of doctrinal flux from about 30 CE to 787 CE, when it finally stabilized.
Christ's existence is pretty much universally accepted - there's overwhelming evidence in favor of it. The life of Christ as told today however may be different from that told hundreds of years ago, or the one he actually lived. Considering his given name wasn't Jesus (that's the greek translation; translating directly to english from hebrew would result in Joshua) it seems more than likely.

[Shakerag]

(heck, the Gospel of Eve included eating semen as a religious rite!)

Wait, what?

[+!!scientist!!+]

I'd like to say a few things about religion and tyranny:

First, many organizations and governments would like to say that they are holy, divine, and the embodiment of their religion in this world. I have never seen a case in which this is the truth. Organizations are run by humans, not gods, so they will often stray from the teachings of their religion in order to pursue the desires of those who run the organization, and they will mask these actions as being for righteous purposes. This is what's going on in  events like the crusades. If the question is whether mankind is the slaves to secular organizations that claim to be righteous, then the answer is yes, this is true for almost every group of people in civilized history.

If the question is whether any single group of people are slaves to a religion, as in the beliefs and teachings that make up that religion, then the answer is obviously no. People are able to change their religions freely, and while it may difficult, such as in the case of the OP, it's never impossible. Even if you look at the people who have a definite religion, its up to them how much it affects their actions and life. Even in the case of Christianity people are free to do as they please. Many, Christians and Atheists alike, believe Christianity to include a very strict set of laws that humans must obey, but this isn't the case. Because of Jesus's crucifixion, all sins are forgiven. All you need to do in order to go to heaven is believe in the Holy Trinity and be willing to apologize for your wrongdoings. The ten commandments and other laws put forth by God are basically guidelines if you want to live a happy, productive, and helpful life, nothing more, and nothing less.

I realize that the question in the title has not been the center of attention, but I felt that I should answer it. As for questions of God's existence, I say that while I believe that God is a real being that existed long before humanity and I believe that saying "I don't know, therefore God." is intrinsically  stupid and ridiculous, I believe that no good will come of debating about the existence of God. I've tried to argue his existence to others as they tried to argue his nonexistence to me, and nothing changed. I believe that we should talk about the merits and problems of various beliefs, not whether or not they're factual. Great truths have been told through lies, and vice versa.

[Biowraith]

All you need to do in order to go to heaven is believe in the Holy Trinity...

That part has always bugged me as being horribly unfair and unjust (and contrary to the idea of a truly benevolent god).  You've got dozens, maybe even hundreds of different belief systems presented to you, most of which are claiming to be the one true, well, truth.  There's no particularly compelling reason to pick any one of them over the others - you can't actually verify any of them (except, I suppose, by dying, but by then it's traditionally too late to change your choice).  As far as I can tell, most people just pick whichever one they were taught as a kid, whichever one best fits their personal beliefs and/or prejudices, or just whichever one is most prevalent in their culture - all of which are really more about personal comfort than actually finding the truth.

So you've got all these different choices, no way to know which (if any!) is correct, and the Christian teaching is that if you guess right you get heaven and if you guess wrong you get hell.  Given the consequences, that seems a pretty monstrous way to determine the future of our souls.

To my mind, a truly benevolent God would save everyone, unconditionally.  Even the worst of us and even the unbelievers or misbelievers.  Certainly not save the worst of us that happened to guess correctly while condemning the best of us that guessed wrong.

(of course, I rather suspect that even if there truly is a God of some description, even if it's otherwise the Christian God, that this particular clause was manufactured by the very mortal and fallible church(es) as a reason why you should stick with them, conveniently increasing their powerbase)

[Helgoland]

I like the Jewish take on that - 'infidels' only need to adhere to the Seven Laws of Noah (which basically amount to 'don't be a dick'). I'd wager a fair amount of money that eventually the Catholics are going to come up with something similar...

[MetalSlimeHunt]

I like the Jewish take on that - 'infidels' only need to adhere to the Seven Laws of Noah (which basically amount to 'don't be a dick').

It was more like "don't be a dick, don't worship other gods, don't be gay, and don't have sex with a woman on her period".

[BFEL]

I feel we have enough data concerning the existence of Jesus to say that he did indeed exist and was who he said he is, the book I mentioned earlier so far has me convinced until proof that can battle it is presented. If that is to be believed, then we had the very personality of God amidst us, and he had the sheer force of will and foreknowledge of the fact to die for us in an excruciating way. If that doesn't suggest he is not self-centered, I don't know what can.

Is there enough data concerning the existence of the person known as "Jesus of Nazareth" to suggest he existed? Pretty much yeah.
Does that necessarily mean he had "the very personality of God" or even "the foreknowledge of the fact"? Not in the slightest.
Quite frankly, there's enough disinformation and bias in even the most professional, well researched and fact focused historical texts to call into question the motives of even figures from the last CENTURY, let alone from 2000+ years ago.

The real Jesus of Nazareth could very well have been the most horrid person alive back then for all we can prove of what actually went down.
Sure we can say "He was here" but we can't say "He was here and did EXACTLY THIS AND NOTHING ELSE"

The phrase "Take it on Faith" comes to mind I suppose, but personally I have a high opinion of Faith, and prefer to apply it to things that don't require it to carry their full weight.
For example I can say "I have faith this chair will hold my weight" because I have personal experience with chairs and they generally tend to do that.
I can say "I have faith that humanity are generally not total douchebags and don't deserve to be slaughtered by a omnipotent jerkass who generally acts like a 5 year old" because I have personally met people, and I only get the urge to repeatedly stab a few of them.

Faith is effectively equivalent to a gamble. I like that random chance element personally, but I also know not to bet more then I can afford to lose.
I know that throwing your faith at a God when the evidence can't even predict IF HE EXISTS, LET ALONE if he's a decent guy is effectively
the equivalent of borrowing the maximum from every loan shark in Vegas, going to a casino, yelling ALL IN BITCHES and putting every penny on double 0.
And frankly that is an unconscionably horrible idea in my opinion.

Simply put, who do you think has a better sense of what is right or wrong? You? Or a being who created everything assuming he exists?

Me, no question hands down, full stop.
Because I KNOW me, I know that I am generally quite logical and I know the attempts I have made to be well informed on a particular subject.
I DON'T know that about "a being who created everything assuming he exists"
I don't rely on the ASSUMPTION that "creating everything" has applications toward "knowing what to do with everything" and I find it UTTERLY TERRIFYING that so many people DO rely on that assumption.

[Aeax]

To my mind, a truly benevolent God would save everyone, unconditionally.  Even the worst of us and even the unbelievers or misbelievers.  Certainly not save the worst of us that happened to guess correctly while condemning the best of us that guessed wrong.

Actually there is a scripture (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Acts%2024:14-16;&version=NIV) that shows there will be a resurrection of the righteous and unrighteous. So even those that didn't hear about him would be able to learn.

About the last point, the bible certainly didn't think that the matter is a mere a choice as simply "guessing". I don't think someone would truly believe in a god if they just flipped a coin and said, "oh so he does exist!".

[BFEL]

Guess there's no reason to trust any of it then, hell, perhaps God doesn't exist and it's just Satan messing with you.

So you are assuming satan exists without God existing in the first place?

There's actually a funny "Satan wrote the Bible" theory.
According to the theory...well its kinda self explanatory, but the basic idea is he wrote the book listing himself as God and God as him.
I personally find it hilarious AND good strategy.

I mean isn't there a prayer or something like "Now that I lay down to sleep I pray the Lord my soul to keep?"
Satan could be stealing souls PASSIVELY.
Why go out of your way when they'll just sign it over unconditionally free of charge?