Print

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

I am religious and believe in free will

71 (27.7%)

I am religious and do not believe in free will

10 (3.9%)

I am not religious and believe in free will

114 (44.5%)

I am not religious and do not believe in free will

61 (23.8%)

Total Members Voted: 251

[Arx]

My brother is a fucking bastard and I can attest that I don't love him.

That work, heh? 

And every time I've had alcohol I haven't got drunk. Everyone who thinks they get drunk off alcohol is wrong. That work?

[Rolan7]

@Dwarf1
Unless you're arguing that unconditional love doesn't exist *anywhere*, which I don't think you were... Though I'm not convinced that it does exist.

I kinda hate the pseudo-unconditional love for family members because it makes conflicts hurt more. I'd rather choose my relationships.

[TD1]

Getting drunk off alcohol isn't an absolute. You can drink a glass of alcohol and not get drunk, but applying that relativity to something which is supposedly there and unquantifiable seems illogical.

Unconditional love, by definition, is...unconditional.

But when there are examples of family rifts - mother against son, brother against brother, wife against husband - it shows how conditional it is.

As I said, you may love your wife, but if she does something horrendous (or even trivial like buying a puppy or something) and is utterly unrepentant, you're not going to love her for long.

Unconditional love depends upon unchanging personalities and unchanging perceptions of people. That's not something you're going to get in real life.

@Dwarf1
Unless you're arguing that unconditional love doesn't exist *anywhere*, which I don't think you were... Though I'm not convinced that it does exist.

I kinda hate the pseudo-unconditional love for family members because it makes conflicts hurt more. I'd rather choose my relationships.

I don't believe in unconditional love at all, and am dubious about love in general - I recognise people form emotional attachments, but there are some heavy meanings to "love" that I'm not sure can be applied or not. So that's the grey area - unconditional love is the extreme, though.

[TempAcc]

And so we come to another common religious maxim: if you don't have true love, it doesn't mean you shouldn't be trying to achieve it, and just because people don't love you, it doesn't mean you shouldn't love them. Even if such a thing does not exist, its something you should try and make it exist.

Not a statement of fact, of course, just my personal belief.

[TD1]

Hear, hear to that. The world would be a better place with true love.

[Bohandas]

So if I say ceremonious words to my dog, then I become "one flesh" with it?

Marriage in the church/bible isn't limited to the ritual, the ritual is just a small part of it. So, unless you're doing some stuff to your dog you really shouldn't be doing, then you aren't "one flesh" with it :v

No details pls.

So you define "one flesh" as sexual interaction, combined with marriage?

I can have sex with anyone, and marry them, and suddenly we're "one flesh?"

Were we one flesh, there would be some observable difference. Say one died in India, the other in America would know because a part of them just died. Instead, couples who are married frequently have arguments, get cabin fever, can be disillusioned, etc. Saying they're "one flesh" is romantic nonsense mixed with religion.

Not just sex either. Marriage is defined as a communion between a man and a woman in God's presence

So God likes to watch. That's interestibg.

[TempAcc]

And probably participate, too. I mean, since God is omnipresent, chances are he's inside your ass touching your prostate.

Right now. :v

[Rose]

My personal belief is that God exists, but each and every single religion on earth is completely wrong about Him.

And yes, God sees all and knows all.

[Frumple]

Also, it is also possible that we as humans living on earth just cannot comprehend God.

Going by Biblical literalism, it's significantly more than possible. It's pretty much a definite.

While true, that's always struck me as one of the worst cop-outs religion in general tends to pull. I just woke up, so the words aren't quite coming right, but... "It can't be understood" is, just... not a point for, or something like that. It's functionally no different from saying, "It's entirely arbitrary" or "It's just bughumping insane". When you consider the ethics of belief, especially with regard to something as important as religion claims to be (the soul, afterlife, weighed in relation to the eternal consequences, etc.), choosing to believe in something you don't and (significantly worse) can't understand is, just... bad. Bad form, bad idea, the list just rolls on. Science and whatnot get away with it a bit because at least that stuff is trying fix the situation, but with religion it's always brought up as a sort of conversation stopper. "I can't, therefore you cannot claim I should and must accede my suppositions are unassailable." It also seems to be done with the intent that since total comprehension is impossible, lesser comprehension(s) are also meaningless -- that the overall nature of the entity is such that it overrides entirely the nature of its lesser actions. It's basically saying that because god is unknowable, its every action is incapable of being assessed and has no bearing on an evaluation of its actions (current, past, potential future, whatever).

From a human perspective that's just... abhorrent? Significantly unwise? We've seen that sort of belief in human history, many times over -- the king's actions are unknowable to the peasant, therefore the king's rape and murder of the peasantry should not be questioned. The general's intent is unknowable to the soldier, therefore the soldier should follow the order to massacre civilians without hesitation. It just goes on, and on, and on. Maybe it's even true, but that doesn't mean it's right for the soldiers and the peasantry to accept it as true, y'know?

---

S'also an implicit denial of the critter's omnipotence, heh -- it's saying that if god wanted to (and nevermind the implications that it wants mankind to live in ignorance of its nature, instead), it couldn't make humans living on earth comprehend it, if nothing else at least well enough for people to make appropriate decisions regarding the thing.

[miauw62]

Unconditional love may be impossible, but that doesn't mean it's not an ideal worth pursuing.

[TD1]

Unconditional love may be impossible, but that doesn't mean it's not an ideal worth pursuing.

Yep:

Spoiler (click to show/hide)

And so we come to another common religious maxim: if you don't have true love, it doesn't mean you shouldn't be trying to achieve it, and just because people don't love you, it doesn't mean you shouldn't love them. Even if such a thing does not exist, its something you should try and make it exist.

Not a statement of fact, of course, just my personal belief.

Hear, hear to that. The world would be a better place with true love.

[TheDarkStar]

Question regarding the Trinity: So it's really three different people who work together (as a single God)? That's the impression I get from reading posts here, but I've also heard some very different things about it (i.e. it's just one person).

[Descan]

Everything Frumple said.

[origamiscienceguy]

There is one God who exists as three persons. Each have their own roles in the world, the holy spirit submits to the son who submits to the father. All together, they are God.

It's okay if you don't get it all.

[Rolan7]

It was the subject of much debate and death, and I'm not even sure what explanation(s) won or how much it depends on denomination. Maybe st patrick can explain:
http://youtube.com/watch?v=KQLfgaUoQCw