Bay 12 Games Forum

Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
Advanced search  

Poll

What religion do you follow?

Judaism
- 0 (0%)
Christianity
- 17 (23.3%)
Islam
- 1 (1.4%)
Hinduism
- 0 (0%)
Taoism
- 0 (0%)
Buddhism
- 0 (0%)
Scientology
- 2 (2.7%)
Other (please tell)
- 7 (9.6%)
Athiest
- 35 (47.9%)
Undecided
- 1 (1.4%)
Agnostic
- 10 (13.7%)

Total Members Voted: 70


Pages: 1 ... 19 20 [21] 22 23 ... 44

Author Topic: Religion discussion.  (Read 72680 times)

wierd

  • Bay Watcher
  • I like to eat small children.
    • View Profile
Re: Religion discussion.
« Reply #300 on: May 06, 2017, 02:21:24 pm »

I grew up nondenom Protestant; I am now agnostic. I will give you my take on the mind of Yahweh, but a little sojourn into scary waters, and a footnote about ancient spats between religious movements is needed.

First, the footnote.  You will find, if you research the topic, that early Christian leaders (talking early apostles here!) DESPISED the notions of Gnosticism, a (then) contemporary branch of Theosophy that tried to explain divinity through the zeitgeist of the time. From that emerged the concept of "the demiurge"; a faulted but not purposefully evil god created out of a selfish desire. Due to its defects, it could not inhabit the proper divine realm, and had to be exiled into a void, and prevented from learning about the real celestial reality. Being truely divine though, it has some 'natural', instinctual understanding, and real powers. Cocooned inside its own mind, it has REAL solipsism, and the world it has created this way is our material universe, complete with failings of design.  Naturally, the early Christians HATED the idea. I don't like the idea either, because it relies on the notion that there is an ideal higher up the food chain, and that this ideal has human understandable motives and existence. That is nonsense to me, but the idea has some interesting properties.

Now the scary waters.

The Hebrew god is depicted as an unyielding, iron hard, immovable, omnipresent, omniscient, and omnipotent being who's actions are inscrutable, because he always takes the optimum choice, from a position of perfect knowledge. The position of the accuser on the other hand, is of a popular " noble" of the celestial court, who thinks things would be better if done differently. (This has parallels with Gnosticism, in that the act that creates the demiurge is similarly defiant of the proper divine order, resulting in a defective god being born. In this case though, it is a challenge in heaven about god's decisions, predicated on the notion that gods understanding is faulty. Hence the accuser and his challenge concerning Job. Instead of a defective god, though, we get a defective world, as god permits the accuser to attempt to prove his case, to disastrous effect. ) God permits the accuser to prove his allegations through demonstration, already knowing what the outcome will be, and even knowing that the accuser would make the challenge.

Many people have struggled with the idea of why god created the devil/accuser to begin with, given that god has infallible foreknowledge of all outcomes, and would thus know that creating the accuser will result in the challenge, and in the suffering/trial of creation. This is because they have apriori set an absurdly simplistic ideal as the desired end goal of this being, and amusingly, this parallels the very challenge of the accuser.

Like the accuser, these people assert that gods methods are incorrect. That changing them will result in (their view of) the ideal outcome. (Usually this is some sort of spoiled fantasy wish fulfillment where humans can do anything they want and god cleans up all the consequences.) God created the ultimate expression of this in the ultimate strawman, the accuser, to prove it wrong, through demonstration, to us.

Why go through all that effort though? God is seeking to create equals to himself. That is why. He needs candidates that naturally, reach the conclusions he has, by giving examples of misrule, and showing that consequences aren't something you just wish away if you are creating another true intelligence, especially if that intelligence must coexist with others, without destroying the others.

See again the origin story of the accuser:

God creates him perfectly; he is exactly what god wants.
He is exaulted as a perfect being, and lives in heaven.
He believes that he either understands god, or can do better than him.
God creates man, his true magnum opus. This enrages the accuser, as planned.
The accuser realizes that he cannot have unconditional approval (consequence free existence) if this "man" continues to exist, and in a jealous rage, seeks to destroy it. He does this by seeking to turn man against god, and thus force god to destroy the man.

God knows all about this, knew about it before even setting anything in motion at all, and knows what the final outcome will be, and is allowing the accuser to do this, because the actions of the accuser unwittingly and unerringly will bring about the metamorphosis of the man into his desired, ultimate form; a being who understands the nature of consequences, and chooses good choices, in line with the ideal choices god makes. Eg, a being that can coexist perfectly with god, and any other creation god may make. The accuser is a required construction needed to fulfill this purpose.  The end goal is not to create an eternally spoiled prat, like the accuser, who thinks they are right, and god is wrong, and god needs to give them everything they want, when they want it, and magic away all the consequences (impossible with more than one such creation, as mutual existence will create consequences due to disagreement.), but to create a being, who through experience, accepts gods decisions without question, having learned, through experience, that going against it causes suffering, and is the root of all suffering. One who has learned the cautionary tale, by observing and understanding the accuser.

In this light, the demiurge like character is the accuser, who's faulted ideas about what should be, cause horrible suffering. God seeks beings that reject his (accuser) world, and willfully choose god's judgement. This is why the early apostles HATED having Yahweh associated with it.

« Last Edit: May 06, 2017, 05:03:21 pm by wierd »
Logged

Starver

  • Bay Watcher
    • View Profile
Re: Religion discussion.
« Reply #301 on: May 06, 2017, 04:49:49 pm »

Oh, hello, Stephen Fry accused of blasphemy. That's something for this thread, right?

(Stephen Colbert accused of homophobia is not, but I shall not create a near-duplicate post in the appropriate other thread.  But what next? Stephen Spielburg accused of voyeurism? Stephen Hawking gets arrested for speeding? Stephen Seagal suspected of acting?)
Logged

Rolan7

  • Bay Watcher
  • [GUE'VESA][BONECARN]
    • View Profile
Re: Religion discussion.
« Reply #302 on: May 06, 2017, 05:42:53 pm »

That's a frightening precedent.  As Fry points out, he didn't call out a particular religion (though he did mention the Greek Pantheon makes more sense).  It was really just a colorful way of stating the problem of evil.

I'm shocked that the law exists, even in Ireland:
Quote
The law prohibits people from publishing or uttering "matter that is grossly abusive or insulting in relation to matters held sacred by any religion, thereby causing outrage among a substantial number of the adherents of that religion".

The government said at the time it was needed because the republic's 1937 constitution only gives Christians legal protection of their beliefs.
I suppose that it's probably safe to mention the problem of evil...  As long as you're very polite about it.  Maybe apologize and warn people first.  Scary times...
Logged
She/they
No justice: no peace.
Quote from: Fallen London, one Unthinkable Hope
This one didn't want to be who they was. On the Surface – it was a dull, unconsidered sadness. But everything changed. Which implied everything could change.

smjjames

  • Bay Watcher
    • View Profile
Re: Religion discussion.
« Reply #303 on: May 06, 2017, 05:49:32 pm »

Oh, hello, Stephen Fry accused of blasphemy. That's something for this thread, right?

(Stephen Colbert accused of homophobia is not, but I shall not create a near-duplicate post in the appropriate other thread.  But what next? Stephen Spielburg accused of voyeurism? Stephen Hawking gets arrested for speeding? Stephen Seagal suspected of acting?)

I thought blasphemy was only a thing that happened before the elightenment and in Muslim countries.....

Also, nobody is investigating Colbert for homophobia, though his joke was rather over the top.
Logged

wierd

  • Bay Watcher
  • I like to eat small children.
    • View Profile
Re: Religion discussion.
« Reply #304 on: May 06, 2017, 05:53:38 pm »

No, FCC chairman Ajit Pai'mtotallyinbedwithtrump has openly stated that there is an investigation, that will likely end in a fine.
https://www.usatoday.com/story/life/tv/2017/05/05/fcc-looking-into-stephen-colbert-trump-comments/101348364/

But sadly, this is what you get when you DONT separate church and state.
Logged

MetalSlimeHunt

  • Bay Watcher
  • Gerrymander Commander
    • View Profile
Re: Religion discussion.
« Reply #305 on: May 06, 2017, 05:59:29 pm »

If I were Colbert I'd welcome an FCC investigation. It's beyond established that there's no content regulation on late-night, and it was bleeped so it could have gotten by even outside of that.

Any attempt by the FCC will without question be discarded on appeal, and Colbert could make a giant spectacle of it.
Logged
Quote from: Thomas Paine
To argue with a man who has renounced the use and authority of reason, and whose philosophy consists in holding humanity in contempt, is like administering medicine to the dead, or endeavoring to convert an atheist by scripture.
Quote
No Gods, No Masters.

smjjames

  • Bay Watcher
    • View Profile
Re: Religion discussion.
« Reply #306 on: May 06, 2017, 06:03:23 pm »

The worst that would happen is that he gets fined, and the FCC is just doing it's job. He's being investigated for the language, not for being homophobic.

Also, the church wouldn't care about the comments being homophobic.
« Last Edit: May 06, 2017, 06:06:10 pm by smjjames »
Logged

wierd

  • Bay Watcher
  • I like to eat small children.
    • View Profile
Re: Religion discussion.
« Reply #307 on: May 06, 2017, 06:06:00 pm »

of course it is. But Pai is also practically salivating at the opportunity to please his orange master at the same time.

the bit about church and state prior was actually directed at the issue in Ireland, where "Blasphemy" is still a thing on the law books.
« Last Edit: May 06, 2017, 06:08:14 pm by wierd »
Logged

Dunamisdeos

  • Bay Watcher
  • Duggin was the hero we needed.
    • View Profile
Re: Religion discussion.
« Reply #308 on: May 06, 2017, 06:45:27 pm »

Oh, hello, Stephen Fry accused of blasphemy. That's something for this thread, right?

(Stephen Colbert accused of homophobia is not, but I shall not create a near-duplicate post in the appropriate other thread.  But what next? Stephen Spielburg accused of voyeurism? Stephen Hawking gets arrested for speeding? Stephen Seagal suspected of acting?)

I thought blasphemy was only a thing that happened before the elightenment and in Muslim countries.....

Also, nobody is investigating Colbert for homophobia, though his joke was rather over the top.

No one would suspect him. The perfect crime.
Logged
FACT I: Post note art is best art.
FACT II: Dunamisdeos is a forum-certified wordsmith.
FACT III: "All life begins with Post-it notes and ends with Post-it notes. This is the truth! This is my belief!...At least for now."
FACT IV: SPEECHO THE TRUSTWORM IS YOUR FRIEND or BEHOLD: THE FRUIT ENGINE 3.0

wierd

  • Bay Watcher
  • I like to eat small children.
    • View Profile
Re: Religion discussion.
« Reply #309 on: May 06, 2017, 06:47:20 pm »

Oh, he acts alright. Just VERY badly.

A bit like Jean Claude Van-dam. Wooden, stilted, and totally unbelievable.
Logged

Rusty Shackleford

  • Bay Watcher
    • View Profile
Re: Religion discussion.
« Reply #310 on: May 06, 2017, 07:49:58 pm »

I grew up nondenom Protestant; (snip)

That is a fascinating intrpretation. Is that the gist of Gnosticism?

Its also horribly wrong. The Bible clearly addresses the things you talked about.
Logged

wierd

  • Bay Watcher
  • I like to eat small children.
    • View Profile
Re: Religion discussion.
« Reply #311 on: May 06, 2017, 09:19:10 pm »

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gnosticism

It has common roots with early christianity, and is useful as a comparative tool when examining the god in question.
As for my interpretation, it is one thing to state that the bible is against something, another to give specific references.

For example, I stated that the apostles hated Gnosticism.  You can find this in Paul's letters to the churches, where he rails against it quite intensely.
http://newlife.id.au/equality-and-gender-issues/kephale-gnosticism-paul/

This heated rivalry and condemnation of early gnostic belief in the young church is very well established, both in and out of the bible.

Now, if you believe that my interpretation concerning god's intent is wrong, please give me specific counter-examples. :P
Logged

Rusty Shackleford

  • Bay Watcher
    • View Profile
Re: Religion discussion.
« Reply #312 on: May 07, 2017, 08:50:20 am »

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gnosticism

It has common roots with early christianity, and is useful as a comparative tool when examining the god in question.
As for my interpretation, it is one thing to state that the bible is against something, another to give specific references.

For example, I stated that the apostles hated Gnosticism.  You can find this in Paul's letters to the churches, where he rails against it quite intensely.
http://newlife.id.au/equality-and-gender-issues/kephale-gnosticism-paul/

This heated rivalry and condemnation of early gnostic belief in the young church is very well established, both in and out of the bible.

Now, if you believe that my interpretation concerning god's intent is wrong, please give me specific counter-examples. :P

Sorry I worded that very poorly. I was referring to the ideas gnostics espoused being pretty flawed.

I suppose the idea that Satan/ the accuser was created as a sort of foil or strawman makes a certain kind of sense if there is the assertion of an infallible God who already knows the outcome of everything, but it seems to contradict a lot of what is in the Bible. Tempting Eve in the Garden of Eden, for example. Kicking humanity out of the Garden of Eden must have been God's long-term intent anyways if he permitted the devil to go and apparently subvert Eve. Which doesn't make much sense to me. Satan doesn't just subvert humans either, he enlisted 1/3rd of the Angels in the rebellion for the war in the Heavens, so that suggests that Satan and other Angels do have some modicum of free will, or Satan somehow has power to rival God in order to subvert angels for his horribly doomed coup attempt. Or something.

If angels have free will, then they're actions can't be fully knowable. The book of Job again, 1:6 God asks Satan where he's been and what he has been up to and asking other such questions he would'nt need to ask if God really knew already, So I feel with Satan having freewill he cannot always just be a strawman who is always wrong, I always interpreted Satan to be a rebel who is so prideful that he thinks he can still win at the end, and I suppose he already does control the world and indirectly the fate of individual humans, while God is unconcerned about mundane matters.

Logged

Starver

  • Bay Watcher
    • View Profile
Re: Religion discussion.
« Reply #313 on: May 07, 2017, 10:24:18 am »

My image of Satan will forever1 be that of Andy Hamilton....


1 Or at least "forever" in capriciously mortal terms. I'll allow that there's plenty of room for my hyperbolae to change before my earthly term ends, and after that... (Well, maybe on the flight to Alpha Centarui I'll switch to Peter Cook, due to a good film library but sparse audio archives.)
Logged

inteuniso

  • Bay Watcher
  • Functionalized carbon is the source.
    • View Profile
Re: Religion discussion.
« Reply #314 on: May 07, 2017, 11:24:07 am »

I believe a consciousness connecting the entirety of existence is responsible for entanglement/ESP.

Satan is another name for Saturn, it's the black sun/Moloch/Dark Lord.

Perceiving YHWH as a linguistic transcription of 7pi/7^pi leads to the realization of the underlying structure of existence: Using only 7 and pi, one can approximate the fine structure constant, which governs particles at planck-scale.

I just want to create and heal and preserve. I'm tired of the damage and the unnecessary killing and the torture. I honestly would rather be killed to prevent the spread of violence than let the scourge spread: I think most people are violent for reasons of disease, poisoning & sadness more than any actual desire to be violent, so I that if we have more biodiverse farms that are more similar to forests our food will become more nutritious and we will be happier as our brains will stop thinking about food so much, and we will be able to live forever and ever and build gigantic habitats five times the size of earth so when the andromedans show up we can have space for them to integrate with us.

End of the day though I'm just a sweaty inventor hippie.
« Last Edit: May 07, 2017, 11:25:44 am by inteuniso »
Logged
Lol scratch that I'm building a marijuana factory.
Pages: 1 ... 19 20 [21] 22 23 ... 44