A fun way to refute hell, heaven, and the Left Behind series

[truthmonger]

I haven’t had an opportunity to use this one on any evangelizing nutjobs yet, but I’ll try it out next time somebody asks me if I “want to be saved from the eternal suffering of hell and blah, blah, blah.”

If hell is defined as a place of infinite suffering, for every annoying religious whackjob mental midget wanker televangelist asshole who is NOT in hell, those in hell suffer a little bit less because of it. When you consider all the fucking pricks who WON’T be in hell (Pat Robertson, Adolf Hitler, etc.) and all the smart, peaceful, talented, cool, amazing people who WILL be in hell (Gandhi, most of your favorite rock musicians, etc.) then hell is actually heaven. If they try to tell you that hell is not like that, remind them that there are many, many different explanations of hell, and back when you used to be a Christian fundamentalist, your particular denomination got it straight from god himself what hell is like, so that’s the way it is, and don’t you dare question god you blaspheming evil motherfucker.

And I guess the fundies don’t see the irony of the Left Behind series of movies either: I’d love to get left behind without all those delusional christians pushing their childish beliefs on me and starting wars all the time. Peace on earth, finally!

Unfortunately though, absolutely none of this is true. There is no heaven, no hell, no gods, no angels or demons, and so we won't get to make fun of them forever, so do it now while you still have the chance.

[Lucretius]

I just find it impossible to say a loving God will send someone to suffer eternally for 100 years of "sin."

And if you're a Calvinist, especially, your God is an asshole.

[DragonKing]

I just find it impossible to say a loving God will send someone to suffer eternally for 100 years of "sin."

And if you're a Calvinist, especially, your God is an asshole.
*sigh*

Hell was originally for Satan and his angels. In the future it will be for all those who rejected Christ as well. Now you're basically stating that if God is all loving (which he is) then he wouldn't send people to Hell. Well he has a reason for it:Sin

We brought sin into this world, that's why Christ's death was so important. He became sin itself, he absorbed every wrong thing into his broken body. The sin is no longer mine or yours because Jesus made it his. When he rose the filth(sin) stayed buried while Christ was once again pure and holy. Now you may ask "Well if God knows all things why would he make people who would burn in Hell" if God were to do this then we'd all go to Hell. Remember Christ paid the price so that we could be forgiven of our sins. His sacrifice was necassary because everyone "good" and "bad" has sinned. If there were no "bad" people around then no "bad" people would have sent Jesus to the cross.

[ChiefOfAss]

His sacrifice was necassary because everyone "good" and "bad" has sinned.
Great work DragonKing. This one, especially, ensures that even people who claim to be good and think God will like them, even though they don't go to Church, will get scared before they have the chance to have the chance to commit sin without feeling guilty. Perfect.

The bit about the bad people sending Jesus to the cross is brilliant too. I think you are referring to the Jews, but you still leave it open to any group we might need to unite the masses behind as a common enemny.

You are truly a soldier of mind control. Bravo.

[Philboid Studge]

...he absorbed every wrong thing into his broken body.
To this I can relate. My broken body has absorbed every wrong thing from Amyl nitrate to Zopiclone. What was I saying?

[ocmpoma]

"We brought sin into this world..."

Funny, I could have sworn that was God's fault, what with Satan the tempter that God created and the Tree that God created and the Apple that God created and Adam and Eve which God created.

New motto, everybody:

'Don't Blame Me, It's God's Fault'

[HeWhoAsks]

Hell was originally for Satan and his angels. In the future it will be for all those who rejected Christ as well. Now you're basically stating that if God is all loving (which he is) then he wouldn't send people to Hell. Well he has a reason for it:Sin
OK, so God is all-loving, but he will still send people to infinite torture for a mere 80 years of sometimes good and sometimes bad behavior. The punishment hardly fits the crime, wouldn't you say? And *that* is how you define all-loving? I'd hate to see how a truly a vengeful god would work if that's how an all-loving one is.

[Tenspace]

"We brought sin into this world..."

Funny, I could have sworn that was God's fault, what with Satan the tempter that God created and the Tree that God created and the Apple that God created and Adam and Eve which God created.

New motto, everybody:

'Don't Blame Me, It's God's Fault'
When something goes wrong, I "Blame Jesus". If Christians can thank him for the good things in life, can't we blame him for the bad?

:D

Tenspace

[Rhinoqulous]

I'm convinced God has had it in for me ever since I became an atheist.:) It's the only explanation I can come up with why I keep ending up moving back to this shit hole of the north.

Rhinoq

[Red Mage]

I blame the screaming blue ants. (http://ravingatheist.com/forum/viewtopic.php?id=631)

[DragonKing]

"We brought sin into this world..."

Funny, I could have sworn that was God's fault, what with Satan the tempter that God created and the Tree that God created and the Apple that God created and Adam and Eve which God created.

New motto, everybody:

'Don't Blame Me, It's God's Fault'
This is a perpetual question for theologians and laity alike. When we look at the world and recognize that a holy and infinitely perfect God has created us, we can appreciate His majesty and wonder. But, it is impossible for us to ignore the fact that this world is far from perfect. There is sin in it. Why, then, if God is infinitely perfect and powerful, did He create a world and allow the fall to occur to contaminate it?
The Bible doesn't give us specific answer to this question, but I would like to offer this possible answer as food for thought.

God did not lack anything in Himself that prompted His creative act. He wasn't lonely or bored. To say such a thing about Him would be to imply He is not eternally self-sufficient and perfect. But, if God is perfect and doesn't need anything, why would He then create us -- and the universe for us to live in -- that has fallen into sin? What purpose would it serve?
I suspect the answer lies within God's nature and a few clues spread throughout God's word. To begin with, God is love (1 John 4:16) and the nature of love is to give. John 3:16 says "For God so loved the world He gave His only begotten Son..." I cannot help but believe that the most natural quality of love is to give, to be other centered, and, according to Jesus' own words, to give of one's self to the point of death. John 15:13 is where Jesus said, "Greater love has no one than this, that one lay down his life for his friends."
According to Jesus, there is no greater demonstration of love than self sacrifice to the point of death. Since God is love (1 John 4:16) and there is none greater than He, I conclude that God can and will be the one who demonstrates the greatest act of love. I cannot see God allowing a mere creation to demonstrate this in a better way than He. It would be a necessary outcome of His own nature and a necessary manifestation in any universe He created that the two greatest commandments spoken of by Jesus to love God and love your neighbor (xxx) would be supremely demonstrated by none other than God Himself. Jesus was God in flesh who loved the Father perfectly and He loved us completely by laying down His life for us. This is the greatest and most perfect act of love according to Jesus.
If this is true, then it might just be that God had to create the universe so that the fall would be included in His plan for the very purpose of demonstrating and manifesting His perfect character: Love! To demonstrate the very greatest part of His nature of love, He would have to die for someone else. This could not be done if there was no one to die for and no reason to die for them. There could be no reason to die if there were no need for an atonement. There would be no need for an atonement if there were no sin. If there was no fall, there would be no sin.
Therefore, perhaps it is possible that God created the universe with "free will" creatures in it who would fall into sin. Without this fall, ultimately no death would be necessary to atone for them and without that death, the greatest act of love could not be demonstrated. Also, this would mean that the truest and most perfect quality of love would not be fulfilled. Would this then mean that God would not be perfectly fulfilled without having given of Himself? I don't know. But I can't help wondering that for God to truly express His perfectly loving nature, He Himself had to be one who laid His life down for others. For this to happen, He allowed sin to exist in this world.
Furthermore, I suspect that it was Jesus Himself in the garden who walked with Adam and Eve. I base this upon Jesus' own words in John 6:46 where He states that no one has ever seen the Father. Yet, we know that God appeared in the Old Testament (Gen. 17:1; 18:1; Exodus 6:2-3; 24:9-11; Num. 12:6-8; Acts 7:2; etc.). If it was God who was seen and it wasn't the Father, then it must have been Jesus. Why do I bring this up? Because after Adam and Eve sinned, God Himself (Jesus?) shed the blood of an animal in order to cover them with animal skins. This shedding of blood was instituted by God as a prophetic typology of the true and final sacrifice that God (Jesus) would carry out so many thousands of years later when He laid His life down as the perfect demonstration of His loving character. The redemption of mankind was always in the mind of God and was planned and carried out by God as a manifestation of the eternal love He has for His people. This love was made complete in the death of Christ. Also, I suspect that this is what is hinted at in Heb. 13:20 with the reference to the "blood of the eternal covenant" that some theologians think is reference to God's eternal plan of salvation made within the Trinity before the universe was made. This covenant was the inter-Trinitarian arrangement to redeem mankind through the sacrifice of Christ.
Therefore, I conclude that God may very well have made a universe in which sin existed so that He Himself could show the greatest and most perfect act of love by laying down His life for His friends.

[DragonKing]

His sacrifice was necassary because everyone "good" and "bad" has sinned.
Great work DragonKing. This one, especially, ensures that even people who claim to be good and think God will like them, even though they don't go to Church, will get scared before they have the chance to have the chance to commit sin without feeling guilty. Perfect.

The bit about the bad people sending Jesus to the cross is brilliant too. I think you are referring to the Jews, but you still leave it open to any group we might need to unite the masses behind as a common enemny.

You are truly a soldier of mind control. Bravo.
Nice sarcasm *thumbs up*

[Rhinoqulous]

My first question is how do you know that the bible is an authoritative source? Quoting the bible, without demonstrating the bible as a valid source, is not going to convince anyone here. So, without quoting the bible, please tell me why I should consider anything written in the bible as true.

Rhinoq

[the savior]

<snip>all the fucking pricks who WON’T be in hell (Pat Robertson, Adolf Hitler, etc.)<snip>
wait how is it that Hitler makes it into heaven???!!! i know i wont be going just cause i sin and all that but im a generally good person, if hitler goes i think i should qualify to.

[ocmpoma]

"I cannot help but believe that the most natural quality of love is to give, to be other centered... ...I cannot see God allowing a mere creation to demonstrate this in a better way than He."
If God's nature is to give all, why not give a creation the oppurtunity to demonstrate this? Sounds like selfishness to me. Isn't your god jealous? Is that part of 'perfect love'?

"Therefore, I conclude that God may very well have made a universe in which sin existed so that He Himself could show the greatest and most perfect act of love by laying down His life for His friends."
Typical. In order to show us love, we must be shown pain, suffering, hatred, etc. Sounds a bit masochistic. You actually worship this thing?

By the way - there is no free will with an omnipotent, or omniscient, deity.

[ghoulslime]

I just find it impossible to say a loving God will send someone to suffer eternally for 100 years of "sin."

And if you're a Calvinist, especially, your God is an asshole.
*sigh*

Hell was originally for Satan and his angels. In the future it will be for all those who rejected Christ as well. Now you're basically stating that if God is all loving (which he is) then he wouldn't send people to Hell. Well he has a reason for it:Sin

We brought sin into this world, that's why Christ's death was so important. He became sin itself, he absorbed every wrong thing into his broken body. The sin is no longer mine or yours because Jesus made it his. When he rose the filth(sin) stayed buried while Christ was once again pure and holy. Now you may ask "Well if God knows all things why would he make people who would burn in Hell" if God were to do this then we'd all go to Hell. Remember Christ paid the price so that we could be forgiven of our sins. His sacrifice was necassary because everyone "good" and "bad" has sinned. If there were no "bad" people around then no "bad" people would have sent Jesus to the cross.
Correct me if I am wrong, oh, wise believer in Jesus, but your bible states that your god is both omniscient and omnipotent. An omniscient deity knows all that is, was, and is to come. If your god made Satan, knowing he would be evil, then your god is the true author of evil. If your god made any condition under which evil could exist, then he is the author of evil. There is no need for scapegoats. Only your god is to blame and he or it alone deserves blame.

Let me simplify this for you a bit. If I dig a hole in my front yard, and fill it with spikes, and somebody falls into to it, who is to blame? The person who fell in the hole or me? If god makes a world where evil thrives, and I am born into it, how does that make me evil? What is my crime other than to be born? Your god supposedly made me, your omniscient god, if he made me evil then he is evil. If he is not capable of controlling the evil, then he is not omnipotent and therefore not a god. If he creates something and then punishes it for being what it is then he is not only a sadist but an illogical maniac as well. If I build a snowman, is it reasonable for me to destroy it because I have declared that being cold is a sin?

Why don’t you think your silly doctrine through before you expound it?

*FART*

[Spurius Furius]

I wouldn't mind god so much if it wasn't for his constant "holier than thou" bullshit.

[the savior]

I just find it impossible to say a loving God will send someone to suffer eternally for 100 years of "sin."

And if you're a Calvinist, especially, your God is an asshole.
*sigh*

Hell was originally for Satan and his angels. In the future it will be for all those who rejected Christ as well. Now you're basically stating that if God is all loving (which he is) then he wouldn't send people to Hell. Well he has a reason for it:Sin

We brought sin into this world, that's why Christ's death was so important. He became sin itself, he absorbed every wrong thing into his broken body. The sin is no longer mine or yours because Jesus made it his. When he rose the filth(sin) stayed buried while Christ was once again pure and holy. Now you may ask "Well if God knows all things why would he make people who would burn in Hell" if God were to do this then we'd all go to Hell. Remember Christ paid the price so that we could be forgiven of our sins. His sacrifice was necassary because everyone "good" and "bad" has sinned. If there were no "bad" people around then no "bad" people would have sent Jesus to the cross.
Correct me if I am wrong, oh, wise believer in Jesus, but your bible states that your god is both omniscient and omnipotent. An omniscient deity knows all that is, was, and is to come. If your god made Satan, knowing he would be evil, then your god is the true author of evil. If your god made any condition under which evil could exist, then he is the author of evil. There is no need for scapegoats. Only your god is to blame and he or it alone deserves blame.

Let me simplify this for you a bit. If I dig a hole in my front yard, and fill it with spikes, and somebody falls into to it, who is to blame? The person who fell in the hole or me? If god makes a world where evil thrives, and I am born into it, how does that make me evil? What is my crime other than to be born? Your god supposedly made me, your omniscient god, if he made me evil then he is evil. If he is not capable of controlling the evil, then he is not omnipotent and therefore not a god. If he creates something and then punishes it for being what it is then he is not only a sadist but an illogical maniac as well. If I build a snowman, is it reasonable for me to destroy it because I have declared that being cold is a sin?

Why don’t you think your silly doctrine through before you expound it?

*FART*
i bow down to you

[Sir Sin-O-Lot]

I just find it impossible to say a loving God will send someone to suffer eternally for 100 years of "sin."

And if you're a Calvinist, especially, your God is an asshole.
*sigh*

Hell was originally for Satan and his angels. In the future it will be for all those who rejected Christ as well. Now you're basically stating that if God is all loving (which he is) then he wouldn't send people to Hell. Well he has a reason for it:Sin

We brought sin into this world, that's why Christ's death was so important. He became sin itself, he absorbed every wrong thing into his broken body. The sin is no longer mine or yours because Jesus made it his. When he rose the filth(sin) stayed buried while Christ was once again pure and holy. Now you may ask "Well if God knows all things why would he make people who would burn in Hell" if God were to do this then we'd all go to Hell. Remember Christ paid the price so that we could be forgiven of our sins. His sacrifice was necassary because everyone "good" and "bad" has sinned. If there were no "bad" people around then no "bad" people would have sent Jesus to the cross.
"God is a prick."- Bill Maher

[ocmpoma]

"If I dig a hole in my front yard, and fill it with spikes, and somebody falls into to it, who is to blame?"
Not only that, but more - since you would have to know that someone was going to fall in... say, you dig the tiger trap in front of your blind neighor's house, knowing that she goes straight out to the mailbox every morning without her dog, since she knows where it is, and... splat!
However, it wouldn't be your fault, oh pit-digger.

It's God's Fault.

[truthmonger]

dear dragonking,

in my alcohol-induced stupor I want to ask you some questions.

Do you have any young daughters? If so, I want to buy them from you, like the bible sanctions in Exodus 21:7. Maybe we can work out a fair price. I offer you $200 for each daughter under the age of 16. Don't worry, it's OK the bible says you can sell them, read Exodus 21:7.

Also, I'm wondering why the ten commandments don't prohibit slavery or rape. Can you explain that for me? I promise to be nice to your daughters after I buy them from you which is why you should sell them to me and not some dirtbag who's going to rape them and make them into slaves (although that is not prohibited by the t.c.) I just want them for easy work around the house, and maybe an occasional blowjob.

I love your explanation of why the invisible man in the sky created evil (Isaiah 45:7) -- "So he can show his love by fixing it!" That's fucking genius, man. I'm going to go beat the shit out of my friends and then drive them to the emergency room to show them how much I care about them!

[DragonKing]

I just find it impossible to say a loving God will send someone to suffer eternally for 100 years of "sin."

And if you're a Calvinist, especially, your God is an asshole.
*sigh*

Hell was originally for Satan and his angels. In the future it will be for all those who rejected Christ as well. Now you're basically stating that if God is all loving (which he is) then he wouldn't send people to Hell. Well he has a reason for it:Sin

We brought sin into this world, that's why Christ's death was so important. He became sin itself, he absorbed every wrong thing into his broken body. The sin is no longer mine or yours because Jesus made it his. When he rose the filth(sin) stayed buried while Christ was once again pure and holy. Now you may ask "Well if God knows all things why would he make people who would burn in Hell" if God were to do this then we'd all go to Hell. Remember Christ paid the price so that we could be forgiven of our sins. His sacrifice was necassary because everyone "good" and "bad" has sinned. If there were no "bad" people around then no "bad" people would have sent Jesus to the cross.
Correct me if I am wrong, oh, wise believer in Jesus, but your bible states that your god is both omniscient and omnipotent. An omniscient deity knows all that is, was, and is to come. If your god made Satan, knowing he would be evil, then your god is the true author of evil. If your god made any condition under which evil could exist, then he is the author of evil. There is no need for scapegoats. Only your god is to blame and he or it alone deserves blame.

Let me simplify this for you a bit. If I dig a hole in my front yard, and fill it with spikes, and somebody falls into to it, who is to blame? The person who fell in the hole or me? If god makes a world where evil thrives, and I am born into it, how does that make me evil? What is my crime other than to be born? Your god supposedly made me, your omniscient god, if he made me evil then he is evil. If he is not capable of controlling the evil, then he is not omnipotent and therefore not a god. If he creates something and then punishes it for being what it is then he is not only a sadist but an illogical maniac as well. If I build a snowman, is it reasonable for me to destroy it because I have declared that being cold is a sin?

Why don’t you think your silly doctrine through before you expound it?

*FART*
*cracks knuckles*

At the risk of sounding flippant, why not? For what reason or reasons should God have not created the devil even if he was going to fall? Just because God knows what will happen doesn't mean that the person (angel) isn't free to make choices. Satan freely chose to rebel against God. God knew this would happen. Nevertheless, let me offer some possible reasons why God would create Satan even though He knew he would fall and rebel.

1. It was necessary to have the fall so that God could then have a reason to die for our sins thereby demonstrating that God can and does provide the greatest act of love which is to lay ones life down for his friend (John 15:13).
2. The fall of Satan provides yet another method for God to be glorified in that God can use sin to prove that sin is "bad" and that God's word about righteousness is true.
3. If God is to have creatures with free will, then the risk of rebellion is part of that freedom. Satan had that freedom and used it to rebel.
4. If God had not created Satan and instead another angel fell, then we'd be asking why God made that angel knowing he would fall.
5. God has reasons that we simply do not know about.

I know my children will act badly at times, but knowing that does not mean mean that I shouldn’t have kids. Part of the risk of freedom is that rebellion will be a reality.


Oh and also, please explain calmly why you view God as a "sadist"

[DragonKing]

dear dragonking,

in my alcohol-induced stupor I want to ask you some questions.

Do you have any young daughters? If so, I want to buy them from you, like the bible sanctions in Exodus 21:7. Maybe we can work out a fair price. I offer you $200 for each daughter under the age of 16. Don't worry, it's OK the bible says you can sell them, read Exodus 21:7.

Also, I'm wondering why the ten commandments don't prohibit slavery or rape. Can you explain that for me? I promise to be nice to your daughters after I buy them from you which is why you should sell them to me and not some dirtbag who's going to rape them and make them into slaves (although that is not prohibited by the t.c.) I just want them for easy work around the house, and maybe an occasional blowjob.

I love your explanation of why the invisible man in the sky created evil (Isaiah 45:7) -- "So he can show his love by fixing it!" That's fucking genius, man. I'm going to go beat the shit out of my friends and then drive them to the emergency room to show them how much I care about them!
Nah no kids yet, about slavery.

Slavery was permitted in the Bible because of sin in the world. It existed before the Jews were formed as a nation and it existed after Israel was conquered. God allows many things to happen in the world such as storms, famine, murder, etc. Slavery, like divorce, is not preferred by God. Instead, it is allowed. Where many nations treated their slaves very badly, the Bible gave many rights and privileges to slaves. So, even though it isn't the best way to deal with people, because God has allowed man freedom, slavery then exists. God instructed the Israelites to treat them properly.

* The Bible acknowledged the slave’s status as the property of the master (Ex. 21:23; Lev. 25:46),
* The Bible restricted the master’s power over the slave. Ex. 21:20).
* The slave was a member of the master’s household (Lev. 22:11)
* The slave was required to rest on the Sabbath (Exodus 20:10; Deut. 5:14)
* The slave was required and to participate in religious observances (Gen. 17:13; Exodus 12:44; Lev. 22:11).
* The Bible prohibited extradition of slaves and granted them asylum (Deut. 23:16-17).
* The servitude of a Hebrew debt-slave was limited to six years (Ex. 21:2; Deut. 15:12).
* When a slave was freed, he was to receive gifts that enabled him to survive economically (Deut. 15:14)

The reality of slavery cannot be denied. Slaves were "slave labor played a minor economic role in the ancient Near East, for privately owned slaves functioned more as domestic servants than as an agricultural or industrial labor force."

[Philboid Studge]

5. God has reasons that we simply do not know about.
Well, I'm convinced. I'm going to church.

But if you won't sell one of your daughters, can I at least rent one?

[DragonKing]

5. God has reasons that we simply do not know about.
Well, I'm convinced. I'm going to church.

But if you won't sell one of your daughters, can I at least rent one?
I don't have kids, but I hear that crack whore down the street's got three of'em.

[Rhinoqulous]

Slavery, like divorce, is not preferred by God. Instead, it is allowed. Where many nations treated their slaves very badly, the Bible gave many rights and privileges to slaves. So, even though it isn't the best way to deal with people, because God has allowed man freedom, slavery then exists. God instructed the Israelites to treat them properly.
If Big Poppa G doesn't "prefer" slavery, then why the hell didn't he smite the hell out of slaveholders? And just because Poppa G provided guidelines for "proper" treatment of slaves doesn't make slavery itself morally permissible. If BPG had moral scruples, he'da put a major whoopin on slave holders, or at least told all those people writing the bible to include a little line like "slavery is wrong, and if you support it you'll go to hell and get buggered in your arse with a hot poker for 10 million years."

And are you seriously comparing slavery with divorce? Damn son, I've heard/read some pretty stupid stuff in my time, but this might take the cake.

Rhinoq

[ocmpoma]

"God knows what will happen doesn't mean that the person (angel) isn't free to make choices."

Yes, it does.

[DragonKing]

Slavery, like divorce, is not preferred by God. Instead, it is allowed. Where many nations treated their slaves very badly, the Bible gave many rights and privileges to slaves. So, even though it isn't the best way to deal with people, because God has allowed man freedom, slavery then exists. God instructed the Israelites to treat them properly.
If Big Poppa G doesn't "prefer" slavery, then why the hell didn't he smite the hell out of slaveholders? And just because Poppa G provided guidelines for "proper" treatment of slaves doesn't make slavery itself morally permissible. If BPG had moral scruples, he'da put a major whoopin on slave holders, or at least told all those people writing the bible to include a little line like "slavery is wrong, and if you support it you'll go to hell and get buggered in your arse with a hot poker for 10 million years."

And are you seriously comparing slavery with divorce? Damn son, I've heard/read some pretty stupid stuff in my time, but this might take the cake.
No, I'm saying slavery and divorce are two things that are not preferred by God. I'm saying he doesn't approve of them, but because he gave us freewill he allows it.

Also if God were to "smite" the Israelites as you so eloquently put it. It'd be fringing upon human freedom which is something God chooses not to do for various reasons.

[DragonKing]

"God knows what will happen doesn't mean that the person (angel) isn't free to make choices."

Yes, it does.
How so?? the person is still able to decide what he/she can do. That is in no way fringing or taking away our freewill. God knows what we will do, if it were "he knows what we'll do so he takes away our ability to make dumb or evil choices" yeah.

[Philboid Studge]

DragonKing, you might want to peruse this thread. (http://ravingatheist.com/forum/viewtopic.php?id=560&p=1)

[HeWhoAsks]

Nevertheless, let me offer some possible reasons why God would create Satan even though He knew he would fall and rebel.

1. It was necessary to have the fall so that God could then have a reason to die for our sins thereby demonstrating that God can and does provide the greatest act of love which is to lay ones life down for his friend (John 15:13).
But even laying down your life for your friend would be unnecessary if we didn't die. God could have just created us with eternal life, no evil, no Satan, no sin, etc., etc. It's all so unnecessary. He could have done it right. In fact, he could have created a universe in which he could still demonstrate the greatest act of love without evil, hell, sin, etc. because he could have created *any* universe if he is omnipotent.
2. The fall of Satan provides yet another method for God to be glorified in that God can use sin to prove that sin is "bad" and that God's word about righteousness is true.
God is so wise he could have been glorified without using sin to do so. Etc. for righteousness.
5. God has reasons that we simply do not know about.
This is the worst argument, because you can't tell from this argument whether God is real and unknowable or whether God is anything you imagine him to be. If you can always write off any characteristic of God, no matter how illogical or nonsensical, as "we can't know God's reasons," you can make up *any* characteristic for God, whether it has any basis in reality or not, and justify it with "we can't know God's reasons." This argument doesn't distinguish a real God from an unreal one, so it is of no use.

Oh and also, please explain calmly why you view God as a "sadist"
Because for a mere 80 years or so of some sin, he will condemn me to an eternity of infinite torture. Only a sadist would apply such a punishment that is so far away from fitting the crime.

[Aristarchus]

3. If God is to have creatures with free will, then the risk of rebellion is part of that freedom. Satan had that freedom and used it to rebel.
Everything you have been saying is dependent on the premise that we have free will. Therefore, evidence against free will is evidence against your conclusions. And I assure you, there is plenty of evidence to suggest that our minds are just complex machines with a function (Any set of stimuli results in a "predictable" behavior). Brain imaging data strongly supports this, and physics almost proves it.

[the savior]

Slavery was permitted in the Bible because of sin in the world. It existed before the Jews were formed as a nation and it existed after Israel was conquered. God allows many things to happen in the world such as storms, famine, murder, etc. Slavery, like divorce, is not preferred by God. Instead, it is allowed. Where many nations treated their slaves very badly, the Bible gave many rights and privileges to slaves. So, even though it isn't the best way to deal with people, because God has allowed man freedom, slavery then exists. God instructed the Israelites to treat them properly.

The reality of slavery cannot be denied. Slaves were "slave labor played a minor economic role in the ancient Near East, for privately owned slaves functioned more as domestic servants than as an agricultural or industrial labor force."
teh very thought of slaves having many rights and priveledges makes my mind spin.
so god allows some things that are wrong but not others?? so the slave owner goes to heaven and the slave who revolted and killed him goes to hell? i think it should be the other way around

[Lucretius]

"God knows what will happen doesn't mean that the person (angel) isn't free to make choices."

Yes, it does.
How so?? the person is still able to decide what he/she can do. That is in no way fringing or taking away our freewill. God knows what we will do, if it were "he knows what we'll do so he takes away our ability to make dumb or evil choices" yeah.
No, they don't decide what they can do. If God knows it, and he made them, they are going to do what he made them with. It's like saying a director of a movie filmed it, but the movie will play different each time because the movie has free will! if God knows all, and he made you with that knowledge, he too possessed it, and so he knew what he was going to make you to do. It isn't your choice.

[DragonKing]

"God knows what will happen doesn't mean that the person (angel) isn't free to make choices."

Yes, it does.
How so?? the person is still able to decide what he/she can do. That is in no way fringing or taking away our freewill. God knows what we will do, if it were "he knows what we'll do so he takes away our ability to make dumb or evil choices" yeah.
No, they don't decide what they can do. If God knows it, and he made them, they are going to do what he made them with. It's like saying a director of a movie filmed it, but the movie will play different each time because the movie has free will! if God knows all, and he made you with that knowledge, he too possessed it, and so he knew what he was going to make you to do. It isn't your choice.
Allow me to clear this up:


God knows the future of what the free will creatures choose. Free will does not stop becoming free because God knows what will happen. For example, I know that my child will choose to eat chocolate cake over a bowl full of stinking dead mice. If I were to set them both before my child, it is safe to say she will not eat the dead mice. Knowing this is not taking away the freedom of my child since she is freely choosing one over the other. Likewise, for God to know what a person will choose does not mean that the person has no freedom to make the choice. It simply means that God knows what the person will choose. This is necessarily so since God knows all things (1 Joh 3:20). Besides, if a person were to choose A instead of C, then that is what God would have known would happen.
Furthermore, if God knows all things and knows what we are going to choose, then by definition, we are still making the choice; after all, the argument says that God knows what "we are going to choose." If we are going to choose" something, then we really are making the choice -- otherwise it wouldn't be logical to assert that God knows what we are going to choose. Choice implies the ability to decide between different options. Again, by definition if God is knowing what we are going to choose, then He knows what we are going to choose between options...otherwise we are not choosing anything and the statement is illogical.
Back to the bowl of dead mice. The father, however, is not omniscient where God is. But does this difference negate the analogy? Not at all. Knowing what a person will do still does not force them or limit them to doing what is known. The complaint of those who say that if God knows what we are going to do then we don't have "real" freedom is logically stating that God's foreknowledge of an event somehow limits the event and the choice of the individual. The complaint implies that there is an action by God upon a person that negates His freedom to choose. It would be up to the complainer to establish some logical connection between what God knows what will happen and the mind of the one who makes a choice so that the mind of the person making the choice no longer is making a choice. It seems that the critics are saying that the choice-maker is affected by God's knowledge to such an extent that his freedom is lost. If that is the case, then can they prove this logically? If not, then how can they maintain their position?
God's knowing what we will choose is a function of His omnipresence since He is in all places all the time. If He were not, He would not know what choices were were freely going to make. To deny that God is all knowing, even of the choices we make, is to deny His omnipresence and reduce God's nature to something more like ourselves, which would be a mistake.
Nevertheless, some people try and claim that God does not know what we will freely choose. But, this cannot be since it would violate the biblical teaching that God knows all things.
Following is taken from an email complaining that God's foreknowledge means we have no free will. The person wrote six points. I reproduced them and have inserted comments, in blue below the points.

1. God knows every decision that I am going to make tomorrow.
1. Correct.
2. For sake of simplicity, let's assume that I am going to make only one decision tomorrow. My decision will be whether or not to go to my aerobics class at the gym.
1. A decision is a choice about something that you want to do or believe. It is drawing a conclusion while considering the options. Your statement that you are going to make the decision means that you admit that you are the one making the choice. By definition then, you are freely choosing to do something. Therefore, to later say that you have no choice in what you are doing is a contradiction of your statement here.
3. God knows what decision I will make. He has it written on his "list."
1. There is no "list" that God has anywhere of the things that anyone is going to do. The knowledge of God is not a list. It is simply necessarily complete since He knows all things. This is because God's nature requires that He know all things since He is everywhere all the time: the past, present, and future.
4. His "list" can't be wrong.
1. This is not an issue of the list being wrong. It is simply a fact that God knows all things. Whatever you choose to do is what God knows will happen. If you chose not to go to the class, then that is what God would have known would be your choice. So, whichever choice you freely make is the one God knows you will make.
2. Furthermore, the "list" will always be right. That is, it is always right because it is a list of the free will choices you want to make. Read below...
5. If his "list" says I am going to my aerobics class, I must go.
1. The problem here is that the idea of a list introduces the error that there is a set list of things that the person must accomplish, because it is on a list for them to do. This is not the case. You do not go to the gym because it is on the list that you must fulfill. It is simply an advance recording of what you will do based on the choices you will freely make.
2. A better understanding of the "list" idea would be if God wrote a list of the things you did after you did them. He can do this since He is in the future and can look back from the future to see what you chose to do at any time. Time is relative to God. Because you have already done them freely (from God's future perspective looking backward), the list can be made accurately by God. Since He is also in the past and present, He can even show us this list in advance...only for Him it happened a long time ago as He watched you freely do what you wanted to do. So, since God is in all places at all time, He can look back in time to get the list, and then even reveal it in advance to you. It would be a list of things you freely chose to do -- or should I say, that you will freely choose to do.
6. The fact that "I must go" is incompatible with the statement that I am free to decide whether to go or not to go.
1. There is no "must" in this situation. You will freely choose.
2. There is no incompatibility at all if we see that God simply knows what our choices are going to be before we make them since it is necessarily true that He knows all things.
3. Furthermore, this idea of God's knowledge and peoples' freedom is ultimately an unanswerable issue since it involves us working in time and God is outside of time. Our question deals with a situation from a perspective inside of time where God is outside of time. By default, our questions and answers concerning this issue cannot be complete. Past, present, and future are concepts and realities created for us, not God. say we have no freedom -- even if God knows all things.

[ocmpoma]

"But does this difference negate the analogy?"

Yes, it does. You do not know what actions another person will take. You can only guess, and make your guess based upon information which makes the guess very accurate. But you do not know, with certainty, what will happen.

You should carry this discussion over onto the omnipotence vs. free will thread.

[Rhinoqulous]

I'll try to keep this short and sweet.

1- Today for lunch, I'll either go to Subway for a samich or to King House for some curry.
2- God necessarily knows where I will go for lunch, by the nature of omniscience.
3- God knows I will go to King House for curry.
4- I will necessarily go to King House for curry, by the nature of omniscience (my action is necessitated by Poppa G's foreknowledge).
5- I could not have gone to Subway, for my going to the King House is a necessary action, by the nature of omniscience.
6- If I could not have gone to Subway, there was no free choice made to go to the King House.
7- My going to the King House for lunch is not a free action.

The point is, if Poppa G knows everything, then everything that is, is necessary. We can't talk of something happening any other way then it actually did, because then the events would not be necessary, and would contradict Poppa G's omniscience. While you may claim there is still a free decision being made, there can't be, because the outcome of actions is already necessitated. A free choice is one of the type, A or B, where both A and B are possible outcomes. With the omniscient nature of Poppa G, either A or B becomes necessarily the case, say A, which means that necessarily it is the case of Not B. There is no freedom with omniscience.

Hope this confuses everything. :)

Rhinoq

[z3n]

Allow me to clear this up:


God knows the future of what the free will creatures choose. Free will does not stop becoming free because God knows what will happen.
After reading though your post it doesn’t really look like you cleared anything up, just reiterating stuff.

For example, I know that my child will choose to eat chocolate cake over a bowl full of stinking dead mice. If I were to set them both before my child, it is safe to say she will not eat the dead mice. Knowing this is not taking away the freedom of my child since she is freely choosing one over the other.
So are you saying that you know the future? I doubt it. Therefore you are predicting that your child will choose the fruit, but there is no way that you can actually know that she will.

Likewise, for God to know what a person will choose does not mean that the person has no freedom to make the choice. It simply means that God knows what the person will choose. This is necessarily so since God knows all things (1 Joh 3:20).
This is just a restatement to what Lucretius said in the last post and you have brought nothing new here just restating what was already responded to. So I sugest you re-read post #35 and try to realize the absurdity and illogic of what your saying here. Oh and by the way quoting scripture as fact is a logical fallacy of appealing to authority and does nothing to further your argument.

Furthermore, if God knows all things and knows what we are going to choose, then by definition, we are still making the choice; after all, the argument says that God knows what "we are going to choose."
Do you realize what you have just argued against yourself here? If God knows all things then we aren’t making a choice. If God knows what we are going to choose then we wouldn’t choose anything. Free will would be an illusion.

If we are going to choose" something, then we really are making the choice -- otherwise it wouldn't be logical to assert that God knows what we are going to choose.
Uh yeah, that’s why it’s illogical to assume free will and an omniscient deity.

Choice implies the ability to decide between different options. Again, by definition if God is knowing what we are going to choose, then He knows what we are going to choose between options...otherwise we are not choosing anything and the statement is illogical.
What’s illogical is this whole statement.

Back to the bowl of dead mice. The father, however, is not omniscient where God is. But does this difference negate the analogy? Not at all.
What are you talking about? It totally negates the analogy. Your trying to compare knowing with predicting, two totally different concepts.

Knowing what a person will do still does not force them or limit them to doing what is known.
*sigh* Yes it does.

The complaint of those who say that if God knows what we are going to do then we don't have "real" freedom is logically stating that God's foreknowledge of an event somehow limits the event and the choice of the individual. The complaint implies that there is an action by God upon a person that negates His freedom to choose.
Well first off it’s not a complaint it’s a logical argument. Second God doesn’t need to interact or force anything, but if He knows the choices then He knows the choices. Our wills don’t have to be forced in order for them not to be free. If our choices are known then we have no way to make any other choices other then the ones that are known.

It seems that the critics are saying that the choice-maker is affected by God's knowledge to such an extent that his freedom is lost. If that is the case, then can they prove this logically? If not, then how can they maintain their position?
I just did. And I’m not the first one. Oh and I’m not being critical, I’m being logical.

God's knowing what we will choose is a function of His omnipresence since He is in all places all the time. If He were not, He would not know what choices were were freely going to make. To deny that God is all knowing, even of the choices we make, is to deny His omnipresence and reduce God's nature to something more like ourselves, which would be a mistake.
Hey this is pretty much the first logical thing you’ve written so far in this post, so please, don’t think it’s a mistake.

[Little Earth Stamper]

Dragonking, people have already mentioned the thread where I told a littlle story about why god's omnipotence cannot co-exist with free will.

Nobody was able to refute it without changing the wording of the story.

I also took a stab at coming up with a way for god to be more or less omnicient without it interfering with free will.

It's all Here (http://ravingatheist.com/forum/viewtopic.php?id=560&p=1), and I'm curious what your response would be.

[benjaminbp18]

I genuinely understand your frustration over religious people, particularly Christians. It can get very annoying when people arrogantly approach us claiming to know all that is unknown and try to guide us into their infamous abyss of utter foolishness.

But when these people come about in our lives, just ignore them. Perhaps your anger may abate by reminding yourself of the nature of faith. While it's highly illogical as it is a euphamism for believing blindly, that isn't its sole function. It's function is religion. And remember that religion isn't intended to misguide (although it does intellectually) but to provide emotional satisfaction.

Like it or not, religion has served a vital role in our evolution and survival as a species. We evolved with religion as well as an instinct for it. We also evolved with a superior intelligence than that of other animals. Evolution has reached a peculiar state in that two of it's products that helped an organism survive, are now colliding in destruction. To choose between theism and atheism, is to choose between your intellect and emotional whim.

Perhaps with a better understanding, you can become indifferent. Anger raises insults that don't accomplish anything and steal from knowledge, wisdom, and insight. It causes some to reach illogical conclusions unknowlingly, such as "There is no God, there is no heaven, there is no hell." Even these statements require a bit of faith, for you can't prove them any more than the opposition can prove the antithesis. Also, remember that there is no evidence that theists are any less moral than atheists; wars are never exclusive to religious matters, especially in the 21st century so why complain?

It may also help to learn that people, regarless of their beliefs, are people and will always be equal to you. You may disagree with them, but to go further and critisize them, hate them and spit on them is irrational. There are other things to people than their beliefs, things you may actually like. So don't emphasize this so much and gather all who are under the churches drugs into a bag and label it "garbage". One that the world will supposedly do so great without.

[z3n]

But when these people come about in our lives, just ignore them.
So what happens when they come into our government, or our public schools, or our laws? Will you ignore it then? The line must be drawn and it should be drawn at the home and the church. If religion seeps out beyond that it is out of line and must be kicked back.

Like it or not, religion has served a vital role in our evolution and survival as a species.
Would you be referring to the Crusades or the Spanish Inquisition? Or maybe you mean the all of the religious wars that there have been though the ages. I’m sure you aren’t referring to the suppression science by the Church during what are now called the Dark Ages are you?

I would like to know how you can possibly think that religion has helped in any way the survival and development of the human race.

It may also help to learn that people, regarless of their beliefs, are people and will always be equal to you. You may disagree with them, but to go further and critisize them, hate them and spit on them is irrational.
Why can’t we just all get along right? Because of all the religions (the major ones at least) ‘tolerance’ is not a value or doctrine of any of them. Religion by its very nature is intolerant of anyone and anything that isn’t a part of its particular system. So while you’re here writing “oh lets just get along” theists are saying “we’ll get along as soon as you start believing like we do”.

[benjaminbp18]

So what happens when they come into our government, or our public schools, or our laws? Will you ignore it then? The line must be drawn and it should be drawn at the home and the church. If religion seeps out beyond that it is out of line and must be kicked back.
I agree, however the original post wasn't directed towards this grand scale. It was directed towards the marginal matters of how to critisize in the opportune moment. This was the matter I was adressing.
Would you be referring to the Crusades or the Spanish Inquisition? Or maybe you mean the all of the religious wars that there have been though the ages. I’m sure you aren’t referring to the suppression science by the Church during what are now called the Dark Ages are you?
I would like to know how you can possibly think that religion has helped in any way the survival and development of the human race.
Very well. Religion has it's setbacks as often mutations do such as sickle cell. Looking deep into the past, our ancestors were surrounded by large beasts such as sabers and mammoths. In this environment, natural selection favored individuals who were intelligent. Over successive generations, intelligence prevailed and was shaped into it's advanced stage today. At the same time, our ancestors survived best in groups (strength in numbers). Humans evolved with mechanisms that enforced social behavior. A major and common function of nearly all religions is to emphasize and enforce morals. What better way to get people to conform to the ideas of society by setting heaven as the reward, and hell as the punishment? By adhering to morals with a strong foundation on mythological belief produced by the creativity of the evolving intellect, human society was able to function. This contributed heavily to our survival. Feelings that arouse questions such as "Why am I here?" and "Where did the universe come from"; emotions that bring us to question something MORE, something beyond what we can see are instincts that we have evolved with. They are instincts that guide us to both fill our intellectual capacity, and develope religious or spiritual ideas and beliefs.

And please, don't make the mistake of thinking religious wars are bad. You only percieve them that way because your looking through the eye of the individual and not the species as a whole. Perhaps a double implementation of religion is to suppress population. Surviving too well can be a double-edgged sword, and wars, be them political or religious, may be aiding our survival. I don't know if this is true, but it's a legitimate alternative. Our evolution is strange in that we understand it's mechanisms; our own brain understand's even itself! Be aware, that evolution has reached a peculiar state in which two factors of survival, religion and intellect, are colliding in destruction. The "Dark Ages" as you mention in no way diminish my theory, but confirm it in a rounded perspective. Natural Selection isn't goal oriented for an elegant balance, but experimental: testing what works and what doesn't. Why is it so hard to understand that we are still in the rhyme of it's clock?
Why can’t we just all get along right? Because of all the religions (the major ones at least) ‘tolerance’ is not a value or doctrine of any of them. Religion by its very nature is intolerant of anyone and anything that isn’t a part of its particular system. So while you’re here writing “oh lets just get along” theists are saying “we’ll get along as soon as you start believing like we do”.
Good generalization, but I take it for just that. Religion may be intolerant, but it's followers aren't always. I highly doubt that you don't have friends that are religious. You probobly do, and likely get along with them very well (after all, they ARE your FRIENDS :P). Never did I state, "let's get along and run about happy and gay." I merely suggest an alternative to arguing matters that are simply wasteful. And this isn't directed toward the "intolerant" theists, but an angry and frusterated atheist who is well able to follow such logic. To get along is to hold hands, to fight is to swing them, I'm simply saying: keep them by your sides with such matters.

[z3n]

I agree, however the original post wasn't directed towards this grand scale. It was directed towards the marginal matters of how to critisize in the opportune moment. This was the matter I was adressing.
Have you ever heard the saying: “if you give them a foot then they’ll take a mile”. That’s what religious folks will do. They will continue on spreading their delusions whenever and wherever they get the chance and if “red flags” aren’t thrown on their bullshit when and where the present it they will continue on unimpeded.

And please, don't make the mistake of thinking religious wars are bad. You only percieve them that way because your looking through the eye of the individual and not the species as a whole.
Oh well please open my eyes and tell me how the Crusades were good for our species as a whole. Tell me how did the 9/11 attacks help our species?

A major and common function of nearly all religions is to emphasize and enforce morals.
And what morals would you be talking about? Burning people thought to be witches. Slamming two planes into buildings that you think are heathens, or not allowing homosexuals the right to marry. Come on ben18, quite being naive. Sure maybe religion has a few nice morals, but does that really make up for the cruelty, violence and intolerance that it has caused?

The "Dark Ages" as you mention in no way diminish my theory, but confirm it in a rounded perspective.
WTF? How in the hell do the Dark Ages “round your perspective”? Do you even no what the Dark Ages were? They were a time period when the Church suppressed all scientific study saying that everything that needed to be known was known. Galileo was imprisoned during that time for saying that the Earth was round of all things. I would really like to know how you can possible think that the Dark Ages helped humanity in any way whatsoever.

Why is it so hard to understand that we are still in the rhyme of it's clock?
Funny analogy…but it’s wrong. Humans have very much taken themselves out of the cycle of natural selection. With our medical, agriculture, and technology in general we no longer have any natural predators and can easily reproduce without necessarily having positive genetic traits.

Good generalization, but I take it for just that. Religion may be intolerant, but it's followers aren't always.
I think that you’re mixing up tolerance with respect. You will never find a Christian that is tolerant of the atheist position. Even my wife, although she respects my choices, is in no way tolerant to me being an atheist.

I highly doubt that you don't have friends that are religious. You probobly do, and likely get along with them very well (after all, they ARE your FRIENDS ).
Actually my wife is basically the only friend that I have that’s religious, but to me that’s not really the point. I don’t care if someone is religious or not, it’s how they act accordingly. For instance my wife is very personal about her religion and mostly keeps it to herself. She of course isn’t real comfortable with me being an atheist, but recognizes religion as a personal choice and leaves it at that.

To get along is to hold hands, to fight is to swing them, I'm simply saying: keep them by your sides with such matters.
Yup, just keep them by your sides there and pretty soon Christianity will be the official supported religion of the U.S. government (assuming that you’re from the U.S. and therefore would care).

[Choobus]

Dragonking, people have already mentioned the thread where I told a littlle story about why god's omnipotence cannot co-exist with free will.

Nobody was able to refute it without changing the wording of the story.

I also took a stab at coming up with a way for god to be more or less omnicient without it interfering with free will.

It's all Here (http://ravingatheist.com/forum/viewtopic.php?id=560&p=1), and I'm curious what your response would be.
yeah, you came up with all that. Well done.

arrr (you damn pirate)

[benjaminbp18]

Have you ever heard the saying: “if you give them a foot then they’ll take a mile”. That’s what religious folks will do. They will continue on spreading their delusions whenever and wherever they get the chance and if “red flags” aren’t thrown on their bullshit when and where the present it they will continue on unimpeded.
Well said. However your not specific, what exactly do you mean by "red flag"? I'm assuming it's an assault or intensely emotional verbal attack. These "red flags" as you call them have been thrown upon their "bs" all the time. It's inevitable. But you very well know that this doesn't stop them from spreading their delusions. Now, I'm not sure if your referring to minor incidents of preachers approaching us, or dogmatic politics penetrating our laws and schools. But I'll adress both cases (even though this isn't necessary since the original post was directed towards ONE); Fact remains that when you come across disagreeable people, the best thing to do is walk in the other direction. When these people impede in our lives in ways that take control, of course one must fight back. I hope I addressed you well; I'm not quite sure considering that you don't state your point, and your metonymy is ambiguous.
Oh well please open my eyes and tell me how the Crusades were good for our species as a whole. Tell me how did the 9/11 attacks help our species?
Here is some speculation... Perhaps the Crusades didn't help our species, and in fact impeded it. IF this is case, it would in no way disprove the fact that religion played and may still play a role in human survival. The Crusades would indeed appear to be an impediment. After all, people are DIEING right? I've already explained how religion helped our ancestors in the past, through one example. There are many different functions of religion as well. Some are coincidental. When our ancestors were affected by a different belief system, it often resulted in a spiritual crisis because their instinct and mind permitted only one system: one they were farmiliar with. As population grew, humans became increasingly aware of other forms of people and their different beliefs. (Certain beliefs helped ancestors under certain situations. Variations in environment produced variation in culture, variation in culture produced variation in beliefs.) In pitting sectional regions against eachother, the very strength and agility of human kinds was challenged, not to mention the other coincidental advantage of suppressing population. Those groups who won battles or wars were dominant not only physically, but spiritually and their beliefs passed on. This is one way that "world religions" are formed. The "good" genes that permitted such victory and passed this strange test of survival were passed to offspring. That my friend is how the Crusades, just one example of thousands, have helped our species as a whole. The 9/11 incident very well falls into the same idea. Not to imply that EVERY outbreak is beneficial. 9/11 may have been totally useless, a small spill of something that served a function before (analagous to an appendix or tailbone in humans).
And what morals would you be talking about? Burning people thought to be witches. Slamming two planes into buildings that you think are heathens, or not allowing homosexuals the right to marry. Come on ben18, quite being naive. Sure maybe religion has a few nice morals, but does that really make up for the cruelty, violence and intolerance that it has caused?
Burning a person thought to be a witch or denying homosexuals the right to marry aren't morals z3n. They are actions based on a persons mythological beliefs. Morals serve to enforce human behavior. As I mentioned above, small outbreaks such as these may serve to incite civil upheavel, filtering the population for "good" genes. Or they may serve no function at all and are merely an echo of something that did (analogous to an appendix or tailbone in humans). (That something that DID work are wars, by the way)
WTF? How in the hell do the Dark Ages “round your perspective”? Do you even no what the Dark Ages were? They were a time period when the Church suppressed all scientific study saying that everything that needed to be known was known. Galileo was imprisoned during that time for saying that the Earth was round of all things. I would really like to know how you can possible think that the Dark Ages helped humanity in any way whatsoever.
I view this as an intellectual conversation, so please, leave out the "WTF". I didn't say "round my perspective" i said they support my theory in a "ROUNDED PERSPECIVE". By this, I mean that by looking at the picture as a whole, other factors come in that you don't account for. In your assumption that religious upheaval is detrimental to an INDIVIDUAL (which it sometimes may be), you fail to see how it may be beneficial to a POPULATION (which it often is).
The Dark Ages might have not served any particular purpose. But help me understand how if this were true, it proves that Religion as a whole is bad and in no way advantageous? The Dark Ages are an echo of something that worked before. As I said: our instincts lead us to be intolerant, and upon spiritual crisis the church was merely defending it's doctrine. These events did lead to some fighting or upheaval..blah blah (need I repeat myself again??? Just look above.)
Funny analogy…but it’s wrong. Humans have very much taken themselves out of the cycle of natural selection. With our medical, agriculture, and technology in general we no longer have any natural predators and can easily reproduce without necessarily having positive genetic traits.
Humans are no longer influenced by natural selection!? Your correct that technology pampers us, but remember that technology isn't ubiquitous. And while many of the factors that test our survival are eliminated, some still exist such as war, and disease. Here's a wonderful example I found at PBS.org. Technology still hasn't eliminated the threat of AIDS. Now, scientists have found a small percent of the European population are immune to the virus! HIV binds to cells through two receptors. Humans have been discovered with a mutation that tells one of these receptors to lie down and become, in a sense, part of the cell wall. The HIV binds to one receptor, but can't find the other one, and tries the next cell. Apparently, the cell can still function just fine without this hiding receptor.
Technology is the product of human intellect and enginuity. Intelligence was a key factor to human survival and was harbored through natural selection. Were fit, but not the fittest. It is because of natural selection that we are so successful, not because we are immune from it.
Notice also, how your referring to natural selection of genes that make up the physical body, while I'm referring to those that create our neurological sequence, in other words the mind. (Religion IS of the mind)
I think that you’re mixing up tolerance with respect. You will never find a Christian that is tolerant of the atheist position. Even my wife, although she respects my choices, is in no way tolerant to me being an atheist.
Note how I'm referring to religion in general, while your talking abour Christianity. And I have found Christians who are tolerant of my beliefs. I credit that to the fact that they weren't hardcore about it. They simply accept Christ as savior, and usually followed their own path and not one given by a church. Your wife doesn't sum up the entire Christian profile, rather merely a part of it.
Yup, just keep them by your sides there and pretty soon Christianity will be the official supported religion of the U.S. government (assuming that you’re from the U.S. and therefore would care).
LOL, isn't it already? (aka George Bush) ~~~ Anywayz... A Christian approaches you and say's : "Jesus loves you, come to God so you can be saved from eternal damnation!" I can't see how this can possibly prelude the Government supporting it. I can understand if they were slowly infiltrating the state, Congress, the White House! But we're talking about a silly event that occurs daily in the streets.

[z3n]

However your not specific, what exactly do you mean by "red flag"?…. Now, I'm not sure if your referring to minor incidents of preachers approaching us, or dogmatic politics penetrating our laws and schools.
Both actually. Look I’m not talking about getting into pissing contests with every theist you come across. Respect other people’s beliefs but at the same time stick up for what you think is right. If someone tells you that people that don’t believe in god are evil and you don’t correct them you have just allowed them to essentially ‘demonize’ you and have indirectly supported their comment.

Fact remains that when you come across disagreeable people, the best thing to do is walk in the other direction.
Then what are doing posting here?

When these people impede in our lives in ways that take control, of course one must fight back.
Exactly, so we agree on this point. This is great then because I think I can use this to sum up what I’m getting at.

I've already explained how religion helped our ancestors in the past, through one example.
Are you referring to your statement: “A major and common function of nearly all religions is to emphasize and enforce morals”? Because well to me that sounds like taking control and would cause people to want to fight back.

Perhaps the Crusades didn't help our species, and in fact impeded it.
…
The "good" genes that permitted such victory and passed this strange test of survival were passed to offspring. That my friend is how the Crusades, just one example of thousands, have helped our species as a whole.
Did the Crusades help or hurt our species? Keep in mind that the Crusades were religion trying to take control.
It sounds like you’re saying that religious people have better genes so killing off the non-religious is good for our species.

Burning a person thought to be a witch or denying homosexuals the right to marry aren't morals z3n. They are actions based on a persons mythological beliefs. Morals serve to enforce human behavior.
Like say for instance, not allowing homosexuals to marry? And again didn’t you say that, “A major and common function of nearly all religions is to emphasize and enforce morals”? Well people burned witches because their religion taught them that it was the morally right thing to do.

I view this as an intellectual conversation, so please, leave out the "WTF".
That’s funny, now you’re reminding me of this real religious Christian that I work with that’s always trying to get everyone to “watch their language” at the office. Whatever man, if you don’t like something I say or think that it’s irrelevant then just skip over it. I wasn’t insulting you or anything I was just making an exclamation.

In your assumption that religious upheaval is detrimental to an INDIVIDUAL (which it sometimes may be), you fail to see how it may be beneficial to a POPULATION (which it often is).
Okay well maybe I’ve missed it but I would be interested to hear some examples of how religion has been beneficial to a population. I would be interested to hear your explanation of how humanity overall is better off with religion then without it.

The Dark Ages might have not served any particular purpose. But help me understand how if this were true, it proves that Religion as a whole is bad and in no way advantageous?
It’s just one of many notches in the belt (that metonymy isn’t to ambiguous is it). Honestly, I really don’t see how religion has been more advantageous to humanity. Even with some of the good things that people may have done because of religion, at what cost were they done? People can and do good things without religion.

Humans are no longer influenced by natural selection!? Your correct that technology pampers us, but remember that technology isn't ubiquitous.
Well yes technology isn’t everywhere but it is very widespread and has practically removed most humans from natural selection.

And while many of the factors that test our survival are eliminated, some still exist such as war, and disease.
Sorry but I’m not seeing war as a natural selection process. Now disease yes, somewhat, but people in most developed counties receive invocations against many diseases artificially therefore ensuring survival for people with little or no natural defenses.

Now, scientists have found a small percent of the European population are immune to the virus!
Yeah and just imagine if they formulate a cure of off that population. The majority of the population would then artificially receive that cure taking them out of the natural selection process of catching HIV.

Intelligence was a key factor to human survival and was harbored through natural selection. Were fit, but not the fittest. It is because of natural selection that we are so successful, not because we are immune from it.
I never said that we were immune from it; I said that we have essentially taken ourselves out of it. I guess because of our developed intellect it could be said that we have removed ourselves from natural selection but put ourselves into artificial selection. We no longer have to be smart or strong to get food. We don’t have to have good immune systems to stay healthy. Now being beautiful helps with reproducing but it’s really not a requirement, and it actually can be fixed to a certain extent (e.g. plastic surgery).

Notice also, how your referring to natural selection of genes that make up the physical body, while I'm referring to those that create our neurological sequence, in other words the mind.
But you just used HIV, a virus in the body as and example for our natural selection.

Religion IS of the mind
Mmmm…you in an earlier post you also said:
To choose between theism and atheism, is to choose between your intellect and emotional whim.
So I’m trying to figure out: Do you see religion as an intellectual position and/or as something that has somehow improved human’s intellect though natural selection?

Note how I'm referring to religion in general, while your talking abour Christianity.
Well Christianity is the major religion in the U.S., so yeah I tend to use it as an example quite often since that is the religion that tends to both directly and indirectly effect my life the most.

And I have found Christians who are tolerant of my beliefs.
What beliefs?

I credit that to the fact that they weren't hardcore about it. They simply accept Christ as savior, and usually followed their own path and not one given by a church.
Sounds a lot like my wife. I’ve also found Christians that are quite the opposite. And yes they follow their own path, but they aren’t going to tolerate your path as being the right one. They may respect you enough to not bring it up but that doesn’t mean that they think you have the right answer. To me tolerance would be a theist considering atheism as an acceptable deviation from theism.

Your wife doesn't sum up the entire Christian profile, rather merely a part of it.
Well yes obviously, I just usually use my wife as an example of a very liberal Christian (I wish all Christians were like her in the way she mostly keeps here religion to herself). I actually have met hundreds of Christians over my life ranging broadly over the belief spectrum.

LOL, isn't it already? (aka George Bush) ~~~ Anywayz... A Christian approaches you and say's : "Jesus loves you, come to God so you can be saved from eternal damnation!" I can't see how this can possibly prelude the Government supporting it. I can understand if they were slowly infiltrating the state, Congress, the White House! But we're talking about a silly event that occurs daily in the streets.
Now don’t get me wrong, in real life I don’t really bring up my atheism much, which is one of the main reasons I come here because I do like to discuss and debate.

We are a government of the people (well that’s the theory anyways) and I’m starting to see more and more how some religious folks are trying to push religion whenever and wherever the can. See I figure that it starts with the silly little events but then grows from there. I want to do my part to make sure that religious folks no that theirs is not the only way in the U.S. It may seem insignificant sometimes, but I feel that I’ve got to start somewhere.

Well this post is pretty long. So in a effort to try to consolidate things I think that main discussion has essentially come down to being based around this question:

Do you see religion as something that has improved the human species to the point that we would actually be worse off somehow with out it and why?

[benjaminbp18]

Wow, so many quotes. So much discord. But anywayz...
Your original question : I'd like to know how you can possibly think that religion has helped our ancestors in any way.
Your new question after enlightenment : Do you see religion as something that has improved the human species to the point that we would actually be worse off somehow without it and why?
(I don't see how the main discussion boils down to this. Never did I state or imply that our kind would be worse off without it, but I'll answer anyway) I'm only certain that religion served a purpose. Whether it's purpose is the same today, or different, I really don't know. It may have no purpose at all anymore but is still there (~appendix). We may simply be modern humans with primitive instincts.

Then what are doing posting here?
I don't find you disagreeable.

[z3n]

(Wow, so many quotes. So much discord.
Yeah my friends tell me quite often that I over analyze things. I like to think of it as just being thorough but I digress. Besides if there wasn’t any discord then what would we have to talk about right? :)

It wasn’t until after I finished the last post that I realized how stupid long it was and tried to summarize it at the end as best I could.

(I don't see how the main discussion boils down to this. Never did I state or imply that our kind would be worse off without it, but I'll answer anyway)
Well I guess my original point of contention was when you stated in post #41:
Like it or not, religion has served a vital role in our evolution and survival as a species.
But maybe you “misspoke” or I misunderstood.

It may have no purpose at all anymore but is still there (~appendix). We may simply be modern humans with primitive instincts.
Ooo, nice, I like that summery.

Then what are doing posting here?
I don't find you disagreeable.
Okay, fair enough.

Like I alluded to earlier I pretty much agree with you that discussing things (religion or whatever) with people that are just plain disagreeable usually is pretty pointless unless it is on an issue that is very important or personally effects you in some way.

[nthn200]

All of you are pigheaded morons. You fundamentalists are raving lunatics who don't understand the concept of literary metaphor, and you athiests are preening narcissists who think that you are the first people to ever have an original idea. You all need to spend some more time listening to one another and less time mulling over these excruciating dogmatic idiosyncrasies and archaic colloquiums.

[Philboid Studge]

All of you are pigheaded morons. You fundamentalists are raving lunatics who don't understand the concept of literary metaphor, and you athiests are preening narcissists who think that you are the first people to ever have an original idea. You all need to spend some more time listening to one another and less time mulling over these excruciating dogmatic idiosyncrasies and archaic colloquiums.
Heh. You, on the other hand, are the very picture of probity and consideration. This is at least the second time you've dragged out the phrase "preening narcissist," and I suggest you find a new schtick, not least of all because the only preening narcissism seems to be coming from you.

[nthn200]

All of you are pigheaded morons. You fundamentalists are raving lunatics who don't understand the concept of literary metaphor, and you athiests are preening narcissists who think that you are the first people to ever have an original idea. You all need to spend some more time listening to one another and less time mulling over these excruciating dogmatic idiosyncrasies and archaic colloquiums.
Heh. You, on the other hand, are the very picture of probity and consideration. This is at least the second time you've dragged out the phrase "preening narcissist," and I suggest you find a new schtick, not least of all because the only preening narcissism seems to be coming from you.
You guys are fun to play with...You get so angry. I'm glad you're paying so much attention to me though.

[Tenspace]

You guys are fun to play with...You get so angry. I'm glad you're paying so much attention to me though.
You must not have read through earlier posts. You've been virtually ignored, compared to some of the baiters we get here.

Ten

[nthn200]

You guys are fun to play with...You get so angry. I'm glad you're paying so much attention to me though.
You must not have read through earlier posts. You've been virtually ignored, compared to some of the baiters we get here.

Ten
Baiters huh. Don't take me too seriously. I really just stumbled upon this forum last night looking for people to maybe challenge my opinion with facts of their own. I guess I have high expectations. Enjoy your little world!

[Sir Sin-O-Lot]

Baiters huh. Don't take me too seriously. I really just stumbled upon this forum last night looking for people to maybe challenge my opinion with facts of their own. I guess I have high expectations. Enjoy your little world!
And may you enjoy your world.

[Tenspace]

Baiters huh. Don't take me too seriously. I really just stumbled upon this forum last night looking for people to maybe challenge my opinion with facts of their own. I guess I have high expectations. Enjoy your little world!
And what facts those were:

All of you are pigheaded morons. You fundamentalists are raving lunatics who don't understand the concept of literary metaphor

Fifteen years ago that was flame bait. And it still is today.

Tenspace

[nthn200]

Baiters huh. Don't take me too seriously. I really just stumbled upon this forum last night looking for people to maybe challenge my opinion with facts of their own. I guess I have high expectations. Enjoy your little world!
And what facts those were:

All of you are pigheaded morons. You fundamentalists are raving lunatics who don't understand the concept of literary metaphor

Fifteen years ago that was flame bait. And it still is today.

Tenspace
That was after I gave up.

[Tenspace]

That was after I gave up.
But thanks to LIFO, it's the first post I read. :)

Ten

[Philboid Studge]

All of you are pigheaded morons. You fundamentalists are raving lunatics who don't understand the concept of literary metaphor, and you athiests are preening narcissists who think that you are the first people to ever have an original idea. You all need to spend some more time listening to one another and less time mulling over these excruciating dogmatic idiosyncrasies and archaic colloquiums.
Heh. You, on the other hand, are the very picture of probity and consideration. This is at least the second time you've dragged out the phrase "preening narcissist," and I suggest you find a new schtick, not least of all because the only preening narcissism seems to be coming from you.
You guys are fun to play with...You get so angry. I'm glad you're paying so much attention to me though.
You're funny too. Whose post sounds angrier to you? (Oh well: "No matter what I try to comprehend it will always be based on my perceptions." Now that's heavy, man.)

[fortytwo]

If this is true, then it might just be that God had to create the universe so that the fall would be included in His plan for the very purpose of demonstrating and manifesting His perfect character: Love! To demonstrate the very greatest part of His nature of love, He would have to die for someone else. This could not be done if there was no one to die for and no reason to die for them. There could be no reason to die if there were no need for an atonement. There would be no need for an atonement if there were no sin. If there was no fall, there would be no sin.
WTF??

Let's say I build a house and let my beloved children live in it. Then I set it on fire. When the flames get nice and hot, I rush in to save them from the burning building. I die in the process, but my children are saved. Let's say my ONLY purpose for doing all this is to be able to give my life for them in the end, thereby proving I love them.

Wait, the analogy isn't good enough. The fire isn't my kids' fault! Let's say I make everything in the house extremely inflammable, so much so that a single spark will set it ablaze. I tell my kids this, but they like smoking cigarettes so much that they do it anyway, and they cause the fire.

No, wait, in my analogy I still haven't set them up to fail. Okay, my kids are actually robots now, and I have programmed them to be helplessly addicted to cigarette smoking. Their addiction is programmed to override any instructions, given by me or anyone else, not to smoke. So, they do what I set them up to do - they smoke, set the house on fire, and nerly die.

If I did all this, would I be considered a godly person? After all, I'm only following His example...

[thomas]

I don't recognise the God of the Bible in your analogy. Maybe you could explain ?

[Another brick in the wall]

God is the man who made the house and its inhabitants. He deliberately set up a dangerous situation to make himself a hero. Ever heard of Munchausen by proxy? Stockholm syndrome?

[nthn200]

God is the man who made the house and its inhabitants. He deliberately set up a dangerous situation to make himself a hero. Ever heard of Munchausen by proxy? Stockholm syndrome?
A father has a child and does not intervene when we makes mistakes as an adult not out of sadism but for respect. The child must grow and learn lessons on his own without absolute intervention. I see what you say about Munchuausen biproxi, but tell me the basis for comparison. What God do you know of in another dimension brings His inhabitants eternal and unconditional bliss? All due respect...

[Another brick in the wall]

In Munchausen, a person will deliberately injure or poison a close relative and then "rescue" the person by taking them to the hospital and nursing them back to health. Similarly, god creates imperfect humans then gives them a way to remove the imperfection. We are supposed to thank god for this.

As for your second question, I don't understand why an all powerful god would create companions in the first place. If he's all-knowing, he knows what will happen before it does. God must be very bored . . .

[nthn200]

In Munchausen, a person will deliberately injure or poison a close relative and then "rescue" the person by taking them to the hospital and nursing them back to health. Similarly, god creates imperfect humans then gives them a way to remove the imperfection. We are supposed to thank god for this.

As for your second question, I don't understand why an all powerful god would create companions in the first place. If he's all-knowing, he knows what will happen before it does. God must be very bored . . .
I am familiar with Munchausen biproxi. Again, the presumption is that we are in an imperfect world and the "thanking" comes into play because we are supposed to thank God for the chance of the experience of life, for, again, what is the basis for comparison when it comes to life. There is much pain but also joy. Also the presumtion is that the one unique thing about men is that they hold the key to their own salvation. But I suppose that your comparison makes sense when compared to the Calvinists' theory of predestination, or a misconstrual of the Catholic original sin (which is almost universally misconstrued). However, I have heard the concept of original sin most eloquently described as a rescue from perfection. The human is not perfect, and that fact should be celebrated.

[Another brick in the wall]

"There is much pain but also joy."

For many, there is much pain and little joy. By the way, are you catholic?

[Little Earth Stamper]

One difficulty with your position, Nthn (As I have pointed out elsewhere), is that in traditional Christian theology, god does not want us to grow up.

In heaven, we will be obediant to god forever more. God gives us pain not to make us grow, but to regress to the point where we are utterly dependant upon him.

This is just a little bit fucked up, if you ask me.

[Another brick in the wall]

Has anyone here ever seen that Twilight Zone episode where the kid has all sorts of god-like powers? If such a being did exist, it would be the worst monster imaginable. The worst part was that even though the monster tormented the townspeople, that had to praise it to keep it from doing even more horrible things.

[nthn200]

"There is much pain but also joy."

For many, there is much pain and little joy. By the way, are you catholic?
No. Too muddied in the past 1500 years by Dogma for me to take it seriously.

[nthn200]

Has anyone here ever seen that Twilight Zone episode where the kid has all sorts of god-like powers? If such a being did exist, it would be the worst monster imaginable. The worst part was that even though the monster tormented the townspeople, that had to praise it to keep it from doing even more horrible things.
Is that the one they did a farce on on The Simpsons?

[Another brick in the wall]

Yep. The Simpsons practically raised me.

[nthn200]

One difficulty with your position, Nthn (As I have pointed out elsewhere), is that in traditional Christian theology, god does not want us to grow up.

In heaven, we will be obediant to god forever more. God gives us pain not to make us grow, but to regress to the point where we are utterly dependant upon him.

This is just a little bit fucked up, if you ask me.
I don't see what at all you base these views upon. I'm sorry you've had things explained to you that way, but I just don't know where you would draw those conclusions from. The center does not hold. What many people fail to comprehend is that religion is not absolute but an institution of metaphors. There are many Christian institutions with virtually no dogma passed on from what accumulated after the conception of the bible itself.

[Another brick in the wall]

An institution based on metaphors?

Is possible that god is just a metaphor?

[Little Earth Stamper]

One difficulty with your position, Nthn (As I have pointed out elsewhere), is that in traditional Christian theology, god does not want us to grow up.

In heaven, we will be obediant to god forever more. God gives us pain not to make us grow, but to regress to the point where we are utterly dependant upon him.

This is just a little bit fucked up, if you ask me.
I don't see what at all you base these views upon. I'm sorry you've had things explained to you that way, but I just don't know where you would draw those conclusions from. The center does not hold. What many people fail to comprehend is that religion is not absolute but an institution of metaphors. There are many Christian institutions with virtually no dogma passed on from what accumulated after the conception of the bible itself.
Oh, well, I know that. My mom was raised as a Unitarian and my dad as a Quaker.

However, the majority of Christians have followed my interpretation, and there is very little in the bible that encourages friendly disagreements with god. Well, nothing that I know about. Fell free to quote me something.

[nthn200]

One difficulty with your position, Nthn (As I have pointed out elsewhere), is that in traditional Christian theology, god does not want us to grow up.

In heaven, we will be obediant to god forever more. God gives us pain not to make us grow, but to regress to the point where we are utterly dependant upon him.

This is just a little bit fucked up, if you ask me.
I don't see what at all you base these views upon. I'm sorry you've had things explained to you that way, but I just don't know where you would draw those conclusions from. The center does not hold. What many people fail to comprehend is that religion is not absolute but an institution of metaphors. There are many Christian institutions with virtually no dogma passed on from what accumulated after the conception of the bible itself.
Oh, well, I know that. My mom was raised as a Unitarian and my dad as a Quaker.

However, the majority of Christians have followed my interpretation, and there is very little in the bible that encourages friendly disagreements with god. Well, nothing that I know about. Fell free to quote me something.
Well, Abraham supposedly argued with God about the fate of Sodom and Gomorrah. They had a discourse and Lot along with his family was spared. What's also interesting about this tale is that many people use it as a centerpeice for homophobia. If thoroughly examined, the fate of these people did not rest on their sexual preference, but their proclivity towards a hurtful and unproductive society. Many people have problems with the "vengeful God" but I think that this terminology can be compared to many other personifications of natural phenomena. But I digress.

[leguru]

One difficulty with your position, Nthn (As I have pointed out elsewhere), is that in traditional Christian theology, god does not want us to grow up.

In heaven, we will be obediant to god forever more. God gives us pain not to make us grow, but to regress to the point where we are utterly dependant upon him.

This is just a little bit fucked up, if you ask me.
I must agree with Little Earth Stamper. Also evidence: "And the serpent said unto the woman, Ye shall not surely die: For God doth know that in the day ye eat thereof, then your eyes shall be opened , and ye shall be as gods, knowing good and evil." Gen3:4-5 etc, etc, etc

So, did God not want the First Parents to grow up? Or was He just telling them there are consequences to our actions? And did you know that grandchildren are God's revenge for not killing our own children when they are infants? :lol:

[nthn200]

One difficulty with your position, Nthn (As I have pointed out elsewhere), is that in traditional Christian theology, god does not want us to grow up.

In heaven, we will be obediant to god forever more. God gives us pain not to make us grow, but to regress to the point where we are utterly dependant upon him.

This is just a little bit fucked up, if you ask me.
I must agree with Little Earth Stamper. Also evidence: "And the serpent said unto the woman, Ye shall not surely die: For God doth know that in the day ye eat thereof, then your eyes shall be opened , and ye shall be as gods, knowing good and evil." Gen3:4-5 etc, etc, etc

So, did God not want the First Parents to grow up? Or was He just telling them there are consequences to our actions? And did you know that grandchildren are God's revenge for not killing our own children when they are infants? :lol:
Well, I don't see exactly how you arrived at those questions but the Adam and Eve story has been told in many different ways. Despite the active voice, I think it is fair to assume that God knew humans would eat from the "tree of knowlege." The price: Awareness. Is a tree aware when it grows? Is a star? Is a dog? They still grow... Because of awareness we can prevent disease, make art, discuss philosophy...but we also (arguably) have become too large to be sustainable to our environment. War, famine, epidemic disease, nuclear weaponry...etc. Our evolution has become active and not passive. However, we are still evolving these Darwinistic instinctual values. Ideally we would evolve principles in their rawest forms (if you've ever seen Waking Life, you might remember the guy towards the beginning talking about this theory) but I don't beleive it to be conceivable. That is why we are "broken."

[Little Earth Stamper]

A difficult part of arguing Christian theology is defining exactly which theology we are arguing about.

As a cynical man, when I talk about flaws in Christian philosophy, I am generally speaking of the judgemental, fundamentalist mindset that was started early in the catholic church's history, was embraced by the Christian empires of Europe, and still survives to this day.

This fire and brimstone philosophy seems to have been the primary force behind Christianity for much of its history, and so that's what I tend to think of.

But there are other philosophies out there, and if someone has an unorthodox reading of the bible, you can sometimes start talking past them.

[fromsanzabar]

Stamper,

The majority of Christians, whatever they may say off the top of their head, would point to the Catechism of the Catholic Church to explain their beliefs. Granted, a large sum of them don't know what the hell it teaches, but they are nonetheless Catholics. If you haven't yet, i'd read it. Or if it's too thick, grab a copy of Peter Kreeft's "Catholic Christianity." A nearby orthodox Priest should have several available for free.

Regardless of what individuals have practiced throughout history, the Churches teachings are loving, not hateful. And you'll find that her doctrines of faith and morals have never changed, whereas disciplines have and will (i.e. clerical celibacy, mandatory weekly eucharistic celebration.

[Another brick in the wall]

During the middle ages, heretics were sometimes punished by being sealed in a large cauldron with some rats. As the cauldron was placed on a fire, the rats would burrow into the victim's in an attempt to escape the heat. This is one small example of the "love" Catholicism brought to the world.

[fromsanzabar]

While i won't take your word for it, i don't doubt your description of medieval torture. Sadly, such things were commonplace back then. It is also the product of Catholicism (not Catholics) that those expressions of hatred have started to disappear. The cauldron situation is another example of practice though. It has nothing to do with their theology. I quick read through any authoritative Catholic documents would remove any doubt that heinous tortures are always wrong.

[Another brick in the wall]

The Catholic church approved every inquisition and every crusade. Up until the Soviet Union, it was the greatest purveyor of violence the world has ever known. The improving situation of human rights in the West is due to the decline of the Catholic church.

[fromsanzabar]

What you say is false. The centuries of wars in Asia surely wrought more violence than the inquisitions. I mean, we're talking no more than several thousand deaths because of these things.

While the Church authorities did approve of the individual inquisitions and crusades, it would be impossible to consider and commend the abusive actions of individual soldiers. Bad things happened, but the aspiration of the institution and campaigns were noble.

The Inquisition, which exists today under another moniker, was created to discover which non-Christians were posing as Christians to illegally receive benefits alloted to Christians in an officially Christian State. No one was killed solely because they were say, Jewish, but because they were lying about their identity and breaking the law. Perhaps it was wrong, it still has nothing to do with theology.

The Crusades were a last resort to save Europe from the violent invasion of the Muslims. Without the little success they achieved, there would be no Europe as we know it, or Christianity for that matter. Some may prefer it that way, but violence is intrinsic to orthodox Islam, whereas a Christian would do nothing but love if he were to actually follow the tenants of his religion.

[Another brick in the wall]

Gee, I can't imagine why anyone would pretend to be a christian if the penalty for not being one was death. And I certainly can't understand why anyone forced to convert to another religion would abandon it at the first opportunity. Islam is definitely a religion of violence, but Christianity is no different. The Old Testament is full of accounts of the Hebrew wiping out entire societies. In any case, the fact that a movement has good intentions does not excuse it for its crimes. I've communists use the same argument to justify their system.

[Little Earth Stamper]

The intention of the Inquisition was to stifle dissent through use of extreme force. I don't consider that to be a noble goal.

At some level, yes, Inquisitors thought they were doing the right thing; They thought heresy truly posed a threat to people's everlasting souls.

But the Nazis on some level felt that Jews were an incredible threat to the free world.

I don't have a problem saying that both groups did horrible things based on stupid philosophies.

(The stupid philosophy in question being the idea that dissent is by nature evil. I'm not saying that Christianity is stupid)

[Another brick in the wall]

My brother always had this interesting religious puzzle: If Hitler really believed he was doing the right thing, how could god send him to hell?

[nthn200]

Gee, I can't imagine why anyone would pretend to be a christian if the penalty for not being one was death. And I certainly can't understand why anyone forced to convert to another religion would abandon it at the first opportunity. Islam is definitely a religion of violence, but Christianity is no different. The Old Testament is full of accounts of the Hebrew wiping out entire societies. In any case, the fact that a movement has good intentions does not excuse it for its crimes. I've communists use the same argument to justify their system.
You are right (except for the claim that Christianity is a 'religion of viloence', that's like calling a child who gets picked on a sociopath), but I think the main point is that at the conception of Christianity it was not a force of malevolence, people made it that way by ignoring intrinsic parts of the theology and therefore they were not following the theology.