Quote :

"Amsterdam718: we need a thread dedicated to God. a thread for all faiths that focuses on praising The Creator. think about the possiblities."

Amsterdam said we needed one, I said I thought such a discussion belong in the soap box, instead of having its own forum. So I'm going to start a discussion on religion, and try to make my point why I think a forum focused on a single creator god isn't comprehensive enough to make a good religion discussion.

---
The bible contains many of the most popular versions of stories that have been told & retold both before and after christianity came about.

For example, the great flood is in the Gilgamesh story, the Greco-roman gods story of the flood (where the pious survivor & his wife who were to repopulate the earth was not named noah), the countless versions of the moses archetype

The reason the Vatican stores many of their pictures/representations of Apollo is that many depictions of Jesus are based on what Apollo was supposed to look like. (Apollo also spent much of his life confronting serpents & satyrs-goatman creatures... much like his later counterpart in christianity)

For example, here’s a pic of Apollo

.

The demi god coming back to life is a common story too as with Theseus who is the son of god & a mortal who comes back to life, & Hercules who dies, comes back to life, and later ascends to heaven as a full god, & there are countless other Jesus archetype characters from the Greco-roman & other religions. The few examples of how Christianity borrows from other older religions that I’ve mentioned here are only the tip of the iceberg… and I wont even go into the pagan connections of Christmas trees & December being when Jesus was “born.”

Polytheism has some merit in that it doesn’t force unity so hard. One can see the virtue in acting out of love (Aphrodite) & justice (Nike) and how they might not always be the same. If the police come for your lover, would you give them up? Also having different powerful forces/concepts allows for dealing with the problem of evil better. It’s not as simple as good vs evil with a really powerful good still allowing evil, it is instead a little more complicated/complex with the weighing of different, yet important values.

Polytheism also had stories that told moral tales, like that of the Danaides against genocide, or the Gods & Goddesses appearing as foreigners or as old men or women or poor/hungry people to emphasize the message that people should look out for the worst off/weak/unable to defend themselves classes in society.

If you consider atheism a bad thing, then polytheism has the merit of being further from atheism than is monotheism. And polytheism isn’t so different than monotheism, they both tend to have a chief sky god, some demi gods, humans, lots of demons, and a chief of the underworld/opposing force to the sky god. Zoroastrianism has this too opposing force too. Greco-roman polytheism also has the positive of being able to function along side democracy and western civilization since the greeks started those trends.

Atheism on the other hand has any good acts as purely good acts, rather than for afterlife reward. Good acts for afterlife reward seems to be about the moral equivalent of a dog sitting for a treat. I mean an afterlife concept makes practical sense in ancient times when life was harder, but less so now.

In all the "pagan" religions these stories represent practical elements of life. Like the water to wine trick in the ancient greek associated with Dionysus or Athena I think religion corresponds to the technology to store fruit/juice/nutrients in the form of wine which was key to ancient populations. The story of how Apollo shape shifted into a dolphin & lead people from the island of crete to Delphi on mainland Greece to be his first worshippers reflects actual migrations of people due to population shifts & economic conditions, rather than supernatural events.


I even go to work everyday, at a vet clinic, with symbols on me. One is a cross on my name tag, symbolizing health, because its associated with a demi-god & resurrection… the ultimate act of health. But what is stitched into my shirt (as well as on almost every ambulance, hospital, and medical practice) is the staff of Asclepius, a demi-god, who is associated with resurrection, the ultimate act of health.

-
My point here is that Atheism & Polytheism both have their own merits, that not every good can be tied directly to Yahweh, and that the same stories the Christianity copied can be easily seen to be based on non-supernatural occurrences when you change the names of the characters to ones that you didn’t learn in Sunday-school growing up.

10/18/2006 12:31:46 PM

hmm.

interesting.

10/18/2006 12:52:49 PM

I find it interesting that anyone still reads a thread started by Amsterdam

sorry if this is trolling, but that is my honest thought

10/18/2006 1:08:05 PM

before you post that religion thread...

10/18/2006 1:24:05 PM

^^It's people like him that in large part elected the current leader of the free world. So yeah I read and respond to that.

And every day in the technician I read about how people hate the sin of being gay & that being gay is wrong. I don't want people abandon their faith, but it wouldn't hurt people to see that christianity isn't so cut and dry and absolute.

I spend my days working at a vet clinic helping animals, and my free time lately helping my fraternity raise money for charities & a music scholarship, and trying to get my philosophy paper published in the undergraduate research journal. And that people think there is an equivalent to a Satyr/Goatman/Serpent in Hades getting his kicks out of the evilness of me being gay is ridiculous.

Apollo is a good of healing (associated with the Staff of Aesculapius- who is his half god son- which is the greek equivalent to the christian’s cross in many ways), and is a slayer of Serpents & Goatmen.

I don’t want people to see me as a militant agonistic, but I’ll never know what its like to be married because too many people in this country are worried that it would make a Satyr in Hades happy, so I feel a need occasionally to point out how ridiculous a lot of religion is when you change the names in the stories to their earlier versions that aren’t the ones you grew up learning about in Sunday school.

The compassion aspect of religion is nice, but the plot to the bible was played out long before Christ came around, and the rules in it are man made from thousands with some editing & translating as the years have gone by (in the same way that edits and changes happened to the ancient Greco-roman texts).

10/18/2006 7:21:35 PM

http://www.campusblender.com/message_topic.aspx?topic=243396&page=1

Just for kicks, I started the same discussion on our sister site.

I mean we trash our own soapbox sometimes for being place full of useless argument, but its not as bad as

"anybody can come up with some long explantion in their head as to why they aren't going to believe in God if they want to"

or

"I have come to a belief in Him. I'm not trying to offend anybody just giving my opinion."

That not trying to offend part is funny, since he started out his response with an insult.

10/19/2006 10:01:37 AM

Quote :

"The bible contains many of the most popular versions of stories that have been told & retold both before and after christianity came about. For example, the great flood is in the Gilgamesh story, the Greco-roman gods story of the flood (where the pious survivor & his wife who were to repopulate the earth was not named noah), the countless versions of the moses archetype"

I'll just offer up a different point of view. I wouldn't take this to imply that the Bible borrowed from the Gilgamesh story. At the very least it isn't definite proof. One could borrow from the other. The only thing I really glean from this is that it was either a popular folk tale at the time or it indeed took place. We have varying accounts today for obvious reasons. It goes back to that game you play where you whisper a sentence in someone's ear and they pass it down the line. By the time it makes it to the other end of the room you have a different sentence entirely. Now span this over generations.

Quote :

"The reason the Vatican stores many of their pictures/representations of Apollo is that many depictions of Jesus are based on what Apollo was supposed to look like. (Apollo also spent much of his life confronting serpents & satyrs-goatman creatures... much like his later counterpart in christianity)"

I don't really know what does and doesn't motivate the Vatican but I don't see this as that much of an eyebrow raising event. An artist is free to depict as they will depict, and why not borrow from other existing art?

Quote :

"both before and after christianity came about"

Back to this. I believe that Christianity existed long before the Savior was born. Isaiah had many prophecies that foretold of him, many of the Old Testament stories are allegories of the need and role of Jesus. I think Christianity even existed before Adam and Eve "fell" (if you believe in that sort of thing). The Fall required a Savior figure to redeem mankind, it was pretty much planned out from the beginning.

[Edited on October 19, 2006 at 11:04 AM. Reason : -]

10/19/2006 11:00:37 AM

Many of the most popular adventures of Jesus, had already been said to have been done by other demi-gods several times before Jesus was born. I think its more likely that its a stock character type in literature, rather than the ancient greeks borrowing from supernatural prophecies from other lands, completely intertwining it with their own religious and historical beliefs, and then erasing the part about it being stolen from prophecy about Jesus who wouldnt be born for a thousand years.

For stuff like the great flood that several ancient religions talk about, I can buy that maybe there was one big flood that affected several cultures, and everyone represents it a little different even though they are all talking about the same event. But that would still mean that none of them has completely right, that none of it is absolute.

Although I think flooding, which happens to any ancient culture that needed to be near water to survive/grow food, is probably a common enough occurrence that whatever flood, if there was one specific one, that created the noah myth is probably a different occurrence than the one that created the Deucalion myth.

10/19/2006 1:02:32 PM

Supplanter's examples aren't wrong, but I think it's too often that people confuse them for arguments against Christianity. They don't really offer much in the way of that. People have told a lot of stories about a lot of things through the ages, and so it stands to reason that they would occasionally line up. That, in and of itself, does not demonstrate any one of those stories to be false. It's good to help open up your view of anythings, but alone it isn't much of a justification for believing or disbelieving anything.

Still, some theologians and thinkers feel compelled to respond such examples by saying that it certainly appears there are certain images, certain archetypes, certain themes that people seem predisposed to accepting. Resurrection is certainly one of these, as it appears in several religions, as does ascent into the heavens. The question they will pose is, "Why is it so easy for us to come up with and cling to these ideas?" And the answer they suggest, of course, is that we came pre-programmed with them so we'd be better able to understand and accept Jesus (or Isaiah, or whoever) when He showed up. It is simply a side effect that other religions used them differently.

10/19/2006 5:06:30 PM

"And the answer they suggest, of course, is that we came pre-programmed"

That’s where you lose me. I think the reason it’s easy to accept ideas like resurrection & afterlife is because dieing is scary.

And those who don't accept it do so for the same reason they don't think Hippolytus was resurrected, and for the same reason they don't think of King Arthur as a future king. More scientific world views easily win out when it’s not the names you learned growing up in Sunday school.

10/19/2006 6:59:19 PM

we need a forum for atheism.

10/19/2006 8:07:40 PM

But then why is dying scary?

Because natural selection and all mean that you only survive when you have a sense of self-preservation.

Why is mortal terror the only way to make us focus on self-preservation?

Because it's the best way.

Why?

I dunno.

---

There, I just finished the rest of our debate for us.

10/19/2006 9:14:55 PM

Death ony seems scary to those who believe this is their only life. (And I am not specifically refering to the Christian afterlife )

10/19/2006 9:26:10 PM

But then why is dying scary?

You could have gone with fear of the unknown. Either way, I still don't buy the pre-programming as a better explanation than stock character type. I mean its starting to sound like Socrates definition of anamnesis.

10/19/2006 9:35:56 PM

I've always been interested in effects of culture in relation to the concept of "free will". On the micro scale, of course, people make decisions about their actions. But on the macro scale people are greatly affected by culture. The truth of the matter is that if you were born in India chances are 90% that you would be Hindu. How is that free will? They say that God does not play dice, but He sure sets the odds ...

10/19/2006 9:39:34 PM

Sure, but which is a stronger testiment of faith, taking the time to examine other religious beliefs and finding what best suits you, or blindly following the herd into religion x just because everyone you know belongs to it?

10/20/2006 1:06:20 AM

NIGGERNIGGERJEW

10/20/2006 1:18:52 AM

Quote :

"How is that free will?"

I view free will as the freedom or ability to choose the next step that I'm going to take, not the sum total of the steps I have already taken. You can't change the past but you can determine the future. In other words, I may be born in India and have a 90% chance of being Hindu (the very existence of the other 10% suggests free will also) but I can always make the choice of what I'll do next.

I'd also like to offer that even those 90% that are Hindu exercised their free will to be Hindu... unless they were ultimately forced to be Hindu. Even then you can think and believe anything you want to while putting up a front for those that are forcing you to believe things that you don't want to believe.

10/20/2006 7:24:54 AM

The effects of culture on free will is interesting. If the only way to get to heaven is to be Christian, why does God stack the odds so badly against those born in other cultures? And why make it almost a default for Western countries.

Generally, culture defines your thought processes. That's what I find so interesting. On the micro scale you can choose anything you want. But on the macro scale, culture very much influences the range of your choices, statistically speaking.

10/20/2006 7:32:55 AM

Yes, I would agree that culture has a great influence on the decisions a person makes. Even on the micro level. How many decisions do you make that you otherwise wouldn't simply because you are with a friend that wants to make that decision.

I just wanted to make the distinction that culture influences free will and decision making but doesn't remove free will or the decision making process entirely.

Quote :

"If the only way to get to heaven is to be Christian, why does God stack the odds so badly against those born in other cultures? And why make it almost a default for Western countries."

I'd say that living a good life, irregardless of choice of religion, is a better barometer for getting into heaven. Just about every major religion teaches good principles to live by. I'd say a good Hindu has a big leg up on a bad person that self identifies as Christian.

The odds do seem to be stacked but that's where I see missionary work coming in. I know two people going on a mission in December. One is going to Japan, the other to Mexico. I went to the Dominican Republic myself.

Revelation 14: 6
And I saw another angel fly in the midst of heaven, having the everlasting gospel to preach unto them that dwell on the earth, and to every nation, and kindred, and tongue, and people

It will get there, but I imagine it will take a lot of time and effort.

[Edited on October 20, 2006 at 7:47 AM. Reason : -]

10/20/2006 7:46:31 AM

Now if only we encouraged Shinto priests and priestesses from Japan to come and "spread the good word" to us here in America. /sigh.

10/20/2006 10:32:27 AM

The point is that it doesn't matter how many missionaries go out to spread the word, the existance of culture stacks the deck against them.

The will have some success but, as HockeyRoman points out, it will happen at about the same rate as Shinto priests or Islam coming over here to convert. Culture is God's way of stacking the deck against change ...

10/20/2006 1:16:33 PM

"anybody can come up with some long explantion in their head as to why they aren't going to believe in God if they want to"

If that’s one's only reason for believing in Yahweh, then they have equal justification for believing in Zeus, & Allah.

10/20/2006 8:44:17 PM

art went backwards for a little while after the romans

10/20/2006 9:11:46 PM

10/21/2006 5:31:09 PM

Supplanter started one of these in chit-chat and couldn't handle it, so he ran away like a good girl.

10/21/2006 9:59:22 PM

Keep that shit out of the soap box, please.

[Edited on October 21, 2006 at 10:16 PM. Reason : ^]

10/21/2006 10:13:19 PM

in chit chat? when?

http://thewolfweb.com/message_topic.aspx?topic=438940
http://thewolfweb.com/message_topic.aspx?topic=437548
http://thewolfweb.com/message_topic.aspx?topic=437079
http://thewolfweb.com/message_topic.aspx?topic=436133

[Edited on October 21, 2006 at 10:25 PM. Reason : here's a few of my recent chit chat threads]

10/21/2006 10:24:11 PM

The son of the Almighty God, and one associated with resurrection. Apollo.

[Edited on October 22, 2006 at 8:39 AM. Reason : .]

10/22/2006 8:33:37 AM

Dude, we get it

Apollo and Jesus have a lot in common

Nobody here is denying that

10/22/2006 2:36:18 PM

we would reply except mythology screams "huge dorky dork" and we dont want to call ourselves out

10/22/2006 3:27:28 PM

Knowing much about the early religion’s of western civilization/the first democracy might be dorky, but it illustrates my point.

And there is more to it than Apollo & Jesus have a lot in common; I hope you realize my point was more than just that. It’s Apollo, and many other figures like that were stock types in literature first, and Jesus continues the trend, which probably means a lot of what is attributed to Jesus isn’t true. I doubt you would say no body is denying that, but that is what my actual point was. Another point was that many elements of the supernatural stories only represent nature events. Like the Dionysus & Athena water to wine type stories are only accounting for the cultures development of preservation of consumables (since wine was technological advancement allowing for the storing of fruits), rather than being true supernatural tales.

I know you think it was because the greek’s were programmed to create Apollo in their culture, literature, art, and religion because Jesus is just so plausible that every culture would come up with his life stories whether he had come around yet or not, but I don’t buy it.

I have also heard people suggest that the devil planted copies of the life of Jesus in earlier culture’s to create doubt in believers, but I don’t buy that one either. (I’m not throwing a straw man at anyone its one I have heard before on tdub, but not in this thread. I'm throwing in this disclaimer b/c I feel like I've shifted alot between specific you's and general you's in this post.)

I feel sometimes people just want to think their religion’s myths don’t have to stand up to the scrutiny that other culture’s or past culture’s myth’s do. Probably the same people that would say “Hippocratic Corpus,” but wouldn’t say “Pauline Corpus.” But you can’t be equally justified in saying one demi-god didn’t return from the dead thousands of years ago, but another one did b/c it’s the demi-god in my religion.

10/22/2006 9:44:22 PM

Methinks Jesus would be cooler to grab a beer with.

And that's what counts.

10/23/2006 3:19:50 AM

Quote :

"Amsterdam718: we need a thread dedicated to God. a thread for all faiths that focuses on praising The Creator."

10/23/2006 9:08:43 AM

That seems like a wholly inadequate discussion of religion though, how many different ways can someone say "Yay for Yahweh."

10/24/2006 10:32:29 AM

Quote :

"we need a thread dedicated to God. a thread for all faiths that focuses on praising The Creator.""

I hope that you weren't serious here. Not all faiths held by people posting on t-dub are monotheistic.

10/24/2006 10:35:15 AM

Quote :

"then polytheism has the merit of being further from atheism than is monotheism."

How the hell did you come to this conclusion?

Quote :

"Polytheism has some merit in that it doesn’t force unity so hard."

Why is unity a negative, again?

Quote :

"Atheism on the other hand has any good acts as purely good acts, rather than for afterlife reward."

Gross misunderstanding of why religious people do good deeds. We're not all trying to buy our way into heaven, you know. Matter of fact, large segments of Christianity believe you can't buy in with good acts.

10/24/2006 12:46:18 PM

Quote :

"How the hell did you come to this conclusion?"

0, 1, 2, 3, 4 ,5....

athiest, mono, poly...

Quote :

"Why is unity a negative, again? "

I didn't say unity is negative. But I think it might be a little too simple. See the Nike/Aphrodite example I gave earlier for why I think viewing divinity as complex instead of simple makes more sense. If the police come for your lover, would you give them up? The virtues of Justice & Love make sense even when not thought of as one thing. Also having different powerful forces/concepts allows for dealing with the problem of evil better. It’s not as simple as good vs evil with a really powerful good still allowing evil, it is instead a little more complicated/complex with the weighing of different, yet important values.

Quote :

"Matter of fact, large segments of Christianity believe you can't buy in with good acts."

And your right about some segments. I can't tailor to every segment. Christianity as a group would never be responsible for any action if they can compartmentalize whenever its news or arguments they don't like.

And you’re right about some segments. I can't tailor to every segment. Christianity as a group would never be responsible for any action if they can compartmentalize whenever its news or arguments they don't like. But there are enough generic Christians & enough with doctrine that does require earning the treats.

"Thus the scripture was fulfilled that says, 'Abraham believed God, and it was reckoned to him as righteousness,' and he was called the friend of God. You see that a person is justified by works and not by faith alone. Likewise, was not Rahab the prostitute also justified by works when she welcomed the messengers and sent them out by another road? For just as the body without spirit is dead, so faith without works is also dead."

[Edited on October 24, 2006 at 2:06 PM. Reason : .]

10/24/2006 2:03:49 PM

Perhaps Amsterdam invisioned a forum where a topic related to a specific religion or religion as a whole could be discussed without attempts to disprove it or petty schoolyard namecalling from the self-proclaimed enlightened progressive.

It's a nice thought, but I don't think it will happen.

10/25/2006 1:11:31 AM

Forgive me for being a party pooper, but in the first quote, nowhere is the word "forum" used. Rather, the word "thread" is used. I don't know the context of the quote, and I don't feel like looking it up, but to me, this seems like a drastic case of strawman...

Quote :

"It’s not as simple as good vs evil with a really powerful good still allowing evil, it is instead a little more complicated/complex with the weighing of different, yet important values."

Furthermore, the notion of "God allowing evil" is so hackneyed and trite that it's not even funny. You ask for "different values" to be weighed against each other, yet what is there to weigh? Do you want a being that controls every move of everything in the universe? If so, then you can "have no evil." But you'll also have a bland, uninspiring universe. Your motions are meaningless, because they are not your own.

The only way to control evil is to control free will. There is no way around it. How can you possibly weigh any other value against this?

Ultimately, in "allowing evil," God allows goodness, too. He allows both. And one cannot exist without the other. Take away what we call evil today and we will simply replace it with something else that we currently don't consider as evil. That's what we do.

Quote :

"Thus the scripture was fulfilled that says, 'Abraham believed God, and it was reckoned to him as righteousness,' and he was called the friend of God. You see that a person is justified by works and not by faith alone. Likewise, was not Rahab the prostitute also justified by works when she welcomed the messengers and sent them out by another road? For just as the body without spirit is dead, so faith without works is also dead."

Context, plz. Yes, one passage says that works don't save. Yet this passage is not contradictory. Reading it at face value, sure, it seems to contradict. But, read a couple verses earlier:

Quote :

"But someone will say, "You have faith; I have deeds." Show me your faith without deeds, and I will show you my faith by what I do. James 2:18"

go a couple verses further, in fact, the verse right before what you quote:

Quote :

"You see that his faith and his actions were working together, and his faith was made complete by what he did. James 2:22"

James is distinctly speaking about what is really faith. He states that it is more than lip service, and it is more than simply saying "I believe!" He states that real faith will be accompanied by deeds, because the faith affects the person's actions.

[Edited on October 25, 2006 at 3:23 AM. Reason : ]

10/25/2006 3:01:20 AM

^ If we have freewill then, then how does God interfere at all? What is the practical reason for even believing and following a god's supposed teachings, if that god can't do anything to help you out in this life (a big reason why most religious people are religious)?

10/25/2006 3:22:13 AM

what says that this god can't interfere? surely he could if he wanted to, being as how he created everything, right? (I'm following the assumption that this god is a creator being) No, I'm saying that the Christian God clearly gives free will to people in order to allow them to make their own choices. Allowing people to make their own choices is distinctly different from being unable to affect the course of events.

Quote :

"What is the practical reason for even believing and following a god's supposed teachings, if that god can't do anything to help you out in this life (a big reason why most religious people are religious)?"

Well, theologically speaking, the Christian God does "help us out" in this life, though it's not how we might want. I think I kinda hit on it in the prior paragraph, but just because God doesn't control doesn't mean that He can have no effect on us in life. Moreover, Christianity teaches, I think, that God can give us more in the afterlife, so following Him for the sake of gaining things in life is really pointless.

10/25/2006 3:29:47 AM

Quote :

"Allowing people to make their own choices is distinctly different from being unable to affect the course of events."

I'm not sure that I get what you're saying 100%.

Let's say i'm God (the Christian god) and someone who is very religious and good person (mother Theresa for example), and i'm about to starve to death. Would it not be a violation of free will principles to put some nutrients in her blood to keep her going? Wouldn't that single event irrevocably alter the course of many people's lives, thus influencing them? Isn't that the same as not having free will, since eventually, enough of these interventions would impact all of humanity?

I can see if god, for shits and giggles, kills fish in the sea, or spins whirlpools or something would be acceptable, because it would not have any implications to any single human, and would essentially be a "random" event, but affecting things for any purpose other than random amusement would be a violation of free will, I think.

Quote :

"Moreover, Christianity teaches, I think, that God can give us more in the afterlife, so following Him for the sake of gaining things in life is really pointless. "

I realize that's what Christianity tries to teach (sometimes), but I would be willing to bet that a number approaching 100% of christians don't live their lives like that, and expect God to help them out now. It's the crux of the position of missionaries and televangelists alike.

10/25/2006 5:04:44 AM

I've heard many times the believe just in case argument. That you have a lot to lose if god is real and you don't believe, and a lot to gain if you do believe just in case. Wanting to avoid a the lake of fire seems like it could get people to try to work their way into heaven, even if they aren't promised rewards for their work.

10/25/2006 6:52:01 AM

Quote :

"Let's say i'm God (the Christian god) and someone who is very religious and good person (mother Theresa for example), and i'm about to starve to death. Would it not be a violation of free will principles to put some nutrients in her blood to keep her going?"

I think you are misunderstanding the concept of free will. Free will is the ability to act according to one's desires. It is the ability to make decisions and it also includes assuming responsibility for those actions. In your example blessing someone by extending their life does not remove the ability to make decisions for themselves.

Quote :

"Wouldn't that single event irrevocably alter the course of many people's lives, thus influencing them? Isn't that the same as not having free will, since eventually, enough of these interventions would impact all of humanity?"

Here again, free will is the ability to make decisions, it is not the ability to be free from influences. The very process of making decisions implies that there are influences. Influences facilitate the decision making process.

You would think that enough of these influences would impact all of humanity but consider the following. How many prophets has God called into service? How many people believed the prophets and followed God's law? How many prophets were killed? How many people followed the Savior? How many people wanted to crucify him? Free will accounts for people making these widely different decisions despite having been under many of the same influences.

Quote :

"I've heard many times the believe just in case argument. That you have a lot to lose if god is real and you don't believe, and a lot to gain if you do believe just in case. Wanting to avoid a the lake of fire seems like it could get people to try to work their way into heaven, even if they aren't promised rewards for their work."

There are varying levels of obedience, and I'd guess that there are varying levels of rewards as a result. For instance you can obey out of fear of punishment or you can obey because you truly want to help others.

Quote :

"Moreover, Christianity teaches, I think, that God can give us more in the afterlife, so following Him for the sake of gaining things in life is really pointless."

Quote :

"I realize that's what Christianity tries to teach (sometimes), but I would be willing to bet that a number approaching 100% of christians don't live their lives like that, and expect God to help them out now."

I might end up putting words in your mouth (sorry in advance) but I do agree in saying that many Christians fall into the trap of thinking that if they live a good life they will somehow be spared of all hardship. You really don't have to look further than the Savior for an example of how that line of thought is erroneous. He lived the perfect life, something no one else is capable of, and yet was crucified and suffered more than anyone else can.

That said, I will say that living a Christian life can bring some "temporal" blessings... but not the blessings some may be looking for (riches, etc.). Take the law of chastity for example. If that law was followed you would more than likely enjoy the blessing in this life of never dealing with the heartache of fatherless homes where a teenage dad has abandoned a teenage mom because she got pregnant when they were 16, you would more than likely enjoy the blessing of never having to deal with the heartache of adultery, etc.

10/25/2006 7:51:44 AM

Quote :

"I've heard many times the believe just in case argument."

And it's the dumbest argument ever. You are smart for seeing through that foolish argument.

Quote :

"Let's say i'm God (the Christian god) and someone who is very religious and good person (mother Theresa for example), and i'm about to starve to death. Would it not be a violation of free will principles to put some nutrients in her blood to keep her going? Wouldn't that single event irrevocably alter the course of many people's lives, thus influencing them? Isn't that the same as not having free will, since eventually, enough of these interventions would impact all of humanity?"

Well, putting nutrients in her blood is not changing her ability to choose what she does. Free will deals with us being able to do whatever the heck we want to do. Yes, putting nutrients in the woman's blood will alter future events, but it does not alter the ability of those future people to choose how to respond to those events.

Quote :

"I realize that's what Christianity tries to teach (sometimes), but I would be willing to bet that a number approaching 100% of christians don't live their lives like that, and expect God to help them out now. It's the crux of the position of missionaries and televangelists alike."

That's great, but it doesn't change His alleged Word. Just because a bunch of faux Christians misuse His Word doesn't mean that His Word condones what they do. Just like I don't think that Islam condones flying planes into buildings, even though I've seen Muslims across the world celebrate it as the will of Allah.

10/25/2006 3:29:04 PM

I've yet to hear a good, rational account of free will.

But then again, I'm all ears.

10/25/2006 3:29:59 PM

forgive me for being so blunt, McDanger, but you are far from all ears.

10/25/2006 3:30:48 PM

Oh really? I'd prefer a Universe with free will, but I'm still undecided on the matter.

On one hand, it appears as if there's a necessity for it (due to the illusion of it we SURELY have).

On the other hand, it appears as if there's no physical possibility for it. Mental causation is a tough thing to sell, or spiritual causation, when you take the various conservation principles of physics into account.

10/25/2006 3:35:37 PM

ahhhh, so you want a metaphysical description of free will. no wonder you can't get an explanation

10/25/2006 9:33:36 PM