A skeptic's view of Christianity (debate between Thôl and Eriol) [Archive] - Page 2

Eriol

07-08-2003, 10:28 PM

Originally posted by Celebthôl
If i cared what people thought then i would be a christian!

No Thôl -- if you DID NOT care about what people thought you'd be a rapist and a thief and a murderer. Since you are not any of these things, I guess it is safe to say that you really care about what other people think. As for becoming a Christian, you make it sound as if only Christians believed in goodness -- no, my friend, every human being in this planet besides you and a handful of loonies (like Nietzsche) believes in goodness. Lúthien does; Walter does.

That means i have to become christian to continue this thread?! nice try, but i will never again, it never made sence, i wont trust it again.

It is not necessary to become a Christian to continue this thread -- it is only necessary to accept what is obvious for every person on earth -- including you. You are denying the obvious. I can't prove the obvious to you (and by the way this is a very strong hint of the "undefinability" of Good -- if it were definable I could certainly prove it to you), but it remains obvious nonetheless.

Your backing out, why? It cannot be because of my beliefs, we are only discussing them

I'm not "backing out" -- it is just that we can't prove this matter logically (because Good is undefinable). I will keep on being around :); but logic can't touch you anymore. It has to come from you, Thôl, from "deep down inside" as you put it -- you have to review your beliefs and see that they are absurd. No amount of arguing by me will prove that they are absurd. Strict hedonism is irrefutable.

Just out of interest, how far as human experience got us so far?

If I may quote from you:

Posted by Celebthôl

It has taken about 5 millionish years and we still are way off total knowledge, because of the way society, religions and governments are. But we have progressed, we are not all muderous raping thugs anymore, we have grow out of that...though there is still competitvness in us...we have to out grow all these before we can progree further to total knowledge...

;) This is the human experience you are throwing out the window so flippantly :). This quote is an example of the phenomenon -- "deep down inside" you really believe that we should not be murderous rapist thugs, but your system of beliefs disagree with yourself, "deep down inside".

As I said, you are denying the obvious.

Celebthôl

07-08-2003, 10:44 PM

Thanx for classing me as a loonie...i really appreciate it.

Ok notr once have i said that your beliefs are obsered, id be obliged if you repayed the same courtasy.

No we were led the right way for a first fre million years, hence the massive evolutionary stages, but as soon as religion comes along it all started to slow up, funny that...

in 5 millions years we have only just defined rape as wrong, though people still do it, if society and religion were a lot less slack and told the truth, then we would advance so quickly and there would be no more "evil" it would just go...

Eriol

07-08-2003, 10:51 PM

Originally posted by Celebthôl
[B]Thanx for classing me as a loonie...i really appreciate it.

Gosh, people are really careless in reading around here. Read what I said, Thôl -- I said that Nietzsche was a loony, not you. I said that you believe in what a handful of loonies believed over the history of mankind. I never called you a loony. I called your beliefs the beliefs of loonies -- that is not the same thing.

Ok notr once have i said that your beliefs are obsered, id be obliged if you repayed the same courtasy.

If you want me to not point that out to you, I won't do it -- but it won't change what they are.

I don't want to upset you. If you feel upset, I'm sorry. As I said, any further progress will have to come from deep down inside you now.

Celebthôl

07-08-2003, 11:09 PM

I have a few questions still.

1) If a boy gets left in the forest having been taught no morals and he grows up alone on his own, but has never been taught about God so never worshipped him, what happens to that little boy when he dies?

2) Is ultimate knowledge the ultimate desire?

3) What is yours (and the christian) view on sex (i.e. before marriage and all that)?

Eriol

07-09-2003, 06:02 AM

1) If a boy grows alone in a forest, he will still believe in good and evil; it is an innate belief, as shown by the fact that it is exhibited in every culture known to mankind. It takes a lot of learning and a lot of books to disbelieve this. As for what happens to him when he dies, well, this involves a lot of concepts that we did not explore in this thread so far -- the afterlife, whether the soul is immortal or not, sin, etc. etc. It can be said, with the progress that we have made in this thread so far, that we don't know anything about that.

2) I don't think so. Do you? For me the ultimate desire is the desire of Goodness -- and that means the desire of God, of unioin with God, since (in my system of beliefs) God is Goodness.

3) The Christian views on sex, as far as I know, is that it is a blessed thing if it is sanctified by marriage. If it is not sanctified by marriage, it is a very harmful thing, to both people involved. I could explain further why this is so if you want me to.

Are you still upset with me, Thôl? I was worried about that tonight. And I came up with a curious reasoning, thinking about that. If you believe that we should do what we feel like doing, why would you feel upset if I am doing what I feel like doing? In other words, according to your system of beliefs, you should not feel upset with me if I called you a loony, because I would just be following my own feelings, and I can't make any mistakes when I do that -- right?

Remember, this is just an hypothetical example -- I did not call you a loony. I did not even think that, ever. If I thought that, after all, I would not be here talking with you, would I?

:D ;)

Malbeth

07-09-2003, 07:40 AM

3) What is yours (and the christian) view on sex (i.e. before marriage and all that)?

Eriol answered that well, but I think there is more to be said... Christians believe that sex between spouses is the best symbol for expressing our souls' union with God. The favorite book of the Bible for all Christian mystics has always been The Song of Songs (a poem speaking about conjugal love). St. Paul says that the Church is the Bride of Christ, and the Apocalypse says that when the world ends the Lamb (Christ) will be married to his bride (the Church, meaning all who are saved).

So, sex between spouses is not merely blessed, it is one of the most sacred acts we can perform. In it we also share in the activity of God, becoming co-creators by helping Him create our children, helping God create new images of God, to share His happiness and love with them too! It feels good because it is indeed very good, and because it is very good its corruption is very bad ("lilies that fester smell far worse than weeds").

Lúthien Séregon

07-09-2003, 11:43 AM

It seems I will have to focus on Lúthien now. Lúthien believes in good and bad, I think -- her problem is God (unlike you, who believes in God but not in Good). So I will wait for Lúthien to comment on the cosmological proof of St. Thomas Aquinas.

I haven't quite said that there is such a thing as a universal morality that is undefinable and the same with every being. If I believed in a universal good or bad, then I would have to conclude that there is an initial being who set these laws now wouldn’t I? But I don’t, and here’s why, in a nutshell ( everything I’ve said summed up ):

The notion of good itself, morality included ( the conscience ) - The need to devise moral codes is based on more simple urges as human beings are animals, therefore sharing these same needs, but at the same time is also based on complex social systems. More complex forms of good/bad can be varied because society can set these standards, or moral codes. To kill is defined as bad in any society - but to give a criminal the death penalty for a crime isn't seen as murder in some societies. This is one of the ways in which morality varies, and although the very concept of good/bad remains, it isn't quite as concrete or immutable as set by a higher being - it stems from more simple commands inherent in any animal, not just humans.

Therefore, the "universal good/bad" ( that which applies to everybody ) - I too think that ethics or goodness depends on the point of view of an individual ( seeing as it is that person who has to define their own notion of good in the first place ), and their own upbringing or experiences. There is no good/bad system that applies to everybody ( again, because the notions of good/bad are based on more simple needs that all animals share, and may vary with the individual ), because the notion of good itself is based on a more primal instinct, certainly not an absolute universal truth set by God.

Now, on to the proof of St. Aquinas.

I found this excerpt on the Internet, an example of the type of logic used by Aristotle, who inspired most of St. Aquinas' writings:

Everything that is in motion is put and kept in motion by some other thing. It is evident to sense that there are beings in motion. A thing is in motion because something else puts and keeps it in motion. That mover therefore either is itself in motion or not. If it is not in motion, our point is gained which we proposed to prove, namely, that we must posit something which moves other things without being itself in motion, and this we call God. But if the mover is itself in motion, then it is moved by some other mover. Either then we have to go on to infinity, or we must come to some mover which is motionless; but it is impossible to go on to infinity, therefore we must posit some motionless prime mover. In this argument there are two propositions to be proved: that everything which is in motion is put and kept in motion by something else; and that in the series of movers and things moved it is impossible to go on to infinity.

The Philosopher also goes about in another way to show that it is impossible to proceed to infinity in the series of efficient causes, but we must come to one first cause, and this we call God. The way is more or less as follows. In every series of efficient causes, the first term is cause of the intermediate, and the intermediate is cause of the last. But if in efficient causes there is a process to infinity, none of the causes will be the first: therefore all the others will be taken away which are intermediate. But that is manifestly not the case; therefore we must posit the existence of some first efficient cause, which is God.

Of course, this just begs the question of the cause of the first cause - if nothing is infinite, then obviously this "God" that started the chain of movements in the first place could not have come from nowhere, or suddenly started the chain reaction - because if so, then something must have set off this initial reaction which caused the "first efficient cause", which in turn set off the initial chain of events. If there was nothing to initially cause this first mover to cause all other reactions to happen, then this first mover would either never cause any other reaction, EVER ( and our world wouldn't exist ), or the first efficient cause is in a constant state of moving forward ( and again, this isn't quite possible ). Therefore, this particular cycle IS infinite, therefore the motionless God doesn't exist. That's the problem with the "motionless first mover" ( how can a motionless mover be moved to start off this chain? Why at a particular moment, not before or after? ).

And another thing, how does this actually apply to our own world? :rolleyes: This is entirely based on reason, of course, but it leaves out what we can observe – things may often be set off by a chain reaction in our world, but this type of reasoning quoted assumes a linear process of change in the world, and ignores the fact that any change is more branching than always set off by an immediate force ( eg. has more than one immediate force, may have not been started by any initial "movement", etc. ). Therefore, it seems illogical to apply this type of reasoning to the universe we live in and can observe ( with both reason and the senses ).

Celebthôl

07-09-2003, 11:43 AM

1) Forget good and evil a sec here, will he go to heaven (yes, no, or dont know will surfice here no long explinations)

2) Yes I do, probibly why my belief is so attractive to me, I have always been after total knowledge, and its even better to know that reading books wont deliver it, how could it? They were written by humans...

3) (From both of your answers...); What is it with you? Its always "union with God" its always the same, why can't we just have a union with each other? Why MUST God always be involved.
And so "God" frowns upon premarital sex? (To be blunt) Sex is a wonderful thing, why not exercize it? I dont mean sleep with all the people you can find (that has repurcusions i'll not get into now), but it doesnt mean you cannot use this (amazing) gift freely without repurcusions...

Eriol

07-09-2003, 02:42 PM

Lúthien, I did not say that you believed in an absolute good or bad, just that you believed in a notion of good and bad. I was comparing your beliefs with Thôl's, remember -- he does not believe in any such notion.

You still confuse the "notion of good" -- what I called the ethical sense -- with the moral systems themselves... What did you think of my (bad) analogy with hunger? Can you confuse hunger with a pizza? For this seems to me what you are doing with morality -- confusing the instinct behind it with the thing we use to please it.

This is a Universe of cause and effect. It does not matter that there are many branching effects -- every effect comes from a cause. There is no exception. So, I don't quite follow your objection about the applicability of this reasoning to the Universe. The reasoning is -- we see an effect, therefore there must have been a cause. This reasoning is absolute, and without any exceptions, known or imaginable to the human mind.

With this reasoning, which is as solid as anything we can hope for from our mind, we can proceed to examine the origin of the Universe itself -- it must have been a cause for it. But you (and many others) say that this leads to an absurd -- the infinite chain of causes. For we can apply the same reasoning to the cause of the Universe, and so on.

And then we have to use the other reasoning, the one which Russell attacked in that quote -- that there is no series without a first term.

(By the way, do you agree with him that the existence of negative integers shows that this premise is false? If you do, I remind you that we are talking about the Universe here, the real world, and not mathematics. Have you ever seen "1", as opposed to the symbol we use to express that? Mathematical concepts are not real in the same way as things -- I wish I had a quote of mine from Albert Einstein to that effect, but you surely see the point.)

In the real world, when we study real things, we see no series without a first term. There is no exception. And we have a second principle with no exception derived from observation.

Adding these two principles leads us to conclude that there must have been a First Cause, uncaused by anything. Do this contradict the first principle? No, because this first cause is not an effect.

The alternative, the infinite chain of beings, is also impossible to be pictured in our minds. You can say that this is because our minds are not equipped to deal with infinity -- and I would agree. But if you further extended that conclusion to say that this means we can't trust our minds in this pursuit, then I must conclude that we cannot trust our minds to any effect -- and this would mean that we would not be able to live. No, trust in our mind must be a given; and if we trust our minds, the infinite chain of beings is impossible.

Thôl, about the boy in the forest -- I have no idea. This is up to God.

Celebthôl

07-09-2003, 02:50 PM

I thought as much...

Malbeth

07-09-2003, 05:03 PM

3) (From both of your answers...); What is it with you? Its always "union with God" its always the same, why can't we just have a union with each other? Why MUST God always be involved.
And so "God" frowns upon premarital sex? (To be blunt) Sex is a wonderful thing, why not exercize it? I dont mean sleep with all the people you can find (that has repurcusions i'll not get into now), but it doesnt mean you cannot use this (amazing) gift freely without repurcusions...

No, that's not what I meant...in sex we're completely united to each other, and that's why it is the best symbol for our union with God in Heaven. The union is between the two lovers alone. God is specially involved (of course, He's involved in everything) only as regards making babies, since we provide the material and God provides the soul.

Sex is indeed a wonderful thing, the total union between two people, when they deliver themselves entirely to each other... and that's why pre-marital sex is a bad idea.

You said that you did not meant "sleep with all the people you can find"... I guess you mean then to say that you should only have sex with someone you really care for and love. Well,suppose you meet someone whom you really care for and love; then you are probably willing to achieve this total union, and that's why sex seems alright in this situation. However, some thought for the future seems to be wise. Suppose you cease loving this person after you made love to her? You'd then go to someone else, after having given your entire self to the first person... in fact, you'd find out that you did not achieve this total union, you did not give yourself entirely to her; in a blunt way, you lied with your body (to yourself and to her), and she lied with hers... and that can hurt so much...

Gandalf White

07-09-2003, 05:59 PM

You make heaven to be how you view life, if you view life as though its a dark dreary hole, then that is your heaven (or hell could be used to decribe it), if you make life out to be worth while etc then your heaven will reflect that...

So although the rapists and other scum think they have it good, they will go to heaven but it will be hell to them, and they only have themselves to blame...

In your world, if there is no 'good' or 'bad', how can there be scum? Since whatever we do is acceptable, no one can be considered scum.

So, say a rapist or murderer enjoys his life, his heaven will be good, enjoyable, etc. Basically this leads me to believe that in your world everyone comes out equal, regardless. So why don't we all just do what we want, regardless of others, creating utter chaos, full of raping, looting, murdering, etc?

Not a very pleasant world.....

Celebthôl

07-09-2003, 06:23 PM

Originally posted by Gandalf White
In your world, if there is no 'good' or 'bad', how can there be scum? Since whatever we do is acceptable, no one can be considered scum.

So, say a rapist or murderer enjoys his life, his heaven will be good, enjoyable, etc. Basically this leads me to believe that in your world everyone comes out equal, regardless. So why don't we all just do what we want, regardless of others, creating utter chaos, full of raping, looting, murdering, etc?

Not a very pleasant world.....

I call them how i see fit, its my opinion of them.

I can assure you, people that do bad things like rape and murder, do NOT enjoy life, if they did, they wouldnt do the things they do...

But yes, if their verson of heaven is that, it is theirs...however it isnt just like that, i cant fully explain it, but they wont win, thats all i can say, what goes around comes around...one way or another...

Eriol

07-09-2003, 06:29 PM

Originally posted by Celebthôl
people that do bad things like rape and murder

Why are rape and murder bad things, Thôl?

What is the difference between raping a woman or building a statue, in your worldview?

Celebthôl

07-09-2003, 06:41 PM

Originally posted by Malbeth
You said that you did not meant "sleep with all the people you can find"... I guess you mean then to say that you should only have sex with someone you really care for and love. Well,suppose you meet someone whom you really care for and love; then you are probably willing to achieve this total union, and that's why sex seems alright in this situation. However, some thought for the future seems to be wise. Suppose you cease loving this person after you made love to her? You'd then go to someone else, after having given your entire self to the first person... in fact, you'd find out that you did not achieve this total union, you did not give yourself entirely to her; in a blunt way, you lied with your body (to yourself and to her), and she lied with hers... and that can hurt so much...

Well you aren't actually giving yourself to the person, you are showing them how you feel and enjoying your body (if there is a better way to do that please tell me). Why should you have this amazing gift (you cant say it isnt) and not be able to use it in a certain way?

Again, if there was no religion would people object to having it?

Celebthôl

07-09-2003, 06:50 PM

Originally posted by Eriol
Why are rape and murder bad things, Thôl?

What is the difference between raping a woman or building a statue, in your worldview?

I cant even dignify this with an answer...

Eriol

07-09-2003, 07:02 PM

Originally posted by Celebthôl
I cant even dignify this with an answer...

Oh well -- I'm getting used to hearing in this thread my thoughts being considered not valid, not serious, etc. etc. At least you added a new word to my collection -- undignified.

But it can't never be said that I considered any thoughts in this thread, by any one, unworthy of an answer.

And I think the question I made to you is very serious, Thôl. You should give it a try -- at least if you want to really believe what you claim to believe.

Celebthôl

07-09-2003, 08:20 PM

Originally posted by Eriol
Why are rape and murder bad things, Thôl?

What is the difference between raping a woman or building a statue, in your worldview?

As i have explained over and over there is no "good" or "bad"

They are considered "bad" because they are a violation of that persons physical body...

But as i said death is amazing, it is the happiest time of our life, how can we condemn people that give us the beat thing ever?

Raping a women is vialating her physical body, its a very personal thing
Building a statue is a monumental thing, to show off publicly.

The two are very different things, they cannot be compared.

Eriol

07-09-2003, 08:31 PM

So you think that violating a person's physical body is bad? Why? I thought you believed that there is no "badness".

As an aside -- how do you know that death is so great? Have you ever died? This is not a joke. I don't see how you can know so much about death if you have never died.

Celebthôl

07-09-2003, 08:37 PM

notice the " " around bad...

We have all died MANY times; my belief (well the books i read on it) explain exactly whay happens on the point of death, does yours?

Eriol

07-09-2003, 08:58 PM

When you say that raping a woman is "considered bad", what do YOU think of it, Thôl? Forget about the society, religion, etc. etc. I asked you the difference between raping a woman and building a statue, and I don't want to hear that it is "considered bad" unless YOU consider it bad. I want to know your opinion, not the opinions of society.

Do these " " around bad mean that you do not consider it bad?

And as for reading books that explained to you what happens in death, why do you trust these books and not others? I can give you a big list of books with many views on death that diverge from yours; as well as many books which agree with you. The point is, how can you KNOW that death is so great? Hope, yes; but KNOW?

Celebthôl

07-09-2003, 09:17 PM

My view, raping a women does not serve me, why the heck should it?! Oh goodie i can over power a weaker person for sexual pleasure SCORE! (MASSES of sarcasm).
I think it is absoloutly unnecissary, doesnt mean its bad.
I dont think that pre-marital sex is "bad" though other might, which one is correct then?

You know what " " means...i've been using it all throught this thread...

As i said before, this book was written directly by God, I think he knows what happens after death. . .

Eriol

07-09-2003, 09:39 PM

And then what is the difference between raping a woman and building a statue, Thôl?

Whenever I ask a question, I am interested in the answer :D. If I asked you what those " " meant, it is because I am interested in the answer. I know, I'm dense -- oblige me and answer, please -- do you or do you not consider it bad?

If someone raped your sister because "it served him", would you say "oh, that's fine -- what a lucky man! He is getting closer to ultimate knowledge by doing what serves him!" or not? That is the gist of my question.

Is morality a matter of luck, Thôl? As in -- rape does not serve you, but it serves your neighbor, and then he might as well rape -- is that what you believe?

Celebthôl

07-09-2003, 09:59 PM

Quite a big difference, and you know it! They arent even comparable, raping someone is spiritual, building a statue is to show off, neither acts gain anything...

When i do " " it means your version of it e.g. rape is "bad" its simpler than saying; rape does not serve me.
Kinda hard to explain...

If someone raped my sister i would beat them to within an inch of their life! :mad:
I never EVER said rape serves you, but it isnt bad, it pulls you further away from ultimate knowledge i have already explained this before...So the answer, rape can never get you closer to ultimate knowledge...

Rape does not serve anyone, it cannot, but that doesnt mean its a bad thing.

Eriol

07-09-2003, 10:21 PM

Originally posted by Celebthôl
When i do " " it means your version of it e.g. rape is "bad" its simpler than saying; rape does not serve me.

Rape does not serve anyone, it cannot, but that doesnt mean its a bad thing.

So when you say something is "bad", you really mean that it does not serve you, right? Well then, how can you say rape is not bad if you think it does not serve you?

:confused:

I know there is a difference, Thôl; you know as well; but your beliefs don't. Explain to me, using only your beliefs about ultimate knowledge and "good" and "bad" as you define them, the difference between building a statue and raping a woman. Use only the concepts that are contained in your beliefs; you are not allowed to use the word "good" or "bad" in this explanation of yours, since you do not believe in them. And if you say that "rape does not serve the guy", I remind you that this is just an opinion -- the guy who rapes (quite obviously, otherwise he would not rape) certainly thinks that the rape serves him.

Celebthôl

07-09-2003, 10:29 PM

Originally posted by Eriol
So when you say something is "bad", you really mean that it does not serve you, right? Well then, how can you say rape is not bad if you think it does not serve you?

:confused:

I know there is a difference, Thôl; you know as well; but your beliefs don't. Explain to me, using only your beliefs about ultimate knowledge and "good" and "bad" as you define them, the difference between building a statue and raping a woman. Use only the concepts that are contained in your beliefs; you are not allowed to use the word "good" or "bad" in this explanation of yours, since you do not believe in them. And if you say that "rape does not serve the guy", I remind you that this is just an opinion -- the guy who rapes (quite obviously, otherwise he would not rape) certainly thinks that the rape serves him.

Grrr, i cant explain it, you no what it means, so quit pretending you dont!!! :rolleyes: :p

So it would appear, but as i said, it has repurcusions, when he does die, he will go to heaven (i told you Hitler did aswell), doesnt mean to say his version of heaven will be what you think it will be, it wont be all angels and clouds and what not. Far from it, it will be a dark horrid place, you see, just because he gets away from it here doesnt mean his eternal soul will, his soul knows exactly what he has done.

Please watch that film i reccomended, it is very good to define what i mean, a lot better than i can.

Eriol

07-09-2003, 10:53 PM

Explain something to me, Thôl (and I don't pretend I know anything when I ask you these questions -- sorry about that.):

When you say that the guy will get to heaven, but it will be like hell, what do you mean? Your belief, as you said in your last post, is not so different from the Christian belief. If you will use the word "Heaven" to describe a horrible place, then you might as well use the word "Hell". It is a matter of words -- do you see that?

If you say Heaven can be bad, you are not talking about Heaven anymore -- you might as well call it "the afterlife".

Also -- if you believe in a Heaven, how come do you believe in reincarnation as well? (as you showed you believe when you said we all died many times) How do we "get off" the reincarnation cycle?

And by the way, you have not explained to me the difference between raping a woman and building a statue yet -- unless you mean your last post to say that if you rape a woman, you will go to a bad place; if you don't, you will go to a good place. In other words, there is good and evil -- inasmuch as we can go to a bad place if we do bad things.

Thôl, the extent to which you will go to avoid using the simple words "good" and "bad" is amazing. How come the "Heaven" of a rapist is bad if there is no "badness"?

Celebthôl

07-09-2003, 11:14 PM

You can be impossible at times...

Ok, heaven is just the round about word i used, afterlife is so...Egyptian...anyway:
Heaven is our imagination bascially, it is what our minds make it to be.
We can be reincarnated at will, whenever we want at anytime (i guess) as it can be on a different plain...(im not to sure on all the aspects of it), but if we decide to 'go back to earth' then we just want it and it happens, im not 100% sure how it works, but it is basically that.
You can get off the cycle whenever you want, it is not a cycle, more of a 'if you want to return you can' type thing.

Raping a woman is where you force sex upon her.

Building a statue is where you stick rocks together in the desired shape.

There are so many differences it would be folly to list them all...they are as different as carrots and peas...

OK, their version of heaven is naff/dull/generally not a fun place to be...

Please, please PLEASE watch that film, it would explain the whole heaven concept a lot better than i can.

Eriol

07-10-2003, 12:11 AM

I would watch the film if I had the chance Thôl -- it's not as if I could do it by snapping my fingers.

You can get off the cycle whenever you want, it is not a cycle, more of a 'if you want to return you can' type thing.

What is the difference of "I want a thing" and "this thing serves me", Thôl? You say that you can "get off the reincarnation cycle when you want" -- i.e., when it serves me. Therefore, being on the reincarnation cycle -- or not being there -- is the same thing, as regards "what serves us". This means that death is NOT "great" -- it is indifferent. We might as well not die -- both could serve us at any given moment.

Raping a woman is forcing sex upon her -- well, since no one ever did this inadvertently, I assume we can safely say that every rapist wanted to rape; in other words, the rape served him. The same goes for building a statue. So, how can you say that if someone raped your sister, you would be mad at him? Would not the guy be doing what serves him?

This is a major stumbling block in your system of beliefs, Thôl -- it says that other people are irrelevant. This is the point of the Statue x Rape question. If I do something with a rock, I harm no one; if I rape a woman, I harm her. But in your system of beliefs both actions are ok -- since both actions "serve" the agent, i.e., derive from his will. If one wants to rape your sister, you can be sure that raping your sister would "serve him".

The other problem is that you play around with words, without thinking of the concepts themselves. You believe, without a doubt, in a bad heaven; a bad will; and a bad result of an action; and all the time you deny the concept of badness. Think of WHAT you are thinking, not of the WORDS you are using in your thinking. "Bad" is just a word; but "badness" is a concept that you use all the time, without using the word "bad". I don't care about the word itself -- call it "orange" if you like. (You have been using "not fun" lately -- that's all right with me. But you mean badness). I want you to realize that you believe in badness -- the concept.

Celebthôl

07-10-2003, 12:26 AM

Ok, please do, as i said, it will clear it up better than i can.

No, thats different, when you are dead you no longer need to do things that serve you, you have reached heaven, ultimate knowledge can only be attained on earth in an earthly body. When you die you are just have it.

Death as in that you gain ultimate knowledge, you go to your version of the after life etc...therefore it is amazing when you die, tommorrow ill explain in better detail what happens to yours soul/spirit/mind/(whatever you want to call is) when you die.

NO NO NO, rape does NOT serve them as i have said, it pushes them away from ultimate knowledge, it is a "bad" thing.

I would be mad because of the physical etc, if we were in heaven, there would be no rape, it just wouldnt happen.

Before you can care for anyone else, you MUST be able to care for yourself, its hard fact.
Rape will never EVER EVER serve anyone, no matter what!

It is not a "bad" heaven, there are no judgements, no judges, its just how it is. I used to think in terms of "good" and "bad" but not anymore, i refused to and i no longer do, i do what serves me to do, and i dont rape, murder, steal and all the rest of it...
I do not believe in badness or the concept of it,why should i? It does not exist except how humans have created a word for that which does not serve us.

Eriol

07-10-2003, 12:36 AM

Originally posted by Celebthôl
[B]No, thats different, when you are dead you no longer need to do things that serve you, you have reached heaven, ultimate knowledge can only be attained on earth in an earthly body. When you die you are just have it.

Death as in that you gain ultimate knowledge, you go to your version of the after life etc...therefore it is amazing when you die, tommorrow ill explain in better detail what happens to yours soul/spirit/mind/(whatever you want to call is) when you die.

Why then would we die several times? If when we die once we reach heaven and ultimate knowledge, why would we "come back" to Earth?

NO NO NO, rape does NOT serve them as i have said, it pushes them away from ultimate knowledge, it is a "bad" thing.

You have to explain further what the sentence "it does not serve them" mean, Thôl. For the ordinary meaning of this sentence is "what they want". If someone wants to rape, then rape serves him. This is the ordinary meaning of the expression "what serves him". If you say that rape can never serve him, then you must have another meaning for that expression -- a meaning quite different from "what he wants".

What does your expression mean?

It is not a "bad" heaven, there are no judgements, no judges, its just how it is.

It's not a bad heaven -- but it is a dark horrid place (if you are a rapist). What is the difference?

Look at this quote from you:

Far from it, it will be a dark horrid place, you see, just because he gets away from it here doesnt mean his eternal soul will, his soul knows exactly what he has done.

Well then, how come this is not a bad place?

Gandalf White

07-10-2003, 01:57 AM

Originally posted by Celebthôl
I call them how i see fit, its my opinion of them.

I can assure you, people that do bad things like rape and murder, do NOT enjoy life, if they did, they wouldnt do the things they do...

But yes, if their verson of heaven is that, it is theirs...however it isnt just like that, i cant fully explain it, but they wont win, thats all i can say, what goes around comes around...one way or another...

So you are saying if they enjoyed life they wouldn't rape, murder, etc. Therefore, they are doing these things to make their life "better". They can't possibly want to make it worse. Since this makes their life more "enjoyable" they will also "enjoy" their heaven, leaving, as I said before, everyone equal.

Eriol said it before I could.... Why then would we die several times? If when we die once we reach heaven and ultimate knowledge, why would we "come back" to Earth?

No, thats different, when you are dead you no longer need to do things that serve you, you have reached heaven, ultimate knowledge can only be attained on earth in an earthly body. When you die you are just have it. Once again proving my point that with your views everyone comes out equal.

You said that the absolute ultimate goal is to gain ultimate knowledge, what man has been striving after from the beginning. You also said that when a person dies, they gain that ultimate knowledge. Everyone dies, rapist, murderer, Bill Gates. So all these receive mans ultimate goal, perfect knowledge. :eek: How then can their heavens be dreary?

HLGStrider

07-10-2003, 07:39 AM

Thol, why do you think a movie proove something? Just out of curiousity. Why is it so important to watch this movie? You've already stated your opinion based on the movie.

For goodness sakes, movies are movies.

Gandalf White

07-10-2003, 08:18 AM

What I believe Thol is saying, is that the movie expresses his beliefs much more fluently than he is able to.

Celebthôl

07-10-2003, 12:16 PM

1 person at a time please!!!

Eri:

As I have said, we are all God, the reason we live on this planet is for God to experience himself, if we are with him in total knowledge there is nothing he can experience, therefore we exist here to gain that.

What serves them is what serves their soul, not their body, raping only messes up their soul; it does NOT serve them.

It is what they make it, its as simple as that, if they repent their actions, i mean truely from deep down, they can i guess restart, as i have said im not 100% sure on the details.

G W:

How many murderers do you know that murder to make their life better? Same for rapists?
Its an outlet for pent-up frustaision.
I cannot fully explain what happens, all i've been told is we all get an equal chance in heaven there are no judges etc, but "bad" people have a "bad" heaven, its psychological, not pitchforks and brimestone.

You point?! I've been saying people are equal from the beggining, you have proven nothing...

No. If they are a "bad" person, they refuse ultimate knowledge, they decend into themselves, they are self centered, that is no the way to ultimate knowledge.

Elgee:

No, this movie is brilliant, and it can get my point accross a lot better than i can. I advise you watch it to Elgee...

Gandalf White

07-10-2003, 06:11 PM

How many murderers do you know that murder to make their life better? Same for rapists?
Its an outlet for pent-up frustaision.
I cannot fully explain what happens, all i've been told is we all get an equal chance in heaven there are no judges etc, but "bad" people have a "bad" heaven, its psychological, not pitchforks and brimestone.

Actually, I've never had a conversation, or really known a murderer or rapist. Have you? It certainly seems so with the authority of which you speak of this subject. Some murderers believe it is their "duty" to murder, therefore, the more they kill, the more satisfied they are, the better their heaven will be.

You point?! I've been saying people are equal from the beggining, you have proven nothing... Actually, I proved that in your world view, everyone who dies ends up gaining what they have always wanted.

No. If they are a "bad" person, they refuse ultimate knowledge, they decend into themselves, they are self centered, that is no the way to ultimate knowledge. I seem to recall you saying that we should all just care for ourselves, not worry about anyone else. Does this mean that all who follow your philosophy never reach that ultimate knowledge? I thought you said everyone received it when they died, why the change of tune?

And please, what is a "bad" person, as you put it. In order to communicate, we must understand each others terms, and your denial of good and bad, yet liberal use of it is very confusing to me.

I'll be gone for about a week, so don't expect any answers soon.

Celebthôl

07-10-2003, 06:20 PM

We call those people crazy...this is where their soul is completly messed up...

No when people die they gain what their "place" is, as i have said i cant fully explain it...

No we must look after ourselves, make sure our self is ok, then expand onto others...The self centered people just care for themselves and wallow in self pitty...

A "bad" person, is someone that does not do things that serve them, they do things that do not serve them.

Gandalf White

07-10-2003, 06:39 PM

So, basically, I see a homeless guy on the street and give him my lunch, knowing there is no way he can repay me. I am now a "bad" person. :rolleyes:

Celebthôl

07-10-2003, 07:24 PM

Nope, if you give it to him and think, that tramp should give me somthing back! Then the deed is worthless.
You should do the deed not because you want something in return, but because you see he is suffering and needs help.

You are a "bad" person for wanting repayment by your acts...

Malbeth

07-11-2003, 03:19 AM

Ok, suppose a communist revolution springs up in Brazil, and practicing Christians begin to be persecuted and martyred (an unlikely, but not impossible scenario). If I have the courage to stand by my beliefs even while being tortured(an unlikelier scenario) am I then a bad person according to your views? Or does being tortured for an illogical religion (according to you) serve me?

You are a "bad" person for wanting repayment by your acts...

So, to be a "good" person (one who does what serves him), one should be unselfish? This means "What serves you is being unselfish" You can use words that way, but it sure is weird.

Celebthôl

07-11-2003, 10:42 AM

Originally posted by Malbeth
If I have the courage to stand by my beliefs even while being tortured(an unlikelier scenario) am I then a bad person according to your views? Or does being tortured for an illogical religion (according to you) serve me?

I cant see why you would be a bad person for that....please explain it more....

Malbeth

07-11-2003, 03:03 PM

If good is what serves me and bad is what does not serve me, how can it serve me to be tortured for an illogical (as you think) religion?

Celebthôl

07-11-2003, 03:11 PM

Can you control yourself being tortured? It doesnt serve the tourturers (sp) to tourture you.
If you stand for your beliefs that strongly then you are serving yourself, if you drop your beliefs because of torture then your kinda pathetic.

Malbeth

07-11-2003, 03:45 PM

Can you control yourself being tortured?

Yes, I can just say I don't believe... and it is not pathetic to do so, just human; to not do so is saintly heroism.

But you say that to stand for my believes just strongly is serving myself... perhaps, but you use the phrase "serve yourself" in a strange manner; as I posted before
So, to be a "good" person (one who does what serves him), one should be unselfish? This means "What serves you is being unselfish" You can use words that way, but it sure is weird.

Celebthôl

07-11-2003, 04:54 PM

If you give up on your belief under torture then it is NOT your belief...

well would saying you believe in something only to later reject it be serving yourself?

No, its lieing to yourself...

HLGStrider

07-12-2003, 08:08 AM

Well, it would serve him to stop being tortured, so spiritual beliefs are more important than your physical being. . .Does it matter what sort of beliefs?

Celebthôl

07-12-2003, 11:40 AM

Thats only his physical body being hurt, not his spirit...

I dont know...

Malbeth

07-13-2003, 10:04 AM

If you give up on your belief under torture then it is NOT your belief...

You know thol, in a way I think that's the wisest thing you've said so far, but I still think you put too much strain on humans... it's not so easy to withstand torture, you know:)

well would saying you believe in something only to later reject it be serving yourself?

Suppose I believed Christianity not because I think its's true, but because it comforts me with a promise of "pie in the sky, by and by" (the opinion many sceptics have of Christians)... this belief has served me, giving me the assurance of a happy after-life, which has made me a happy, well-adjusted individual... of course, believing that way I would probably reject it under torture. When was I serving myself; before rejecting it or afterwards?

But you still haven't answered my question... to most people, being selfish means caring more for what serves you than to what serves other people. But you say that anyone who is unselfish is serving himself... isn't that a strange way to use words? It seems you're saying "it serves oneself to not serve oneself"...

Celebthôl

07-13-2003, 11:44 AM

OK, to say you believe something, though deep down in your soul (you can never lie or decieve your soul), you know it isnt true, then it does not serve you and is a lie, however the odds are you will believe it after so long of fake believing in it...

You have to be selfish at first you need to make sure you are comfortable and well.
When you are comfortable with a good income, you dont hoard it all away, you give it to the homeless and the ill.

Have you ever given food or money to a homeless person, you made give them a lot say, $100, but you feel so much better for it, do you not?

That is what i mean, when you care for yourself you WILL get into a good place, then when you repay from your possition, then your soul feels better for it, that is the proper way.

Malbeth

07-13-2003, 06:20 PM

You just said that if you "fake-believe" something for a long time you may end up believing it... a great psychological principle I think... now apply it to your idea... you serve yourself for a long time, trying to get confortable... won't you have a tendency to continue serving yourself after that?

Celebthôl

07-13-2003, 06:33 PM

Yep, doesnt do your soul any good to though...

HLGStrider

07-14-2003, 06:01 AM

Have you ever given food or money to a homeless person, you made give them a lot say, $100, but you feel so much better for it, do you not?

Why would you?

If there is no good and evil why does serving others make you feel good?

Most moral realitivists would give the answer because it dissaudes guilt brought about by the false societal idea of good and evil, but you, here, put it out as a good thing.

Why?

Why would this be any better than taking the 100 dollars and spending it on oneself? Why does one make one feel good and the other not?

And is it only a good thing if it makes you feel good?
If you give the 100 dollars to someone and get no emotional response (just sort of rote giving, which people do), is it therefore no longer good?

Celebthôl

07-14-2003, 11:25 AM

Have you even given anything to a homeless person Elgee?

I dont mean like donate $10,000 to the homeless trust or whatever, have you given money to a homeless child face to face, and seen their eyes light up as you supply them with their next meal?

If you had done then you would understand.

It's good for your soul.

Because spending the $100 on yourself when you clearly can spare it (else you wouldnt have it) and give it to the very needy is compassion towards your fellow man/woman.

Yes spending the $100 on yourself at some clothes or toy store would make you happy in mind, but giving the money to a homeless person instead who actually needs the money to survive makes you feel a whole lot better deep down i.e. in your soul.

It is a good thing because it serves you, it brings you closer to ultimate knowledge.

If you give the money not because you see they need it, but because you feel guilty or whatever and it is only to ease your mind, then yes, the notion is worthless to you (though not to the person you gave it to clearly), you dont feel any better deep down its a purely selfish act.

(im using the word good because its just easier and im very tired)

HLGStrider

07-15-2003, 08:13 AM

Seriously, I've never really met a homeless person face to face. I live in a small town which doesn't have that big of problem with it.

You are using the word good again. You said good meant pleasureable earlier.

And having a hundred dollars doesn't mean you can spare it by any means. A hundred dollars is a big investment for some families even though they have it. Mine isn't quite to that level. I'd say it takes three hundred dollars to get us to a big investment, but a hundred dollars isn't to be spent lightly.

So what if you give up your food for the day to feed that person for that day? You end up having physical displeasure but because you are having spiritual displeasure it is good? That's what I am getting from you.

What makes it good? What if someone sincerely gets no pleasure, spiritual or otherwise, out of giving but does very much out of spending that 100?

And also, WHY? Why do we feel more pleasure in giving? If it isn't good, only the pleasure is good, why were we made to feel this pleasure? Is it because God finds this sort of pleasure more pleasurable and therefore made us prefer it? If so, isn't it therefore "good" based not on pleasure but on the fact that God made it good.

If not, where did it come from?

What if you give the 100 dollars to the homeless person and they look at you glossy eyed and stumble into the nearest bar? Is it good for you then?

Celebthôl

07-15-2003, 11:34 AM

If you have $100 in your hand and you cant spend it, because you need it for some such reason, then giving it to a homless person would be all the more better, you can accumilate that $100 in a week at work, that homeless man will die within a week without it, gee there seems to be no way out of this....

Well the homeless person could die in a day without food, you will not, but if you feel that badly about giving him/her the money, then take him/her out to dinner or something, it has the same effect on you.

If you ever did it you would see how it is good, on a spiritual level it makes you feel good (again im only using good for simplicity).

All i can say Elgee is give it a try, the next homeless person you see, give him/her the money in your pocket, and you shall see how it makes you feel. As i have said before, we are all God (our souls are) and when we help another less fortunate, we are helping ourselves, im not to sure, but i think it is something along those lines.

If you give the $100 to a homeless person and they run off to a bar, so what, you made them happy, they are allowed to get drunk, they have a poor life.

Gandalf White

07-15-2003, 05:28 PM

STOP!!!

We are getting absolutely no where, and I'm getting more and more confused.

Before we go anywhere "good" and "bad" MUST be defined clearly.

From your POV, Celebthol, you have said "good" means "only what serves you" and "bad" is what "does not serve you."

Does this mean you don't believe in "universal guidelines" for "good" and "bad"? It's just every man for himself, setting up his own "right" and "wrong"? Please define this.

My view of good and bad is more correctly worded "right" and "wrong." I believe a supernatural being has set rules for much of mine, and everyone's, life. There are consequences for wrong actions, as well as rewards for correct ones. I'll go into more detail later, once I've figured out your stance.

Celebthôl

07-15-2003, 05:54 PM

Universal? Who says that?

I can guarantee that some extra-terestrials (sp) dont have the concept, how then is it universal?

Good: That which serves you (your begin)

Bad: That which does not serve you (your being)

Well pretty much yes, everyone has to take care of themselves first (no one else will), then when you are able to support yourself, you can help others less fortunate, instead of hoarding your wealth.

I believe there is no right or wrong and good or bad, no God set it for us, but only society and it uses the concept to control us.

setting up his own "right" and "wrong"

What do you mean here?

Elendil3119

07-15-2003, 06:22 PM

Originally posted by Celebthôl
I can guarantee that some extra-terestrials (sp) dont have the concept, how then is it universal?
First you'd have to prove that there are extra-terrestrials.

Good: That which serves you (your begin)

Bad: That which does not serve you (your being)
According to this, good and bad (right and wrong) are subjective, meaning that there is no objective source. If you take this to its logical extreme you cannot condemn or punish anyone who murders, rapes, steals, mugs etc., since there is no objective source that defines right and wrong. If you truly held this point of view, then you could not complain if your sister got raped, your parents killed, or your house robbed! If you did, you would be a hypocrite. Of course, everybody does say at one point or another, "It's not fair!". What's not fair? Who defines "fair"? According to your view, there is no "fair". This view of subjective right and wrong is possible to hold in theory, but nobody actually practices it.

Celebthôl

07-15-2003, 06:37 PM

There has to be more life out there, its undeniable, the universe isnt that big with only one minescual planet with life on, its just unfiesable.

There is no punishment from God for our acts on Earth.

I shouldnt have to beat up the guy who raped my sister, society and religion has made the rapists and therefore society and religion has made the guy that beats up the thing that rapes.

If we lived how i have been told, we would all be happier for it, there would be no "bad" no wars, no rape, no murder, no stealing.

The reason there is good and bad is because religion and society has made it...

Elendil3119

07-15-2003, 07:12 PM

There has to be more life out there, its undeniable, the universe isnt that big with only one minescual planet with life on, its just unfiesable.
Statements like these don't get us anywhere; you're just stating your opinion as if it was fact. I deny it, therefore it is not undeniable. According to myself, the Bible, and the whole of Christianity and many other religions, the Earth is the only place life exists, but that's another argument...
There is no punishment from God for our acts on Earth.
How do you know?
If we lived how i have been told, we would all be happier for it, there would be no "bad" no wars, no rape, no murder, no stealing.
I will be blunt and say that it is time to stop putting bad in quotations. There is either bad, or no bad; but not "bad". You seem to group wars, rape, murder, and stealing together as bad. But there is no bad, remember? You are being just like the rest of us and condemning these acts as wrong, but if you were consistent, you would say that these acts are just like any other, since there is no wrong.
The reason there is good and bad is because religion and society has made it...
There you go saying that "there is good and bad" again. :confused: If society and religion had really "created" good and bad, then there would not be good and bad at all; both would be subjective to the whims of society and/or religion.

Celebthôl

07-15-2003, 07:28 PM

There has to be and there is life on other planets.
If you reject life on other planets, then you reject evoloution; need i say more?

How do you know he does judge us?

I've been told he doesn't by himself and it makes sense that he doesnt. Why should he?

Killing is undersierable, rape is undersierable, war is undersierable, that is how i qualify them. Using the word bad just simplifies the whole thing.

They cannot be, if you say something like that only to change it later on then your whole system in false and therefore unbelievable.

Why should God create good and bad? It all comes down to free will, you accept it and let your "God" control your free will, my God however recognises that we have choices and doesn't condem us if we make the "wrong" choice, he watches us and enjoys the experience.

Elendil3119

07-15-2003, 10:15 PM

Originally posted by Celebthôl
Im gonna be blunt now, christianity sucks, it is totally wrong, and its teachings are naff. Same for the bible and almost all the other religions.
This discussion is not the place to insult religions. If you think that "christianity sucks", either say it in a nicer way or keep it to yourself...
There has to be and there is life on other planets.
If you reject life on other planets, then you reject evoloution; need i say more?
Has to be? Who says? I asked for proof and all you gave me was more absolute statements without any back-up. (BTW, I do reject evolution...:p)
How do you know he does judge us?
I think you know already that I am a Christian, and Christianity teaches that God is perfect and cannot stand sin, as defined by the Bible. It necessarily follows that God does judge us for out sin.
I've been told he doesn't by himself and it makes sense that he doesnt. Why should he?
Not sure I understand that...
Killing is undersierable, rape is undersierable, war is undersierable, that is how i qualify them. Using the word bad just simplifies the whole thing.
Oh, but no! I love to kill, rape, and be a warmonger! Therefore these things aren't bad because they are desireable to me, right?
They cannot be, if you say something like that only to change it later on then your whole system in false and therefore unbelievable.
It might help if you used quotes. :confused:
Why should God create good and bad?
Because God is perfect. He did not 'create' good and bad in the sense that He went down the list of every possible action and marked which ones are good and which ones aren't. Instead, God defined good and bad in the Bible.
It all comes down to free will, you accept it and let your "God" control your free will, my God however recognises that we have choices and doesn't condem us if we make the "wrong" choice, he watches us and enjoys the experience.
I don't think you quite understand the Christian God. God recognizes that we all have choices, but He does not approve of our wrong choices. Just out of curiosity, where did you get your belief system?

Gandalf White

07-15-2003, 10:59 PM

Ok, Thol, your ignorance and hubris has really gone out of bounds now. We have let you "define" your beliefs for 23 pages. We did this without telling you "your beliefs suck" or "are totally wrong"; we simply let you prove that for yourself. After that, without any clarification or explanation of our beliefs you tell us that they suck.... :rolleyes: I had more respect for you.....:(

Anyway, I think it's time for our beliefs to be recognized, and indeed to be proven similar to yours in some ways, yet superior.

We shall begin at the beginning.... Let me prepare my notes...

:)

Celebthôl

07-15-2003, 11:11 PM

Ok, you have the size of the universe, it is still getting bigger, Earth is the size of a pin-head within a pin-head within a pin-head in it, there are thousands if not millions of other solar systems, it is unfiesable that we are the only planet with life on.
(There is no way for you to understand this because you accept the bible over science, therefore i cant really continue that...)

With my God there is no Sin. My teachings are that God is perfect and imperfect.

My God told me personally that he doesn't judge us, he is telling all of you right now, but you wont listen.

Nobody loves to kill, rape and warmonger, they cannot ever serve you, they aren't "good" for you.

Ok, If religion said:

"right today we invented a new concept i.e. Good and Bad"

They then list good and bad things, they tell us we have to live by these new concepts because "God" tells us too.

However a week later they change their mind and say:

"That was a bad idea, we are now abolishing good and bad"

You will loose all faith in them and where is your God then?

My God is perfect, he never created good and bad, he created us and we created good and bad.

My God recognises we have choises and he respects each and every choise we make without question and without judgement, we all go to him at the end no matter what we do in life.

Heres a quote i posted ages ago, but it makes sense...

"There is no free will if to exercise it in certain ways produces punishment. That makes a mockery of free will and renders it counterfeit."

I don't know about you, but my God sounds a lot better to me.

Celebthôl

07-15-2003, 11:13 PM

Originally posted by Gandalf White
Ok, Thol, your ignorance and hubris has really gone out of bounds now. We have let you "define" your beliefs for 23 pages. We did this without telling you "your beliefs suck" or "are totally wrong"; we simply let you prove that for yourself. After that, without any clarification or explanation of our beliefs you tell us that they suck.... :rolleyes: I had more respect for you.....:(

Anyway, I think it's time for our beliefs to be recognized, and indeed to be proven similar to yours in some ways, yet superior.

We shall begin at the beginning.... Let me prepare my notes...

:)

Go for it...

Beorn

07-16-2003, 03:22 AM

Without having read all of this thread, I can tell that it's getting out of hand. Please respect other people's religions, as well as other people...

HLGStrider

07-16-2003, 08:47 AM

There has to be more life out there, its undeniable, the universe isnt that big with only one minescual planet with life on, its just unfiesable.

Why?

Do you know the statistics for how our planet is able to support life? A few miniscule thousands of miles one way or the other and it would be too cold or too hot. It is an amazing feet of design.

I personally don't believe in evolution. I find it unlikely, but that would get us into another conversation. I should just be said that is not 'nuff said. It is a whole other issue.

If there is no sin with your god is there with others?

Some people do find rape pleasurable because if they didn't they wouldn't risk imprisonment to do it. A person only takes risks for something they want.

You didn't answer my questions.

So you think inebriation is a good thing? Why is it not as good as giving it to a poor person? Can you prove that the pleasure is more? Or are we dealing with something more than pleasure?

As I said, it is unlikely for me to meet a homeless person. We have one in town who is quite happy being homeless. He's not the typical drunk kind. He just likes living in a tent. I would say he's more like a hermit than a homeless person. A friend of mine tried to give him a coat once and he just acted shy and wouldn't take it. He has this really cool cart he pulls around town and does landscaping for the city. He's one of the people who makes being a homeless person look almost appealing. I know he is not the normal case, but he is an interesting one.

I give to charity through traditional means. I feel the best about myself when I'm nice to children. I think being nice to a child would give me more pleasure than giving money to a homeless person (especially if he then went into a bar) could ever do. Is it therefore better to give to a homeless person than to give to a child?

And if you say, it is for you, then what if someone DOES get more pleasure out of drinking. Is it therefore better for them as well? Why not if no?

Since you cannot measure their pleasure you don't know for sure.

And I know plenty of people who would have the entire giving experience ruined by seeing that man walk into a bar. I know a lot of people who believe that drinking is bad for a person. Is it good to give if that good produces something that is bad? And if it isn't bad then why is the giving better?

The way you are saying it now is there is no bad, just unservicable, but there is a hierarchy of good based on what is more serviceable, however, there are somethings that are servicable even when they are apparently non-serviceable because they appeal to something within is that is more important.

Why is it more important? Why is the soul better than the body? Isn't this just a matter of preference to you?

I've talked with God as well, and he's always acknowledge the existance of sin to me, so we have two different ear witness accounts of god and one must be wrong. One of us is not really talking to god and as there is no way to prove which of us really is, I think that sort of evidence has no value in this debate (if it ever did at all).

Celebthôl

07-16-2003, 12:39 PM

Originally posted by HLGStrider
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
There has to be more life out there, its undeniable, the universe isnt that big with only one minescual planet with life on, its just unfiesable.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Why?

Because there has to be, the Universe wasnt made this big for only us to inhabit, but the whole bibile thing will stop you seeing this...

Originally posted by HLGStrider
If there is no sin with your god is there with others?

How do you mean? Like there is more than one God?

Originally posted by HLGStrider
Some people do find rape pleasurable because if they didn't they wouldn't risk imprisonment to do it. A person only takes risks for something they want.

They wouldnt rape just because they can, they are forced into it but society, their life is rubbish, so they look for things to improove it. The reasons arent required...unless you would prefure them?

Originally posted by HLGStrider
You didn't answer my questions.

So you think inebriation is a good thing? Why is it not as good as giving it to a poor person? Can you prove that the pleasure is more? Or are we dealing with something more than pleasure?

No i dont think being drunk is good, i dont even touch alcahol, itd disgusting and i hate being out of control of my body. But other people enjoy it, its "drowns your sorrows", if it is the only comfort a homeless person can get, i say let him have it.
We are dealing with more than just pleasure, i mean there is a good deal of pleasure involved, but there is something more to it. E.g. Spending the money on ourselves is good to our minds, but deep down in our souls we dont feel, happy, we dont feel anything. But the second you give to a homeless person, you get that feeling deep down that is pleasureable.

Originally posted by HLGStrider
I give to charity through traditional means. I feel the best about myself when I'm nice to children. I think being nice to a child would give me more pleasure than giving money to a homeless person (especially if he then went into a bar) could ever do. Is it therefore better to give to a homeless person than to give to a child?

And if you say, it is for you, then what if someone DOES get more pleasure out of drinking. Is it therefore better for them as well? Why not if no?

You see, you feel the best about yourself, there you go, that is your soul talking to you saying it likes what you have done.
I was of course only using the homeless person idea as an example, but if children works better, then use that, do you get a good feeling deep down for helping children? and if you help yourself, when you can easily help the children, does that feel in anyway pleasureable?
The only thing i can say is that you try to be homeless for say 20 - 30 years and then see if you havent turned to drink to make it easier...

Originally posted by HLGStrider
And I know plenty of people who would have the entire giving experience ruined by seeing that man walk into a bar. I know a lot of people who believe that drinking is bad for a person. Is it good to give if that good produces something that is bad? And if it isn't bad then why is the giving better?

Once you have given the money (or whatever), what he/she does is out of your control, so it is still good, you helped him/her out, he does with the money what he sees fit...he/she is easing the pain of being homeless so you should let him go for it, you have helped him out.

Originally posted by HLGStrider
The way you are saying it now is there is no bad, just unservicable, but there is a hierarchy of good based on what is more serviceable, however, there are somethings that are servicable even when they are apparently non-serviceable because they appeal to something within is that is more important.

Why is it more important? Why is the soul better than the body? Isn't this just a matter of preference to you?

Ill take the question to you, what is more important, the case that houses your soul or the immortal soul itself?
It is not my preference, it is fact, we are the soul forever for all of eternity, but we lose our body when we die.

Originally posted by HLGStrider
I've talked with God as well, and he's always acknowledge the existance of sin to me, so we have two different ear witness accounts of god and one must be wrong. One of us is not really talking to god and as there is no way to prove which of us really is, I think that sort of evidence has no value in this debate (if it ever did at all).

I agree...though i think we each have an idea on what the other believes ;)

HLGStrider

07-17-2003, 08:31 AM

Really, Cel, I think 'because there has to be' is not a very good form of arguement.

As I said, our earth has perfect conditions for life. None of the other planets in this system do. One out of ten. . .We can further limit it down.

Are we dealing with Intelligent life forms or just animals? How intelligent?

In science fiction these aliens are always smarter than us. They get here before we get there usually. . .but for them to exist we will have to assume they are either a LOT smarter than us and desire to avoid detection, a lot dumber than us and so haven't been sending out space probes, or very very very far away. Etc.

Personally, I don't believe in aliens. I don't believe that if they did exist it would negate my beliefs. I just think that there is no need for aliens and I don't think they are very good for this arguement.

How do you know this whole Alien thing hasn't stopped you from seeing the Bible?

How do you mean? Like there is more than one God?

I was just playing with your words. You are always talking about "my God" instead of God. It just seems funny so I thought I'd fool around with it. . . A word is but a glove.

Your rape thing is very politically correct. I don't believe it. For one thing, there have been cases of rich people raping. Privillaged people raping. etc. . .

You say we have free will, and yet, here, you make us products of our society. I believe I have a choice in how I use my body.

No, I'm not answering that question because you have to answer it first. I asked it first (the first time you asked it to Eriol and he gave you his answer).

And I didn't ask which was more important. I asked why. You say, I think, because it is immortal and the body isn't.

Immortality is therefore something that makes something better than something else. . .why?

Actually, I feel the best about myself when I write something really good. I just feel better when I do something for children than when I give money to people. The feeling I get from writing is more euphoric.

You didn't answer my why. You just said it was.

I say that you get a good feeling from doing what is good because God made it good and it brings you closer to him. As you have rejected the fact that God made it good and good in general and are going straight from the good feeling (to you the good feeling is the purpose), I am asking why it is a good feeling. Why does one get a better feeling in giving money to someone than in killing someone?

Is it because we were made this way?

If so, why?

Is it why because God prefers it so?

If so, isn't this better because of God making it so?

And if not, what else?

Celebthôl

07-17-2003, 07:48 PM

Ok this life on other planet things isnt going to go anywhere, lets drop it.

But you say you bible says we are the only life forms in the universe, if then we discover more life, then your bible is wrong, it was made up and therefore christianity is wrong, please correct me, if i misjudge here, and if i am wrong, why am i?

It hasnt because i didnt believe the bible ever, i have never...well until within the passed few years believed in life on other planets, i never knew that the bible said we are alone in the universe. Thats is why aliens have not stopped me from seeing the bible...i have stopped me from seeing it.

Ok, well, i get confused easy :( as prooven by you ;)

I have never heard of a rich or privelliged person raping...

Ok, you have a job, your job states you must be at work for 6am...you set your alarm to wake you up for then, you wake up now you can either go back to sleep and loose your job, therefore no money or you get up and be the slave of society and work and get money, which do you do?

Uh...what question, can you c n p it please :o

Your soul is more important because any action you do upon it last forever for all eternity, any action you do on ur body, lasts for say 80 years.

Ok big word usage....im no good with them, what does Euphoric mean? :o :o

You get a good feeling from doing good (again im using good for simplicity) because it is serving you, it is bringing you closer to ultimate knowledge, that is why it feels good. It does not serve you to kill people, it serves you to help people...

Is it because we were made this way?

If so, why?

Is it why because God prefers it so?

If so, isn't this better because of God making it so?

And if not, what else?

Yes we were made this way, so God can experience himself, God has no peferences, he made us to live so he can experience his existance, he does not care what we do it all adds to his experience, nothing is better or worse, it just is.

HLGStrider

07-18-2003, 07:32 AM

But you say you bible says we are the only life forms in the universe, if then we discover more life, then your bible is wrong, it was made up and therefore christianity is wrong, please correct me, if i misjudge here, and if i am wrong, why am i?

I don't remember this being a Bible verse, so I'll say that's why you are wrong. It would be obviously wrong if it said this and self-contradicting, because animals are lifeforms and it mentions animals. It does state that we are the purpose to creation, however (we being mankind). I can vaguely see him putting mankind on another planet just for the heck of it, but it seems unlikely and out of character. God, throughout the Bible, chooses to work with small groups of many in personal ways, and I think one planet out of a million having his specific attention is more in character. He chose to work with one family of people and then one race of people throughout the entire Bible.

I also trust that Elendil has a reason for saying what he did, so maybe it does say it. I just don't remember. I'm going to guess it is in Psalms, though, if it is there. Not for any particular reason but that it sounds like something that would fit in Psalms.

C.S. Lewis wrote some nice allegorical work involving life on other planets (Out of the Silent Planet, Perlandra, and that Hideous Strength) which means that at least one great Christian philospher didn't find it totally out of sync with the religion.

I had a friend who kept on insisting to me that the Bible mentioned aliens in the book of Job. He was wrong. I've read the book of Job and never found them.

I have never heard of a rich or privelliged person raping...

You aren't keeping up on criminal records or history. We just made an arrest in my country of an heir to a fortune who they finally caught after being on the run for quite a few years after raping a woman. A lot of historical rulers were rapists. It's actually not that odd. It is more likely in poorer neighborhoods, but this is because of poor security, I think.

Ok, you have a job, your job states you must be at work for 6am...you set your alarm to wake you up for then, you wake up now you can either go back to sleep and loose your job, therefore no money or you get up and be the slave of society and work and get money, which do you do?

Well, I could quit my job and look for a better one. I could get up. I could not get up.

I don't believe working makes me a slave of society. You've been reading too much Karl Marx. I prefer Frediric Bastiat.

I have plenty of options. Starvation is one of them. I would have to make the choice: Is getting up at six worse then starving? Logically most people would say it isn't so most people would go to work. Some wouldn't those people would have to face the consequences.

The rapist also has a choice before he becomes a rapist. He knows he would get temporary physical pleasure from this act. He also knows that he will be punished for this act if caught. He weighs this punishment against the pleasure and makes a decision. He also may take into consideration morality for he will obviously be hurting this woman. Just as a logical person would decide that going to work is better than starving, a logical-moral man would decide that not raping is better than raping.

You are confusing consequences and choice. Yes, you have to deal with consequences for your choices, but you still have to make those choices.

Uh...what question, can you c n p it please

tsk, tsk. . .lazy. ;)

You sort of did answer it. I repeated and rephrased it in the why section that follows.

If God has no preferences, how come these things bring us closer to him?

I would think it was because he likes them better. That is a definite preference. Killing a man is an experience. Giving to a man is an experience. Both are experiences. And you say that because one is spiritual and one is not one is bad. I really dont' see the reason why giving is spiritual and murdering is not. Both are doing something to another person. One is something that he wants you to do and the other (normally) isn't. So, it is better (preferential to God being better, because God would not have made this one bring him closer to him and the other not if he did not prefer one to the other) if the person likes it?

Therefore, in your system, God DOES have a preference. . .so we do have a good or at least a better. . .and if you have a better you must somewhere have a best and a worst.

I can see plenty of places where killing someone would serve someone. . .unless you are saying that it has a negative effect on their soul. If so, why? Is it because God made it so? If so, Why? Isn't it, logically, because he doesn't prefer this act (this experience) to the other and made it so? There, we have an evil or a bad.

Euphoric means pleasurable in an extreme way.

Celebthôl

07-18-2003, 01:24 PM

Elendil said it...

Why should he do that? God is everywhere and everything, therefore he can work with the entire universe if he wanted, not just favouritise on one family.

But if your bible does teach that there is only life on our planet, then we find more sometime, then your bible is groundless and worthless...right or wrong?

It might not be out of sinc, but your God has stated that there is no life on other planets (that is any form of life, no bending the rules) therefore if life was discovered, then your God is wrong, and so would the bible be...its just a matter of time now.

I dont enjoy reading up on criminals really

People who do rape are messed up spiritually i.e. their souls are in confusion, its the same with murderers and the like, and the more they do "bad" things the more msessed up they get, however God has plans for them.

Where do the consequences come from?

Society

In the ideal world, we get up when we want, work when we want and live happily with no social boundries.

OK, ill explain (bare with me); When we started out as life forms, we were very primitive (animals), the more experience we gained the more we evolved, from animals to humans. Now some people had the experience, but used their bodies to rape and murder, thus they stopped evolving, people like in Israel and Palastine who are always fighting, got so messed up that when they died they needed to kill still so they went back, they didnt care whos side they were on, and started over again all the killing, and they sink lower and lower in levels,. We as we are, if we are nice to each other will still evolve and get closer to ultimate knowledge. That is what we should aim for.

God has no preference, he knows we WILL all get to him, all it takes is time, so he doesnt care what we do, he wont send us to hell, he welcomes us to Heaven.

Yes killiing has a negative effect on the soul, it messes it up and stops the evloution of it, all "bad" acts do this.
God does not have preferences, it is just the way we are, i mean being bad to someone else is really being bad to yourself and to God, the only reason people do bad things is for the earthly pleasures, thats all, no other reason.

Everything we do (even this discussion) gains God experience, but "bad" things arent the way to ultimate knowledge, you must learn to love everything and not hate everything, killing and rape cause hate and anger, that is not what we should be aiming for.

(Thank you for the euphoric word definition :))

Malbeth

07-18-2003, 04:26 PM

I don't think the existence of aliens should disprove Christianity... "Christianity does not involve the belief that all things were made for man. It does involve the belief that God loves man and for his sake became man and died" "The skeptic asks how we can believe that God so 'came down' to this one tiny planet. The question would be embarassing if we knew (1) that there are rational creatures on any of the other bodies that float in space; (2) that they have, like us, fallen and need redemption; (3) that their redemption must be in the same mode as ours; (4) that redemption in this mode has been withheld from them. But we know none of them" C S Lewis; Miracles- Chapter 7.

I think this argument going on here in this exact moment is very interesting... I saw the Jodie Foster movie "Contact" on Monday... and all the time there is the idea that the discovery of intelligent life outside the earth would have important religious significance; but I couldn't see this significance! This made it a very amusing flick to watch.

Celebthôl

07-18-2003, 05:02 PM

Well what C.S.Lweis wrote depends on our perception of Jesus, you percieve him to be God and whatever, i percieve him to be someone that came to earth for different reasons.

Contact is a great film, i loved the end

"If she fell straight through, then why did the camera film 18 hours of static?" (Or something like that) :D great line :D

Well if the bible does say that there are deffinatly no other forms of life on any other planet in the vast expanse of the universe, but then we discover other life, it doesnt say much for the bible does it...?

Its just something to think about, there is no use in saying:

"Just because the bible was wrong about one thing, it doesnt mean it is wrong about the rest."

That would be clinging onto it, which is silly...

HLGStrider

07-19-2003, 02:11 AM

Well, as of yet, I haven't seen the part where it says that there isn't, and I think it is rather silly to keep discussing it as a fact until it is proven to be one.

I think you're clinging onto your beliefs, even though a few of the things have been proven wrong, so I wouldn't say it is silly.

I would suggest that if you are going to keep on using the word "bad" that you define it, and really, you can't say we just are. That is to say God does things without reasons, and therefore you can't have a thinking God. You have chance, and I'd have to agree with Eriol on this, it really doesn't sound like you believe in God.

I don't believe in Evolution so that arguement doesn't do anything for me, and really, it depends on A. If reincarnation is true (from what I am understanding of your take on Isreal). B. That good and bad are being forced on us by society.

I think this is faulty. You can't prove that it isn't.

Why should he do that? God is everywhere and everything, therefore he can work with the entire universe if he wanted, not just favouritise on one family.

He does it because earth is planned. Every bit of it is planned, and he uses people to lead to a result. He chooses these people carefully. Not at random.

I dont enjoy reading up on criminals really

I wouldn't suggest posting theories on them, then. It would be like me posting theories on carmotors or something else I have no knowledge of.

Where do the consequences come from?

They come from the action.

A man has unprotected sex with an HIV postive woman and gets HIV. Action: sex. Consequence: Disease.

Society, as you would put it, is the way people naturally form themselves. You put people anywhere in any circumstance and they will form a society or destroy themselves. It is actually a very good thing.

In the ideal world, we get up when we want, work when we want and live happily with no social boundries.

Is this ideal world on this world and still within the natural laws of it? If so, some man is still going to get HIV. Another man is till going to die when he crashes his car after driving drunk. You have removed society, but you haven't removed consequences. You've just changed them.

There are natural consequences and most laws that create unnatural consequences are meant to protect people from natural ones.

So, you're a political anarchist?

Everything we do (even this discussion) gains God experience, but "bad" things arent the way to ultimate knowledge, you must learn to love everything and not hate everything, killing and rape cause hate and anger, that is not what we should be aiming for

Why aren't they the way to it? Why do they cause hate and anger?

These, to me, sound like consequences. Natural ones at that. God, if you say he made this earth or directed it, must've made these consequences. Why would he do that if he really didn't care what we do?

Your god either has no logic and is self-contradictory, (doesn't exist) or does have preferences. . .otherwise he would've have made the way to him "good" and the way away from him "bad."

Elendil3119

07-19-2003, 03:10 AM

Originally posted by Celebthôl
Elendil said it...
Said what?:confused:

Celebthôl

07-19-2003, 12:52 PM

Originally posted by Elendil3119
Said what?:confused:
That the bible said there are no aliens...

Well, as of yet, I haven't seen the part where it says that there isn't, and I think it is rather silly to keep discussing it as a fact until it is proven to be one.
Agreed.

I think you're clinging onto your beliefs, even though a few of the things have been proven wrong, so I wouldn't say it is silly.

I am not, i have yet to see myself be proven wrong.

I would suggest that if you are going to keep on using the word "bad" that you define it, and really, you can't say we just are. That is to say God does things without reasons, and therefore you can't have a thinking God. You have chance, and I'd have to agree with Eriol on this, it really doesn't sound like you believe in God.
Bad: That which does not serve us.

I have told you, we were put on this earth for the ONLY purpose for God to experience himself, e.g how can a being that is everything, experience being? As he/she/it is everything it is also nothing, being and not-being, therefore it can never experience itself in its state, he/she/it came up with the perfect way to experience itself, us, he takes away our ultimate knowledge, and we are on our own, gaining experience for God, its as simple as that.

I don't believe in Evolution so that arguement doesn't do anything for me, and really, it depends on A. If reincarnation is true (from what I am understanding of your take on Isreal). B. That good and bad are being forced on us by society.

I think this is faulty. You can't prove that it isn't.

So what was Darwin going on about then? Evoloution is a prooven fact, there is no use in denying it, i give it 50 years and Christianity will be abolished, your'll see...

A - reincarnation is true, though i doubt you believe it.

B - not just society, religion and the government aswell.

He does it because earth is planned. Every bit of it is planned, and he uses people to lead to a result. He chooses these people carefully. Not at random.
Yes the earth was planned, but each person is as important as the last, i.e. the richest guy in the world is as important as the poorest. But God never chooses someone over another, EVER, he is telling us things right now, all the time, only we dont hear him, as we have be taught not to.

I wouldn't suggest posting theories on them, then. It would be like me posting theories on carmotors or something else I have no knowledge of.
Ok, i wont, it was only an example jeeze, we've been discussing it for the passed 20 odd pages...

They come from the action.

A man has unprotected sex with an HIV postive woman and gets HIV. Action: sex. Consequence: Disease.

And where did HIV come from?

Society, as you would put it, is the way people naturally form themselves. You put people anywhere in any circumstance and they will form a society or destroy themselves. It is actually a very good thing.
It is a good thing, but you add religion to the mix and it goes wrong, just like ours has.

Is this ideal world on this world and still within the natural laws of it? If so, some man is still going to get HIV. Another man is till going to die when he crashes his car after driving drunk. You have removed society, but you haven't removed consequences. You've just changed them.

There are natural consequences and most laws that create unnatural consequences are meant to protect people from natural ones.
In the ideal world there is no HIV (as i said before, go back to where is came from), there is no alcahol; where did alcahol come from? it was used at first for medicinal purposes, but in the ideal world it is not needed, this goes into very deep stuff, that i'll probibly post later on.

Define these; unatural consequences and Laws and then define the alternative, natural consequence.

So, you're a political anarchist?
With our political system, absoloutly.

Why aren't they the way to it? Why do they cause hate and anger?
Have you known those sort of actions to bring about anything that is good, or that serves you (im talking spiritually not physically)?

These, to me, sound like consequences. Natural ones at that. God, if you say he made this earth or directed it, must've made these consequences. Why would he do that if he really didn't care what we do?

Your god either has no logic and is self-contradictory, (doesn't exist) or does have preferences. . .otherwise he would've have made the way to him "good" and the way away from him "bad."
Why do you think he made them? What is left without right? Up without down? Forwards without backwards? That which serves us without that which does not?

No my God does not care what we do on this planet, we will all get to him no matter what, its just a matter of time.
He does exist, just not how you think, he does not have preferences, on our world anyway, he just watches us.
As i have said, have you known any form of rape or murder to serve us?
I havent...

HLGStrider

07-19-2003, 09:56 PM

So what was Darwin going on about then? Evoloution is a prooven fact, there is no use in denying it, i give it 50 years and Christianity will be abolished, your'll see...

Voltaire made the same prediction. . .And within a hundred years they were using his printing press to print Bibles. I won't see. Hopefully, you will.

Darwin's theory is actually not the one we are using today. It has been replaced by two alternative theories, one of which is called Neo-Darwinism (which was invented to make up for the fact that Darwin did not understand genetics in the slightest) and the other I forget the name of. . .It has a less technical sounding name. The Stop-Gap theory. . .Something like that. It's where things happen rapidly in a period of a thousand years then stop happening for a half-million, etc.

It is not a proven fact. For one thing, science cannot prove anything (that is a proven fact), for another if it were there would not be scientist who come to the lord through realizing that Darwinism has flaws, which it does. In fact, in the 1970's, British scientist, and evolutionist, Lord Zuckerman, said that if we exclude the possiblity of creation man must have evolved, but if he did there is no evidence of it in the fossil record.

I'm sure there have been discoveries since then, but in general it takes about twenty years for a missing link to be proven to be false. It has happened many times.

Piltdown man was discovered in 1912 and discredited in 1950 (38 years).
Nebraska man was discovered in 1922 and found to be a mistake within five.

Neanderthal Man was discovered in 1860 but according to some very good scientists is nothing more than a race of people who had deformed bones due to malntrition.

I can list some more if you'd like.

In general, these creatures have a short shelf life. I also noticed that my secular book store was carrying a book entitled "A Serious Bio-Chemical Challanged to Evolution" or something like that. I meant to get it, but they only had like two copies and they were out of stock by the time I had twenty dollars.

My personal take on this is that as long as there are serious, dissenting scientists, I can dissent. I bet I've read more on this than you have.

This is off topic, however.

I have told you, we were put on this earth for the ONLY purpose for God to experience himself, e.g how can a being that is everything, experience being? As he/she/it is everything it is also nothing, being and not-being, therefore it can never experience itself in its state, he/she/it came up with the perfect way to experience itself, us, he takes away our ultimate knowledge, and we are on our own, gaining experience for God, its as simple as that.

AH HA! A perfect way to experience God. And this way does not include rape or murder. So God, apparently quite accidentally, your god is very clumsy, has made somethings better, leading to him, and somethings worse. . .

Your God can't be everything and nothing or else it isn't anything. That is illogical. . .and a very limited, powerless God at that.

You say that God is everything. So therefore he would be in a rape as well. Therefore that should lead us to him just as giving would lead us to him. God cannot be everything and have only certain things lead to him. . .not without a reason, and it would have to be a pretty darn good one to convince me.

A - reincarnation is true, though i doubt you believe it.

No, I think I made it fairly clear that I don't, and I don't see a good reason to believe it either.

How often does God create original souls? The population is increasing, isn't it? So some of us have old souls and some of us have new souls. Sounds like a confusing system. . .and a rather inconvenient one.

But God never chooses someone over another, EVER, he is telling us things right now, all the time, only we dont hear him, as we have be taught not to.

If God does not have preferences, why does he bother to tell us to do things. If he doesnt' care or think one thing is better than another, why does he tell us to do one thing, when we could be doing another? And why does he have a plan? If he doesn't have preferences, it doesn't seem to me that he cares.

God does have preferences in people, but it doesn't really matter. God has an infinite amount of love so he is capable of giving more to one person without giving less to another. You can't reach the bottom of a bottomless pit.

Some people he loves more because they love him more. David was such as this.
Some people he loves more because they are very pure and so very close to him (Enoch).

And where did HIV come from?

I assume you are talking about the theory that it was created by scientists in Africa. I don't know much about that theory, though I have heard of it. We don't have to use HIV (I was using it because of spelling). We can use Gonarea, Syphylis, Herpes etc. . .

Most of them come from virruses.

Define these; unatural consequences and Laws and then define the alternative, natural consequence.

Well, I was only using the word natural and unnatural to humor you, but I will use the words to mean caused by humans and caused by natural, built into nature, laws.

Unnatural Consequences are any consequences to an action that wouldn't occur if left to chance, punishment, normally caused by humans (This is of course assuming that you don't think humans are natural).
Natural Consequences are any result that happens because of an action and comes from non-human responses.

There.

Personally, however, I find that our judgement system is natural. In general, we make laws, unnatural consequences, to protect people from natural consequences.

The natural consequence of killing someone is that someone dies. To prevent this we created the "unnatural" consequence of if you kill someone we do so and so to you (what depends on the culture).

, but in the ideal world it is not needed, this goes into very deep stuff, that i'll probibly post later on.

so your ideal world doesn't have consequences? Even natural ones (no sickness. . .what about accidents? If a man walks off a cliff in this world is he going to break bones and experience pain?)?

If this is ideal, why didn't God create this world. It seems that this world is closer to him. . .OH! I forgot, he doesn't have preferences, so really he doesn't care if we get hurt or not. Hurt and non-hurt are the same to him.

And you claim your god is more caring?

Why do you think he made them? What is left without right? Up without down? Forwards without backwards? That which serves us without that which does not?

Up without down is still up. We'd probably have to have another name on it.

So, in this case, God has an up and a down, a serve and a nonserve. . . and you say he doesn't have preferences, so why does he prefer the non-serves, and why are those the nonserves?

Imagine a world without a down. An all powerful God could go beyond our logic and do this. He could make an up without a down. . .Why could he not make a serve without a nonserve? Unless he isnt' all powerful, and then you've lost another one of your claims that you made.

With our political system, absoloutly.

So there can be a good one (and which one, we don't share the same form of government.).

You can't be an anarchist then. You don't believe in no government, just that we have the wrong sort.

Have you known those sort of actions to bring about anything that is good, or that serves you (im talking spiritually not physically)?

Well, you say that Anger and Hate are wrong. Let us say there is a man who I am angry at and hate. I can't be angry at him and hate him if he is gone, so I destroy him by murdering him. He is gone. Therefore, I cannot hate him, logically. Logically I've ended a problem. . .Unless for some reason I have done something "wrong." I don't see why God, as you describe him, would be opposed to this. I just killed a man who I hated to stop myself from hating. . .again assuming that you have a reason for making hate wrong.

God is everything. Therefore God must be hate as well as love. He can't be love without hate, according to your logic, anymore than he can be up without down, so in that case hate is expereiencing him as well.

Unless he isn't hate, and then we do have a bad thing bad not because it doesn't serve, but because it isn't God.

No my God does not care what we do on this planet, we will all get to him no matter what, its just a matter of time.

So he doesn't care if we rape. Then how come after we do it we have to try again (with your reincarnation system).

You have a major flaw in your logic. A big hole right in the middle because you have right and wrong and at the same time you don't.

Celebthôl

07-19-2003, 11:51 PM

Dear Lord, and i though my post was long :D

This is off topic, however.

Agreed, another point we wont get to the bottom of...

AH HA! A perfect way to experience God. And this way does not include rape or murder. So God, apparently quite accidentally, your god is very clumsy, has made somethings better, leading to him, and somethings worse. . .

Your God can't be everything and nothing or else it isn't anything. That is illogical. . .and a very limited, powerless God at that.

You say that God is everything. So therefore he would be in a rape as well. Therefore that should lead us to him just as giving would lead us to him. God cannot be everything and have only certain things lead to him. . .not without a reason, and it would have to be a pretty darn good one to convince me.

When we get to a certain stage in evolving, i.e. our state now, then rape and murder drag us down, i mean we have gained that experience already, and now we are civilized (well slightly more) and so it is the good things that pull ud forward not the bad.

How often does God create original souls? The population is increasing, isn't it? So some of us have old souls and some of us have new souls. Sounds like a confusing system. . .and a rather inconvenient one.

You arent listening, God is everything, this world is all his imagining, therefore he can create as many souls as he likes, once we are made however we wont be unmade, God is more humain (sp) than that, therefore we can live again i.e. be reincarnated.

If God does not have preferences, why does he bother to tell us to do things. If he doesnt' care or think one thing is better than another, why does he tell us to do one thing, when we could be doing another? And why does he have a plan? If he doesn't have preferences, it doesn't seem to me that he cares.

God does have preferences in people, but it doesn't really matter. God has an infinite amount of love so he is capable of giving more to one person without giving less to another. You can't reach the bottom of a bottomless pit.

Some people he loves more because they love him more. David was such as this.
Some people he loves more because they are very pure and so very close to him (Enoch).

He does not have preferences for the last time, for all you know he is telling you what you are writting right now, and the same with me, there is a reason out of our control we are having this debate, God is the cause of it.

Nothing is bottomless, even a bottomless pit, except your imagination and as you say Love, Why should God be able to love more than us? Infact he can only love exactly the same, because we are all God.

He loves us all the same, or else he is not a fair God, he loves unconditionally (sp) i.e. he doesnt need us to love him for him to love us the same ammount as someone who loves him back.

I assume you are talking about the theory that it was created by scientists in Africa. I don't know much about that theory, though I have heard of it. We don't have to use HIV (I was using it because of spelling). We can use Gonarea, Syphylis, Herpes etc. . .

Most of them come from virruses.

Yes i was, but there is a reason the viruses are there, and if you look into the origins of them all then they more than likely come from scientists....

Personally, however, I find that our judgement system is natural. In general, we make laws, unnatural consequences, to protect people from natural consequences.

The natural consequence of killing someone is that someone dies. To prevent this we created the "unnatural" consequence of if you kill someone we do so and so to you (what depends on the culture).

So because the law exists it therefore stops the person getting raped or the other person murdered?! Not at all, the rape or murder still happens wether a law againts it exists or not.

So you think it is alright to kill a murderer or rapist?

Forgive me for not seeing why.

It is more of a punishment to let the live, the day you die is the best day of your life, your'll see.

so your ideal world doesn't have consequences? Even natural ones (no sickness. . .what about accidents? If a man walks off a cliff in this world is he going to break bones and experience pain?)?

If this is ideal, why didn't God create this world. It seems that this world is closer to him. . .OH! I forgot, he doesn't have preferences, so really he doesn't care if we get hurt or not. Hurt and non-hurt are the same to him.

And you claim your god is more caring?

No it doesnt, but my ideal world doesnt contain rape, as there is not social pressure etc to force people into it.
Now you opened a can of worms, If the guy fe