[Dreamz]

Ok I understand where you're coming from a little better. Fan of the serpent eh? You should read Paradise Lost by Milton. Interesting perspective from the Devil. While there is a certain charm to the 'rebelliousness' of Satan and his defiance of supreme authority in the face of certain defeat, other descriptions of him in the Bible aren't so cool...he's a bit of an ass really.

Good luck on your book.

[Gem Windcaster]

Dreamz, on Nov 29 2008, 09:10 PM, said:

While there is a certain charm to the 'rebelliousness' of Satan and his defiance of supreme authority in the face of certain defeat, other descriptions of him in the Bible aren't so cool...he's a bit of an ass really.

Not to mention the fact that his winning chances are repeatedly described as being like a fart in the wind - i.e. he's a loser. The only reason he can do anything is because God allows it - and he knows it.

This post has been edited by Gem Windcaster: 30 November 2008 - 05:31 PM

[frookenhauer]

Hey dreamz. Yeah, Milton is on my list of things to read in the near future, but so much to do and so little time . As for his story in the bible...Try to remember who's writing it, they are not exactly going to make him out to have many redeeming features are they? Think of it as propaganda, after all he is the bad guy...And I cannot wait until we get to meet the big guy, I'm surprised he's yet to show his face, because he is so much a part of the whole package. And he is an angel after all, so why the red skin and pitchfork? Like I said, propaganda.

Gem, don't worry, you need not reply, but isn' it interesting how much influence he has these days...Things like its cool to be bad and open devil worship, he's come a long way and I wish him all the best

Edit: BTW cheers Dreamz, but I'm going to need more than luck and that special quality that Roy Castle had oodles of...Dedication

This post has been edited by frookenhauer: 30 November 2008 - 07:11 PM

[Aptorian]

frookenhauer, on Nov 30 2008, 08:10 PM, said:

Gem, don't worry, you need not reply, but isn' it interesting how much influence he has these days...Things like its cool to be bad and open devil worship, he's come a long way and I wish him all the best

I absolutely hate it when people suggest that they're rooting for the devil or that they'd rather go to hell than heaven. While I love watching religious/satanic horror/thrillers where the devil try to invoke the apocalypse, , in reality I can't see who in their right mind wants Satan to win.

You won't be going down into some kind of cozy cavernsystem in red colors with rockfestivals and slutty strippers. You're going to burn in hell, you'll be starved, dismembered, spitted, consumed. boiled, raped and what ever other crazy punishment you've earned for your wicked ways. And it won't be for a an hour or a day or a year... it's for freaking eternity. It's not fun. It's not something to look forward to. It... is... terrifying!

I think the primary reason for me not believing in God... heaven and hell... is that the idea of this supernatural otherworld scares the crap out of me. What if it's actually true?! How unlilely is that. What if you died and you woke up and you find yourself standing before a big scary angel that starts reciting every good and bad thing you've ever done? I can tell you that the list of sins I've done makes me more than a little warry of the prospect of hell.

I prefer to be an agnostic because if Hell actually exists I wouldn't want to be a risk a christian punishment. And I'm way to lazy to try and be a good boy.

[Terez]

Aptorian, on Nov 30 2008, 03:49 PM, said:

I absolutely hate it when people suggest that they're rooting for the devil or that they'd rather go to hell than heaven. While I love watching religious/satanic horror/thrillers where the devil try to invoke the apocalypse, , in reality I can't see who in their right mind wants Satan to win.

No one does - the ones who say that generally don't believe Satan, or God, or heaven or hell, are real.

[Gem Windcaster]

Apt, if you keep this up, I'll have to somehow swear my allegiance to you, or worse I'll pm you another of those 'I respect you' messages, and we know where that ends; not good...not good at all.



- Gem, being purely academic about it...

This post has been edited by Gem Windcaster: 30 November 2008 - 11:56 PM

[Lisheo]

Aptorian, on Nov 30 2008, 09:49 PM, said:

frookenhauer, on Nov 30 2008, 08:10 PM, said:

Gem, don't worry, you need not reply, but isn' it interesting how much influence he has these days...Things like its cool to be bad and open devil worship, he's come a long way and I wish him all the best

I absolutely hate it when people suggest that they're rooting for the devil or that they'd rather go to hell than heaven. While I love watching religious/satanic horror/thrillers where the devil try to invoke the apocalypse, , in reality I can't see who in their right mind wants Satan to win.

You won't be going down into some kind of cozy cavernsystem in red colors with rockfestivals and slutty strippers. You're going to burn in hell, you'll be starved, dismembered, spitted, consumed. boiled, raped and what ever other crazy punishment you've earned for your wicked ways. And it won't be for a an hour or a day or a year... it's for freaking eternity. It's not fun. It's not something to look forward to. It... is... terrifying!

I think the primary reason for me not believing in God... heaven and hell... is that the idea of this supernatural otherworld scares the crap out of me. What if it's actually true?! How unlilely is that. What if you died and you woke up and you find yourself standing before a big scary angel that starts reciting every good and bad thing you've ever done? I can tell you that the list of sins I've done makes me more than a little warry of the prospect of hell.

I prefer to be an agnostic because if Hell actually exists I wouldn't want to be a risk a christian punishment. And I'm way to lazy to try and be a good boy.

I have to agree with you, Apt. In a form. While I'm closer to atheist than agnostic, I've done enough seriously, seriously bad things in my short life to really regret them. Anyone who votes for the Devil in an apocalyptic cult form of way obviously has never learnt anything. I greatly enjoy Frookie's thread, but its not even the thought of eternal damnation that gets me, its the whole actually having a conscience. I don't have a particular leaning towards belief in either heaven or hell lol, but the fact is I tend to follow the "love thy neighbour business" simply because theres enough in my very short life that I wish I hadn't done. It makes me genuinely think that anyone who says "Hail Satan!" and commits dastardly deeds is looking for attention more than anything, and just simply hasn't enough maturity to feel responsible for their deeds.

Lisheo, hail Steven (Erikson)!

[Gem Windcaster]

Lisheo, on Dec 1 2008, 02:18 AM, said:

It makes me genuinely think that anyone who says "Hail Satan!" and commits dastardly deeds is looking for attention more than anything, and just simply hasn't enough maturity to feel responsible for their deeds.

Couldn't agree with you more.

[Vicodin&FantasyBooks]

Gem Windcaster, on Dec 1 2008, 01:48 AM, said:

Lisheo, on Dec 1 2008, 02:18 AM, said:

It makes me genuinely think that anyone who says "Hail Satan!" and commits dastardly deeds is looking for attention more than anything, and just simply hasn't enough maturity to feel responsible for their deeds.

Couldn't agree with you more.

I've certainly been there. 'Hail Satan' I mean. It's good for a while especially on the internet since it's a great way to vent or simply to have some fun without any fear of consequences. Actually it's a great lesson on how much fear of the consequences plays a part in what you call being 'good'.

After going through what I have, I can say I no longer have any fear for death or life for that matter, I acknowledge that life works out in many different direction and I generally keep a better perspective on events.

The most important thing I learned is how to lose an argument. I believe I've always known how to win one but I did end up pushing away a lot of people through simply coming off superior even if I had basis to feel superior.

And I believe that you missunderstand the 'Hail Satan' people out there. They're in no way irresponsible but more so they believe they don't have any moral ties to society - that if you force them to take responsibility for their actions then that's all fine and well but if you can't then you're the weak one.

In the end they might act responsibly on a whim even do good deeds but they very strongly believe in free will and doing things out of your own innitiative rather than because it's supposed to be that way. So naturally they're gonna have some good days and some bad days. It's another thing that most people remember only the bad days.

[frookenhauer]

Wow! Looks like Satan doesn't seem to have many fans...We have not come to Satan just yet, and according to some, mostly insightful conversations I've had in the past with Gem, sources Satan does not actually do any of the torturing in the Hellfire. His main job seems to be turning people away from the Lord. If anyone remembers the all loving God and his bet with Satan over Job and whether he would be able to turn Job to the Dark side...Anyway, as we have not yet come to Satan and his trials and tribulations, I'm not going to go into it too much, but I will say this:

God: Wiped out the world with a flood. Regularly picks on the Egyptians for no apparent reason. Anger, jealousy, greed, sloth and pride...5 of the seven can be applied to him regularly in Genesis

Satan: Refused to bow down to Adam. Use of 'lies' to turn people away from God.

Sound like the lesser of the two evils to me. Also, its worth keeping it in mind that all the writing in the bible has been done by his enemies and I'm sure that they are not going to paint him in the best light. Propaganda...Angels don't have bat wings and pitchforks and are not red...at least I hope they are not.

All Hail the Serpent!

[frookenhauer]

Right...Its time to move forward with Genesis. We've just had the crazy foreskin orgy and I'm not sure how the rest is going to top that, but you never know...Chapter 18

Quote

1 And the LORD appeared unto him by the terebinths of Mamre, as he sat in the tent door in the heat of the day; 2 and he lifted up his eyes and looked, and, lo, three men stood over against him; and when he saw them, he ran to meet them from the tent door, and bowed down to the earth, 3 and said: 'My lord, if now I have found favour in thy sight, pass not away, I pray thee, from thy servant. 4 Let now a little water be fetched, and wash your feet, and recline yourselves under the tree. 5 And I will fetch a morsel of bread, and stay ye your heart; after that ye shall pass on; forasmuch as ye are come to your servant.' And they said: 'So do, as thou hast said.' 6 And Abraham hastened into the tent unto Sarah, and said: 'Make ready quickly three measures of fine meal, knead it, and make cakes.' 7 And Abraham ran unto the herd, and fetched a calf tender and good, and gave it unto the servant; and he hastened to dress it. 8 And he took curd, and milk, and the calf which he had dressed, and set it before them; and he stood by them under the tree, and they did eat. 9 And they said unto him: 'Where is Sarah thy wife?' And he said: 'Behold, in the tent.' 10 And He said: 'I will certainly return unto thee when the season cometh round; and, lo, Sarah thy wife shall have a son.' And Sarah heard in the tent door, which was behind him.-- 11 Now Abraham and Sarah were old, and well stricken in age; it had ceased to be with Sarah after the manner of women.-- 12 And Sarah laughed within herself, saying: 'After I am waxed old shall I have pleasure, my lord being old also?' 13 And the LORD said unto Abraham: 'Wherefore did Sarah laugh, saying: Shall I of a surety bear a child, who am old? 14 Is any thing too hard for the LORD. At the set time I will return unto thee, when the season cometh round, and Sarah shall have a son.' 15 Then Sarah denied, saying: 'I laughed not'; for she was afraid. And He said: 'Nay; but thou didst laugh.' 16 And the men rose up from thence, and looked out toward Sodom; and Abraham went with them to bring them on the way. 17 And the LORD said: 'Shall I hide from Abraham that which I am doing; 18 seeing that Abraham shall surely become a great and mighty nation, and all the nations of the earth shall be blessed in him? 19 For I have known him, to the end that he may command his children and his household after him, that they may keep the way of the LORD, to do righteousness and justice; to the end that the LORD may bring upon Abraham that which He hath spoken of him.' 20 And the LORD said: 'Verily, the cry of Sodom and Gomorrah is great, and, verily, their sin is exceeding grievous. 21 I will go down now, and see whether they have done altogether according to the cry of it, which is come unto Me; and if not, I will know.' 22 And the men turned from thence, and went toward Sodom; but Abraham stood yet before the LORD. 23 And Abraham drew near, and said: 'Wilt Thou indeed sweep away the righteous with the wicked? 24 Peradventure there are fifty righteous within the city; wilt Thou indeed sweep away and not forgive the place for the fifty righteous that are therein? 25 That be far from Thee to do after this manner, to slay the righteous with the wicked, that so the righteous should be as the wicked; that be far from Thee; shall not the Judge of all the earth do justly?' 26 And the LORD said: 'If I find in Sodom fifty righteous within the city, then I will forgive all the place for their sake.' 27 And Abraham answered and said: 'Behold now, I have taken upon me to speak unto the LORD, who am but dust and ashes. 28 Peradventure there shall lack five of the fifty righteous; wilt Thou destroy all the city for lack of five?' And He said: 'I will not destroy it, if I find there forty and five.' 29 And he spoke unto Him yet again, and said: 'Peradventure there shall be forty found there.' And He said: 'I will not do it for the forty's sake.' 30 And he said: 'Oh, let not the LORD be angry, and I will speak. Peradventure there shall thirty be found there.' And He said: 'I will not do it, if I find thirty there.' 31 And he said: 'Behold now, I have taken upon me to speak unto the LORD. Peradventure there shall be twenty found there.' And He said: 'I will not destroy it for the twenty's sake.' 32 And he said: 'Oh, let not the LORD be angry, and I will speak yet but this once. Peradventure ten shall be found there.' And He said: 'I will not destroy it for the ten's sake.' 33 And the LORD went His way, as soon as He had left off speaking to Abraham; and Abraham returned unto his place.

Who are the other two men with God? And God sitting at a table eating yogurt and milk and roasted calf and cakes? What? That's just awesome: "Honey, we've got guests tonight, so whip up a storm for me will ya?"..."Sure baby, who's coming?"..."God."...*shrieks*..."Wat?" And this time he has...henchmen? I suppose they are, cos he's off to do some destructing by the looks of it. Still can't get my head round the concept of God coming round to dinner...and eating. That's...nice and is something he should not have given up (if he ever started) and seeing as he is omnipotent we could all have had a god day once a month when god comes round for dinner and seeing as he is omnipotent he could magic up dinner for the poor folk...God is good god is great, whenever he comes I get food on my plate Anyway, back in the real world ...

Abraham is 'fighting' for the survival of Sodom and Gomorrah, which is interesting seeing as it was he who inflicted the plagues upon the Egyptians, you would have thought he'd have just said "Its up to you lord, they are as nothing to me." Instead he seems to have mellowed with age (huh?) or has been promised a son or whatever and he manages to get the lord to agree to not kill the people if he can find 10 people who do not sin (righteous? Hmm, just so long as you believe in the Lord you can sell your wife so...) and he started at 50. Remind me never to haggle with Abraham...he is one tough negotiator. And then God goes off, trying to catch up to his henchmen, no doubt.

So its dinner and destruction...All in a days work for God. In many ways I am glad God has taken a back seat in terms of being around cos there would be lot of places on the planet that would get swallowed up, but knowing the people in Las Vegas, if they got one whiff of impending doom, they'd hire 100 Christians/Jews/Islamists to just hang around the place and make sure that they're on the safe side. Somebody aught to send a message to Sodom and Gomorrah...

[Lisheo]

Vicodin&FantasyBooks, on Dec 1 2008, 07:15 PM, said:

Gem Windcaster, on Dec 1 2008, 01:48 AM, said:

Lisheo, on Dec 1 2008, 02:18 AM, said:

It makes me genuinely think that anyone who says "Hail Satan!" and commits dastardly deeds is looking for attention more than anything, and just simply hasn't enough maturity to feel responsible for their deeds.

Couldn't agree with you more.

I've certainly been there. 'Hail Satan' I mean. It's good for a while especially on the internet since it's a great way to vent or simply to have some fun without any fear of consequences. Actually it's a great lesson on how much fear of the consequences plays a part in what you call being 'good'.

After going through what I have, I can say I no longer have any fear for death or life for that matter, I acknowledge that life works out in many different direction and I generally keep a better perspective on events.

The most important thing I learned is how to lose an argument. I believe I've always known how to win one but I did end up pushing away a lot of people through simply coming off superior even if I had basis to feel superior.

And I believe that you missunderstand the 'Hail Satan' people out there. They're in no way irresponsible but more so they believe they don't have any moral ties to society - that if you force them to take responsibility for their actions then that's all fine and well but if you can't then you're the weak one.

In the end they might act responsibly on a whim even do good deeds but they very strongly believe in free will and doing things out of your own innitiative rather than because it's supposed to be that way. So naturally they're gonna have some good days and some bad days. It's another thing that most people remember only the bad days.

Oh no, I understand it, and for the record I have absolutely no fear of death either, and my catchphrase is pretty much "things will work out in the end" lol. Being good is more than obeying rules and laws though. Its human empathy. When I was younger, I went through a great deal of unpleasantness, and I wouldn't willingly inflict pain on another normal human being because of that. Because I know what its like. I take full responsibility for my actions, as much as possible, too. I don't need someone to force me. And it is not out of fear or moral obligation but because if you don't, well, you're running from your own acts, and that is weakness, and indeed immaturity.
As for fear of the consequences? *shrugs* whatever happens happens. I'm not worried about them.
I do good deeds myself, and when I was younger, I did my share of bad deads, but really I wasn't anything more than an extremely wild and messed up kid, no matter what I thought back then. I regret the things I did now. Not necessarily because of consequences on my own life, but on the lives of others.
Personally, I think Satanists are simply unable to connect to other people on any meaningful emotional level, and so hide behind a facade of "free will" and "not having moral ties".
Bear in mind I've known a few self-styled Satanists. In the end, its all crap really, from my experience. Just my two cents.

[Vicodin&FantasyBooks]

frookenhauer, on Dec 1 2008, 10:39 PM, said:

Wow! Looks like Satan doesn't seem to have many fans...We have not come to Satan just yet, and according to some, mostly insightful conversations I've had in the past with Gem, sources Satan does not actually do any of the torturing in the Hellfire. His main job seems to be turning people away from the Lord. If anyone remembers the all loving God and his bet with Satan over Job and whether he would be able to turn Job to the Dark side...Anyway, as we have not yet come to Satan and his trials and tribulations, I'm not going to go into it too much, but I will say this:

God: Wiped out the world with a flood. Regularly picks on the Egyptians for no apparent reason. Anger, jealousy, greed, sloth and pride...5 of the seven can be applied to him regularly in Genesis

Satan: Refused to bow down to Adam. Use of 'lies' to turn people away from God.

Sound like the lesser of the two evils to me. Also, its worth keeping it in mind that all the writing in the bible has been done by his enemies and I'm sure that they are not going to paint him in the best light. Propaganda...Angels don't have bat wings and pitchforks and are not red...at least I hope they are not.

All Hail the Serpent!

Angels as portrayed in the Neon Genesis Evangelion - End of Evangelion come close to your idea of angels as a whole. They're not evil-looking per say but they do quite the horrific acts.

Another possibility is that that particular image in the movie stresses on the assumption that those angels were created by human technology or at least human technology is harnessing their power. But who is to say that we didn't create angels or at least the idea of what angels should be for the purposes of our religion. Just like the angels in the movie were created for particular purposes.

As the named Satanist here I'd like to think my purpose is to give new directions to this conversation - try to avert you from the scriptures and into exploring other artistic expressions of human reality. I feel quite evil now.

This post has been edited by Vicodin&FantasyBooks: 02 December 2008 - 07:39 AM

[Darkwatch]

Vicodin&FantasyBooks, on Dec 2 2008, 02:33 AM, said:

Angels as portrayed in the Neon Genesis Evangelion - End of Evangelion come close to your idea of angels as a whole. They're not evil-looking per say but they do quite the horrific acts.

Another possibility is that that particular image in the movie stresses on the assumption that those angels were created by human technology or at least human technology is harnessing their power. But who is to say that we didn't create angels or at least the idea of what angels should be for the purposes of our religion. Just like the angels in the movie were created for particular purposes.

As the named Satanist here I'd like to think my purpose is to give new directions to this conversation - try to avert you from the scriptures and into exploring other artistic expressions of human reality. I feel quite evil now.

You did not, just bring anime into a disscussion about religion...
And I thought this thread couldn't sink any further...

[frookenhauer]

Darkwatch, on Dec 2 2008, 05:28 PM, said:

You did not, just bring anime into a disscussion about religion...And I thought this thread couldn't sink any further...

Hey! Nobody usurps my position as the arbiter of sinkage...No one! I would like to talk about poo, its brown and stuff and...See Wat I did there?

Hey Vic! When you were doing the whole Satanist thing, did you do the whole Goth thing? I'm going to have a look at the anime, just for kicks

[Vicodin&FantasyBooks]

frookenhauer, on Dec 2 2008, 07:02 PM, said:

Darkwatch, on Dec 2 2008, 05:28 PM, said:

You did not, just bring anime into a disscussion about religion...And I thought this thread couldn't sink any further...

Hey! Nobody usurps my position as the arbiter of sinkage...No one! I would like to talk about poo, its brown and stuff and...See Wat I did there?

Hey Vic! When you were doing the whole Satanist thing, did you do the whole Goth thing? I'm going to have a look at the anime, just for kicks

Darkwitch: There used to be good animes just like there used to be good movies. There aren't much of them presently and if you think about it there's not too many of them merely one or two per year in the past 20 years. It's only a matter of shared memmory that bad movies are forgotten. And some people take that into thinking that there are less good movies today than there were in the past.

The same happens with anime and since the industry is in a flourish right now the mass of animes produced is so overpowering that when inevitably most of them are crap people would think that it's all that anime is.

Now tell me: You didn't just make a sweeping broad generalization over a whole art-form in a thread about Religion. Cuz if you're into sweeping generalizations I'm quite good at those myself.

frook: nah I never dressed by any particular fashion. And I was more like "Satan could be my thing just as good as Jesus. Or both... or neither..."

PP: Anyway I'm into the second Malazan book so I hope I'll be moving to the other forums soon instead of spending too much time here . So don't get in any long term arguments with me. I certainly don't intend to do that and you shouldn't as well.

This post has been edited by Vicodin&FantasyBooks: 02 December 2008 - 07:27 PM

[Epiph]

Whew, this is going to be a long one...in more than one post.

frookenhauer, on Nov 29 2008, 12:52 PM, said:

Let me rephrase that...@ Gem, you seem to have scared Epiph away! She must have looked at one of your two page replies and pegged it! Well done ...Better? (Sorry Terez)

Not so! I was just taking time away from brain scalding religious discussion over the (thankfully not Christian) Thanksgiving Holiday.

Terez, on Nov 26 2008, 07:29 PM, said:

...the fear of death creates the need for the supernatural, and also, the fear of life (the fear that our actions are futile, and our lives meaningless, struggles against the world with fleeting moments of happiness).

As an interesting side note, the book Blue Zones details the 4 places in the world where people live the longest and one of the common factors is religious belief. It makes a lot of sense for two reasons: those involved in religion are generally involved in a community, which in turn gives one's life purpose, neatly avoiding the mires of depression; and by giving up the responsibility of one's life to God, one releases a certain amount of stress from one's life.

Quote

Additionally, it does not seem that religion, whether organized or individual/personal, has served us very well in conquering these fears, or addressing them in a manner consistent with the philosophy that we do not know if there is life after death, and our the impact of our efforts is most evident when we focus them on that which we can know, and that which we can do in the here and now.

I know a lot of people for whom spiritual belief acts as a soothing tonic. My grandmother, a Southern Baptist of the thrice weekly church going sort, is "ready for the Lord to take her," and my mother, a New Age hippie sort, cannot get through the day without meditating and finds a great deal of relief in the idea of reincarnation.

Gem Windcaster, on Nov 26 2008, 08:20 PM, said:

Hey, let me first say that I find myself enjoying this discussion/exchange of thought I have with you, Epiph.

Happy to oblige

Gem said:

Epiph, on Nov 26 2008, 10:23 PM, said:

Literal: in accordance with, involving, or being the primary or strict meaning of the word or words; not figurative or metaphorical.

I'm sorry, I should have been clearer, I understand what the word means, but what does it mean in this context? What is this literal interpretation according to you? I'll explain more below.

It means exactly that definition. It means a day is a 24-hour solar cycle, that the God created the world in those 7 24-hour solar cycles, the specific order mentioned, that Adam was created from dust and Eve from an actual rib in Adam's actual chest cavity, and that they lived the number of years accorded to them. The only thing that is open for discussion in a literal interpretation is the translation from the original Hebrew. If somehow the Hebrew suggests that one of those 7 days was not a 24-hour solar cycle, then ok, otherwise, a literal interpretation means exactly what it is says.

Gem said:

Epiph, on Nov 26 2008, 10:23 PM, said:

Science, as I understand its laws, principles, and generally accepted as proven by time theories cannot coexist with a literal interpretation of the Bible.

You bind together the conclusions drawn and the scientific proven data then?

I'm pretty sure that's how the scientific method works: question, research, hypothesize, test, analyze, draw conclusions.

Gem said:

I understand that we might be defining science differently. Maybe I am alone in defining science this way, and that is why science don't clash with my faith. To me science is neutral, not clogged by the conclusions drawn for the benefit of one single ideology. I realize it may well be a completely new way of looking at science, but I can't help but think I am not alone in this.

(My emphasis) Conclusions drawn from scientifically rigorous experiments, conducted according to the scientific method as outlined above are not being drawn to benefit any ideology but humanity's incessant search for truth.

Gem said:

Epiph, on Nov 26 2008, 10:23 PM, said:

I will always be swayed by a good argument, which is why I now count myself among the ranks of the atheists, agnostics, and non-believers of the world; Dawkins makes a good case. In any case, I have never been Christian, though I used to be deist, and I still greatly admire the faith and belief of religious people. Socrates seems to have been opposed to religious thought, while Plato thought that religion was useful in that it gave a populace a reason for morality, and Marx called it the opiate of the masses; and that's pretty much where I stand on religion. I only wish it were an opiate that worked for me.

I am not one of those people that wants religion for religions sake. I want the truth. I guess that's why I have no problem incorporating science in my worldview - it's a tool for truth and nothing else. As it happens I can't deny God any more than I can deny my bodily senses.

And by God, you mean Jesus Christ as your Lord and Savior? What is it about Christianity that is as undeniable to you as the need for breath? I can understand someone believing in God, in a generic deist or theist sense, simply believing there is something more than what we can quantitatively measure, but I don't understand how one's faith gets anymore specific than that.

Gem said:

Epiph, on Nov 26 2008, 10:23 PM, said:

Quote

Well, yes, that is part of my point. But does that mean it opposes science? Imo it doesn't. It opposes certain conclusions drawn from science, but that is another story altogether.

But many of those conclusions make up the body of scientific knownledge currently held to be true, which is what I think most of us mean when we say "science." Inaccurate terminology. I'll try to be more precise.

So yes, science to you seems to be what the majority of the scientific community holds as true, while I see science as a neutral force for truth. I think that makes me both more skeptical than the average scientist and more open to changes in my worldview at the same time.

When you disagree with the conclusions of the majority of the scientific community, what are you basing your disagreement on? As far as I know, the people who generally disagree with the majority of the scientific community either do so because they are experts in a field and have drawn different conclusions (see global warming), or because their faith doesn't line up with the scientific conclusions (see evolution). The rest are withholding judgement: one reads up on a body of knowledge and isn't convinced by the available data (my boyfriend feels this way about a lot of dietary research, and is probably right to doubt it, because our understanding of diet seems to change every 10 years or so).

Gem said:

Back to the literal discussion. My point here is that it's not so clear what exactly the bible means regarding certain points. For example. It says God created the world in 7 days. But what does that mean, practically? Was the time even the same? 1000 years is like one day for God, and one day is like 1000 years. Meaning, that likely the time frame of 7 days wouldn't make sense to us, here today. If we assume that light is linked to time, which Einstein hinted at, then at what point did God create time? Did he manage to create time before the sun? Or is the 'let there be light' phrase actually meant to indicate the creation of time?`The sun was created later, so there is some mystery what is really meant? Does it even matter? Each and every one of the phrases in the Genesis story can be dismantled in similar ways. Meaning science doesn't have enough data to compare to the bible story.
I know, it looks like cheating from my part, but I am honestly not trying to!

It's totally fine to look at the Bible that way. I prefer to look at the Bible more in a more historical context, and, honestly, if one is being revisionist anyway, I don't see any reason for Christian or Jew to not look at the Bible within its historic context: God would reveal himself to his worshipers in whatever way was appropriate to their current development. My point is that looking at the Bible that way is not interpreting it literally.

Gem said:

Using the word literal in this context doesn't help us at all, because there is no such thing as literal with large parts of the bible. It is simply not written for the purpose of us knowing everything. It tells us things on a need to know basis - and there can be tons of different reasons - among them that we simply wouldn't accept it or even understand it. I don't have the answer. Most Christians never really ponder on it, because all they really need is to trust God. But that doesn't mean that the answers doesn't exist, just that we might not get them. Yet. (I believe we will get them)

Right. Exactly. Because you can't interpret the Bible literally and accept that the universe operates in the way that science explains it.

[Epiph]

Gem Windcaster, on Nov 26 2008, 08:22 PM, said:

Epiph, on Nov 26 2008, 10:23 PM, said:

Quote

I don't agree with you. To me both the old and the new testament points to the mercy and glory of God, both points to Christ.

I'm interested in how you see the mercy of God in the Old Testament...I suppose he does generally save his people after brutally testing them...

It's a matter of really digging into the text, I guess. Granted, the rules changed officially with the new covenant, and the old testament shows very clearly why the new covenant was needed at all. If you read the old testament as a story of 'how you should act' then I can see how it can be confusing. But in reality it is a history book, and if you read it as such, and objectively see what decisions the humans make and what God does, then it suddenly get very different.

Heh. Oh, I definitely view the Old Testament as a history book, and I don't think you can fully understand it out of its historical context (the slave issue, for instance). I also don't think its all the fruitful to view the Old Testament out of context of the New Testament, because the rules were clearly changed. I've never really understood how Christians get so much dogma from the Old Testament given how much of a game changer Jesus was.

Gem said:

Epiph, on Nov 26 2008, 10:23 PM, said:

But when the conclusions drawn from science that oppose the Bible, with evolution being the obvious example, are generally held by the entire scientific community as true, then it really just seems like blindness, or discarding evidence you don't like, as if I were to see the deer prints and the deer scat in my garden and decide that it was evidence that unicorns were real. Just like my best friend's daughter decided, against the evidence of the mouse in the house, that it was, instead a brownie. It is the difference between fact and faith. I have no problem with faith, but there are just sometimes when they clash.

If there really were proof, I wouldn't discard it, but there are no proof, so you argument is moot. Theories are not proof - and just like I choose to believe most scientific theories, because I have nothing better to offer, and because it makes sense, I choose to discard those theories that I don't think make sense. I don't see how this is non-scientific. A bit opportunistic maybe, but I don't have a problem with that.

I think Aleks answered this in a response to me (which I will get to in due time). It's not about definitive proof. It's about probabilities. The probability that animals, including humans, evolved from various primitive forms, given the amount of evidence that has been collected to back up the theory, is much higher than the probability that a couple thousand years ago God plunked everything down on Earth in a couple of days. The probability that the hoof prints are from a deer is much higher than the probability that the hoof prints are from a unicorn.

However, faith in God needn't be troubled by the liikelihood that animals evolved from single celled organism. God could happily coexist with evolution, playing an eon long came of SimLife. (Which was my point with the original unicorn analogy, which I will get to).

Gem said:

Epiph, on Nov 26 2008, 10:23 PM, said:

The key word that you keep missing is "literal," meaning "in accordance with, involving, or being the primary or strict meaning of the word or words; not figurative or metaphorical." A revisionist view of Genesis, taking it as symbolic or however you want to interpret it, can jive quite well with the generally accepted scientific creation story, but a literal view of Genesis, where each day mentioned is a 24 hour solar cycle, and the date of creation is determined using the family trees laid out in Genesis cannot coexist with the generally accepted scientific creation story.

As I said before, literal in this context becomes meaningless, due to the inherent nature of the story described. Even without science, I wouldn't dare begin set interpretations in stone regarding these recounts. Only a non-religious scientist would need to set it in stone, so to speak, for without doing that it can't be disproved.

Many, many Christians have a set in stone, literal interpretation of the Genesis story; they are the same people who are trying to have Creationism taught in schools and who stress that evolution is an unproven theory, when "theory" has a specific scientific meaning they are disregarding.

Gem said:

Having a theory is fine, it's the nature of science, but disregarding the lack of data is not scientific.

Wait, what? I feel like this is counter to everything you've been arguing. Yes, disregarding a lack of data to believe something is not scientific. You have a theory, you gather data, your data either supports your theory or it doesn't. If it doesn't, it could just be inconclusive, or it could actively disprove your theory. I don't see anything wrong with continuing to believe something in the face of inconclusive results, and as long as you continue your pursuit of proof for your theory, you're participating in the scientific process.

For instance, for her Masters' thesis in the '70s, my mom was looking into the production of a certain hormone or compound and trying to tie it meditation, but she didn't find anything. She feels that if she had taken more (she really just wanted to be done with grad school) and had the technology of today, she could have proven her thesis. In other words, her research did not disprove her hypothesis, it was inconclusive, so she continued to believe that it was correct and if she tried another way, she could prove it.

But if you theory is disproved, and you continue to believe it, you have a problem.

Anyway, I don't even know if I had a point here. I certainly didn't understand yours.

[Epiph]

Aleksandrov, on Nov 27 2008, 01:40 PM, said:

Epiph said:

First of all, for the purposes of this discussion... <words>

I've been to careless of the word so I'll admit my mistake here...<words>

(Taking a page from your book ) Yeah, no worries, sorry to be so persnickity about it. I'm just reading a book called How to Read a Book by Mortimer Adler, and am deep in the section about coming to terms with the author and understanding before making judgments, and religion is such a tricky subject, I felt like we should define terms even though everyone probably knew what everyone else meant.

Aleks said:

Epiph said:

Paradoxically, any proof of God's existence... <words>

I won't define the Religion's point of view; however but you can tell most Theologians try to prove God's "work", whether through so-called miracles, or through archaeological evidence in the Israel area, and through certain Biblical events.

Yes, but I don't think they do it for themselves. I think theologians...at least, religious theologians, try to prove God exists for the benefit of the non-believers they are trying to save from the fires of hell. Then again, I know Aquinas was inspired by the thoroughness with which the Classical masters examined their world, so maybe I'm giving them too much benefit of the doubt.

Aleks said:

Epiph said:

To be perfectly fair... <words>

Modern yes, but the ancient "Greek Humanists" would not be considered really modern Humanists by far. Certainly, they were philosophers, mathematicians and scientists, but their worldly views were nearly thoroughly mixed by religion. They may not believed in organised religion, but a lot believed in their "Old Gods" or at the very least, Naturalists (not to be confused with nudists ).

However, modern Humanism has its roots there. Modern Humanism evolved from the Classical education common in the 18th and 19th centuries.

Aleks said:

Even people like Socrates and Pythagoras believed in a sense religion/a deity comes into Science and the like. (Granted there were also people like Aesop who distrusted religion.) Of course, we must respect these early scientists for leading humanity in a "right" track.

As far as I was aware, Socrates DID distrust and doubt religion, that was in large part how he was corrupting the youth of Athens. According to Will Durant, drawing from Plato, Socrates would have been pardoned if he would just have said "No, no, seriously guys, it's cool. I was kidding about that whole getting you to question your beliefs thing." Plato, however, did arrive at the conclusion that religion was a good thing, or at least would be a good thing in his Utopia, because it is the best way to instill morality into a populace.

Aleks said:

Epiph said:

I totally disagree. Fact and faith do not necessarily clash... <words>

I must respectably thoroughly disagree with your unicorn analogy, I "believe" in a probability scale of events (mentioned previously). From the level of hypothesis, facts and evidence thrown around, I would have labeled it on a 1 - 10 scale of probability. That the Universe, or whatever, is 15 billion years is more probable than the of the literal meaning of Genesis. If further evidence supports either or, one can adjust the scales to "believe" or "accept" which one (or neither).

I think maybe you missed my point. I was using the unicorn analogy to say that faith and fact can coexist when there is no direct conflict, but once fact disproves (or has a greater probability of being true than) faith (as with Genesis), there is a direct conflict. That said, I am in full agreement with you.

Aleks said:

Epiph said:

Honestly, <words>

Again, I think you misunderstood me here. The key would I should have mentioned was probability and probable, used in Gem's phrase. I was thinking of how interesting Gem started to deal with the improbable, of probability which I "believe" is more scientific than the black and whites. There is a degree of grey area within.
Now this may seem contradictory with my previous arguments and I will explain thus: "Faith" and "Fact" will always clash because the evidence supporting "faith" is little or none, but "fact" will always been evidence-driven. If "Faith" were given evidence, then it would be "Fact" would it not? Such as it is, the probability of "Fact" of being "true" will be greater than that of "Faith" as one is based on evidence while the other not.

Apparently we were saying the same thing. Go definition of terms!

Aleks said:

Hello Gem, good to see you here. I apologise if I don't address all of your arguments here, I believe some would apply on Epiph's arguments against me.

Gem said:

But I don't need to prove my faith... <words>

Faith does need proof, if not why is there Biblical theologians throughout history and today, using "evidence" to try and prove their faith? Gem, I believe you will counter again with, "they are they, I am I". Science and ourselves is logic, rationality, probability-driven. We crave a rational basis (usually evidence-driven) to prove ourselves. We either change our "beliefs" or we utterly reject the improbable. Science and Religion cannot reside in one's mind as it is totally opposing one another if you say "Faith" needs no proof. Beliefs cannot survive unless we put them in one's reality so to speak.

It's true that theologians and the religious intelligensia like Dante all tried to craft from their entirely illogical tradition something logical, but at least what I got from reading the Divine Comedy, was that eventually Dante just gave up and said, "We shouldn't be asking for proof!" I mean, that is the final defense of religious faith once all other explanations have been torn down, and it is essentially fool proof. I don't know if I've studied it enough to make any definitive statements about theologians, though.

Aleks said:

This is ironic indeed. As Epiph has said before "there is nothing wrong with revisionism" as we can see that "religion has progressed" and that they disregard certain parts of the Bible as wrong. If their faith needs no proof... However, back in the Middle Ages and before, if you asked a person for proof of their "faith"; they would, like Gem, say "My faith demands no proof". But as you move towards the revisionism and apologetics of today, you get less and less people saying "My faith demands no proof" but rather more theologians seeking to "prove" their "faith".

I dunno, I think if you're going to believe in God, this is the tack you should take. Why demand proof for something that defies proof? And if you need proof...well...don't believe in God.

Aleks said:

Epiph said:

Well, yes. Religion uses faith as a tool to turn people to God, and atheists/agnostics/non-theists use science to point to the lack of evidence that there is a God. Just as a missionary feels he or she is doing good by helping people find God, atheists/agnostics/non-theists see all the harm that has been perpetrated in the name of religion and think they are doing good by logically eliminating the possibility of God's existence. So, of course anti-religious ideologies use science to make their point: it's all they have or need (which is, in part, their point).

I disagree, only Anti-Religious Ideologies use science to prove the Absence of God and the irrelevance of religion. However, I'm sure most A-Theists/Agnostics and the like do use the lack of evidence that there is a God.

Isn't that what I said? Gem kept saying that people use science as an ideology, and I was trying to say that not even "anti-religious ideologies" use science as an ideology, it is simply their tool, in the same way that the Bible is a missionary's.

Aleks said:

The "harm that has been perpetrated...", I'm against thinking the most majority of "us" think like that. It is a purely scientific reason, and the first if enough, Epiph. The majority of people would rather "prove" the lack of an Almighty from a purely ignorant-to-"enlightenment" knowledge rather than a "Get back at religion for killing all of us and keeping us in the dark" kind of all. We've progressed to pure science, with no emotions or the like of revenge in a motive to show "God" does not exist after all.

If not that, then why? If religion is not harmful in some way, why try to dissuade people from taking comfort in it? Because if religion is anything, it is comfortable for its subscribers. I know plenty of atheists/agnostics who feel this way, and even Dawkins mentions it. I'm not implying that it's any kind of "revenge," I'm saying that it is a belief based on historical knowledge that religion is harmful and should be done away with to prevent future harm. And to win an argument...because that always feels good.

[frookenhauer]

*scroll*...*scroll*...*scroll*...*scroll*...Aha-*presses add reply*

No worries Vico

Hey Epiph Remind me to buy you a drink one day for your Herculian effort, you must be thirsty after that marathon ...And you owe me one for reading it , so we're even then. I think I am mostly in agreement with you and my favourite part of your entire epic was:

Quote

Anyway, I don't even know if I had a point here. I certainly didn't understand yours.

And now I don't even know if there was a point quoting it Actually it was tres funny.

I'm too done in to do a Genesis rendition today, but stay tuned people, the next chapter is amazing...