RoR: Forum

Christy H, you are absolutely right, God bless you.

Post 41

Sunday, November 9, 2003 - 3:39pm

I have to say, it seems to me you're reacting against your experience of the Catholic "Church" rather than Christianity: Papal infallibility, auricular confession, justification by works, Mary worship, transubstantiation, idolatory and pagan rituals - all these heresies were exposed in the Reformation as non-Biblical.

And is "Original Sin" -- the premise that man is by nature sinful and must be forgiven for existing -- another non-Biblical heresy peculiar to the liars in Rome? I understand "Original Sin" to be a lie common to all sects of your cult, Bill, and it is one of the reasons I call your religion evil.

Considering what you say the Bible says God demands of his followers, I can only conclude that you have not read it. (It's futile to read it unless you believe in God - return to that first.)

Your conclusion is incorrect, Bill. I have read the Bible, and read it when I was still a child and ignorant enough to believe in your god. I will not return to that belief; I know that the only reality is this earth and this life, and that there is neither a heaven nor a hell that man does not make for himself. I know there is no god, and no devil, and that the only real evil is done by men. I cannot abandon that knowledge and return to belief in God. If I did, I would no longer be myself. I would be another man, a lesser man.

I cannot be my own man and one of God's children. It looks like you've made your choice. I've made mine, and if there's a price to pay, then I'll pay it. But I don't think there will be a judgment day. No god is going to demand that I explain myself; and nobody is going to call you to account, Bill, but your own conscience.

Post 42

Sunday, November 9, 2003 - 8:40pm

"'Judge not lest ye be judged'" (Matthew 7:1)

I'm taking a course in comparative religion right now. The Bible is almost bearable until Jesus comes along and preaches that it is now immoral to judge, to use the rational capabilities we employ every day to survive. I would like to hear any devout Christian who's still here account for Jesus's Sermon on the Mount.
I used to consider myself a Christian until I actually read the Bible. I am not sure whether or not God exists, but as far as the Bible and organized religion is concerned, I have to take Matt's side on this one. It's evil. There's no other word for it.
Naturally Jesus also preaches submission to evil "'But I say to you, offer no resistance to one who is evil'" (Matthew 5:39)

Post 43

Sunday, November 9, 2003 - 8:53pm

what is this "god" everyone is talking about? i don't understand. if there was something going on outside of human consciousness, wouldn't it be made clear on a regular basis through verifiable and obvious avenues? referencing the "bible" has no relevance to most people here on SOLO. how about one example of some sort of empirical evidence of this "god"? i just want to understand what makes people like Bill able to justify this belief.

bill
i would love to hear your response to a question i got off of Anton Thorn's athiest website:
Can this all powerful "god" create a rock that is too heavy for "god" to lift?

Dave

Post 44

Monday, November 10, 2003 - 6:58am

Yes, Matthew, "original sin" is part of core Christian doctrine, but it's not simply for existing that we need forgiveness, but for our failure to meet the impossibly high standards God sets for us. His ways are higher than our ways, and there's only one thing we can do about it: � I'll spare you the rest.

You've exercised your God given choice, but how can you say you "know" He doesn't exist? Aren't you just sticking to a philosophical minimalism not necessitated by your apparent self-sufficiency in this world? I doubt it's profitable to debate these questions as they go back to fundamental premises, and you could reverse them on me, but I raise them for whatever they're worth.

Tommy, l can only give you my own interpretation of those verses you mention, and of the Sermon on the Mount - I once found them perplexing.

"Judge not lest ye be judged", is in the context of Christian brothers not drawing attention to each others' faults simply for the sake of condemnation, lest they be hypocrites, as none of them are spotless. It doesn't preclude any process of civil law or the exercise of judgment in a wider rational context.

On the Mount, Jesus says the poor in spirit, mourners, the meek, etc., are blessed, not because these conditions have value in themselves - they don't - but because heavenly rewards, when they come, will seem better to such people than they might to those on earth in better circumstances. It's like enjoying a drink more if you are thirstier.

The next difficulty, I think, are the harsh judgments Jesus issues against seemingly slight trangressions such as anger, calling someone a fool, and lusting after adultery. He is here expouding, to His Jewish audience, the condemnation they face under the high demands of their OT law. "Who then can be saved? � With men this is impossible; but with God all things are possible" (Matt. 19:25-26). By demanding we be perfect like God (Matt. 5:48), Jesus underscores the need for a Saviour: "There is therefore now no condemnation to them which are in Christ Jesus � [who] hath made me free from the law of sin and death" (Rom. 8:1-2).

Concerning non-resistance of evil, the application is limited, I think, to the context in which it appears, of turning the other cheek (Matt. 5:39): it's about the non-esculation of violence and the tolerance and generosity indicated in the verses which follow. It's not about being a punching bag, but being the bigger man when the odds are that no second blow will be delivered. Such a strategy should not be employed if there's real danger - you'd be a fool to do so. By telling His disciples to carry a sword (Luke 22:36), Jesus did not advocate pacifism at any cost.

So, that clears that up. (I don't know if other Christians would see it differently.) If you think God might exist, the Bible is a real asset, whatever the evils of organized religion.

Dave, I don't think the question 'can this all powerful "god" create a rock that is too heavy for "god" to lift?' is worthy of serious attention, but I'd answer it thus: No. He is all powerful, and to accomplish this He would have to give up some of this power, but He does not change. I don't know what inference any athiest could hope to draw from this answer - it doesn't lessen or negate Him in any way.

Post 45

Monday, November 10, 2003 - 7:46am

Why does anyone respond to the god worshippers? They endow him with whatever powers they choose so that they can "prove" He exists.

1. Eternal life,
2. Freedom from guilt,
3. Cure the sick
... if "only" you believeth in Me.

All the makings of a perfect scam.

Post 46

Monday, November 10, 2003 - 9:37am

Samerica, religion's a hell of a racket as long as you can sleep at night. I'd rather run an escort service, though. I'd rather sell pleasure than pain and guilt and fear.

Post 47

Monday, November 10, 2003 - 2:10pm

Yes, Matthew, "original sin" is part of core Christian doctrine, but it's not simply for existing that we need forgiveness, but for our failure to meet the impossibly high standards God sets for us. His ways are higher than our ways, and there's only one thing we can do about it: � I'll spare you the rest.

There's one other thing we can do about it: we can tell God to go to Hell. You say that "God's ways are higher than our ways," yet your God will still condemn to eternal suffering people who refuse to ask forgiveness for their nature. If God did make me, and I am imperfect, THEN IT'S HIS OWN DAMNED FAULT.

If the pottery is defective, it is the potter who must take the blame, either for poor choice of materials or lack of skill.

But God did not make me, because God does not exist. The entity you believe in, the omniscient, omnipotent deity you obey, makes a mockery of everything I know about this world.

You've exercised your God given choice, but how can you say you "know" He doesn't exist? Aren't you just sticking to a philosophical minimalism not necessitated by your apparent self-sufficiency in this world? I doubt it's profitable to debate these questions as they go back to fundamental premises, and you could reverse them on me, but I raise them for whatever they're worth.

Don't even bother, Bill. I operate on premises different from yours. You cannot prove that God exists because describing God's exact properties imposes limits on him. The omnipotent, omniscient, omnibenevolent father-figure you serve can only exist as an undefined quantity.

You evaded Dave Voigt's question, because you know that either answer contradicts your belief in an all-powerful God. If God cannot create an object he can't lift, then he is not omnipotent. If he can, then he is not omnipotent because an object exists that he cannot move.

I know that God does not exist because I exist in a universe where everything has a defined identity. An entity that can never be defined cannot exist in such a universe, because

Post 48

Monday, November 10, 2003 - 11:11pm

I wasn't suggesting we debate our different premises, Matthew - just teasing them out. Now I'll highlight them further and then probably give this conversation a rest.

I can't hope to put God in a definitional box. I couldn't do this with a human, let alone the personage of God, especially since He is not confined within our physical space-time, and therefore not subject to direct measurement.

Call this an evasion if you like, but I answered Dave's question non-evasively: "No". After more thought, however, I think I can do better justice to my answer.

"If God cannot create an object he can't lift, then he is not omnipotent. If he can, then he is not omnipotent because an object exists that he cannot move."

Therefore, we must throw out one of the premises behind the notion of an omnipotent God. The one I throw out is the definition here assumed for "omnipotent" - I say it means God has power over all He creates, including the power to move anything He creates, but it cannot include the power to contradict this attribute of His power, because He subjects even Himself to His universally perceived law of non-contradiction. In short, God is omnipotent, but not absurdly so.

Post 49

Tuesday, November 11, 2003 - 1:33am

Tuesday, November 11, 2003 - 9:11am

bill:

"He subjects even Himself to His universally perceived law of non-contradiction."

"I say it means God has power over all He creates, including the power to move anything He creates, but it cannot include the power to contradict this attribute of His power"

what are you talking about? this is a bunch of nonsensical words thrown together without any correlation to the reality they purportedly correspond to. who is this "he" you speak of?

"He is not confined within our physical space-time, and therefore not subject to direct measurement."

if he is not subject to measurement, he is not subject to perception. hence, this "being" you refer to does not exist at all (in reality) or is totally irrelevant in human existance. i feel you have the same relevance here on this website, and i wish that you would become as perceivable as the "being" you speak of.

Dave

Post 51

Wednesday, November 26, 2003 - 9:14am

booooooooring

If you people put as much thought into how you treated other people as into how you think humans *should* be treated (and/or act), we'd all be a helluvalot happier.

Post 52

Sunday, November 30, 2003 - 8:04pm

I'd just like to say that it is very reassuring for me to read all of this. Usually what happens when I try to argue anything remotely related to religion, I have to stop to avoid completely ruining the relationship I have with the other people. It is nice to see other people with opinions similar to my own, and to see a discussion of this sort come to a reasonable conclusion (as I consider the primary discussion over because the focus has shifted to an entirely different but related topic).
And I have been thinking on and off about how love and sex fit into objectivism (based on Anthem, The Fountainhead, and Atlas Shrugged as I haven't read anything else related to objectivism) since I first read the Fountainhead four years ago (when I was fifteen), and some insight from people who have thought this through more throughly than I have is lovely.
So thank you.

Post 53

Tuesday, December 2, 2003 - 7:25am

Hey Tammy. I'd suggest reading some of Rand's nonfiction (if not all of it). I was hooked after Atlas, and once I took up the philosophical and political nonfiction I gained a better perspective on...well, pretty much everything. I've come across some who've read AS and The Fountainhead and were impressed by the revolutionary concepts Rand wove into her novels, but lacked the dedication to ~ideas~ to bother pursuing a full integration of those concepts. But because of your glowing comments, I'm sure you're not one of those. Have fun!

J

Post 54

Saturday, February 14, 2004 - 4:36pm

man...the christian life is so much more than this...it makes it sound like we are the loosers...we are not

Post 55

Sunday, February 15, 2004 - 11:00am

Stan, stand up for yourself, always.

Post 56

Tuesday, February 17, 2004 - 5:59am

Stan, if you're content with the Christian life, that's your decision. Such a life would cramp me; I've got pride enough to make Lucifer look humble.

Post 57

Tuesday, July 1, 2014 - 4:46am

I would like to see authors on this subject of secular sexual morality pay much more attention to the role of emotional hijackings and other reason corrupters. So many people get themselves into so much trouble because of poorly reasoned sexual encounters that I hardly know where to begin. Pregnancy is obviously a major starting point with infections a close second. I actually have no issue with two genuinely mature people who have thought all potential consequences from start to finish and can handle them both emotionally and financially. You have to ask yourself how many "encounters" actually engage in this deep reasoning.

My own theory expands "fight or flight" to "fight or flight or fun" because all three involve the blood leaving the brain for other parts of the body based on external stimulations genetically motivating either survival or reproduction.

I have stumbled across recent articles suggesting that the very act of "falling in love" amounts to little more than a rush of sex hormones whose effects diminish after 30 months. This certainly supports the "selfish gene" view of life in that it helps to assure reproduction and support at least to a toddler age. Objectivists would serve their cause well by appealing to the life sciences and then casting them in terms that credibly support their philosophical stances. Too many biologists make opposite claims, e.g. casting science in terms of altruism rather than egoism.

Sorry if I sound like a buzz killer but having witnessed enough people get their lives turned sideways because of the "fun" part of "fight or flight or fun" I urge much more caution than I see "expressed" most of them time in most Objectivist articles on romantic love.

Would an unmarried Objectivist couple who choose to practice abstinence until marriage be a "bad" couple?

There are all sorts of ways to "express" romantic love that require no emission or exchange of genital fluids. Holding hands in public is sexy. So is kissing.

Objecivists who accuse religionists of an obsession with sex should look at themselves first.

(Edited by Luke Setzer on 7/01, 10:53am)

Post 58

Tuesday, July 1, 2014 - 12:04pm