Society Religious Discussion and Q&A Thread

[Akainu]

I think the more reasonable explanation is that it wasn't the same God.

What is the same anyway? If we apply the concept of panta rhei to God just the same as to everything else, the God that created the world and humans, is necessarily another God than the one who later sent Jesus. More experienced in the ways of handling his creation etc.

Well either that, or God is a social construct and what really changed are the societies that projected their own needs onto this canvas, painting a vastly different picture.

 

[xi0]

What is the same anyway? If we apply the concept of panta rhei to God just the same as to everything else, the God that created the world and humans, is necessarily another God than the one who later sent Jesus. More experienced in the ways of handling his creation etc.

Well either that, or God is a social construct and what really changed are the societies that projected their own needs onto this canvas, painting a vastly different picture.

The Abrahamic God. The notion that in Second Isaac, "you shall worship no God but me" popped out all of a sudden. It's obviously an effort to squash polytheism.

I am the first and I am the last;
apart from me there is no God. - Isaiah 44:6

We can also see from biblical text that Jacob refers to El Shaddai as his "elohim", or his personal God. Sounds pretty similar to Greeks choosing which God to worship from the Pantheon, doesn't it? But it wasn't until Second Isaiah that these things sort of disappear and the different names for "God" got turned into just that, synonyms. Because of that and other evidence, it stands to reason that Jacob, Isaac, and Abraham were all actually pagans, just like the people of Canaan or Babylon during that time period. Israelite history is incredibly sketchy and was obviously rewritten many times. There's no reason to believe that they were unique among the other groups in the Levant as far as religion goes. Monotheism rose out of conquest, not providence.

This is a very interesting book that goes into all of this, as well as the history of Christianity and Islam.

 

[M3J]

I think in the end we can all agree religion was about the Church trying to gain power.

 

[xi0]

I think in the end we can all agree religion was about the Church trying to gain power.

What religion? lol

 

[z.5]

It is amazing how much polytheism is in the bible - for example:

1 Corinthians 8:5
For though there are some that are called gods, whether in heaven or in the earth (as there are many gods and many lords),

Exodus 12:12
For I will pass through the land of Egypt this night, and will smite all the firstborn in the land of Egypt, both man and beast; and against all the gods of Egypt I will execute judgment: I am the LORD.

1 Chronicles 16:25
The Lord ... is to be feared above all gods.

Psalm 82:1
A Psalm of Asaph. God has taken his place in the divine council; in the midst of the gods he holds judgment:

There may even be more quotes that directly support of polytheism than directly reject it

 

[Drmke]

Wouldn't it be fair to say that the Old Testament is so inconsistent because it is essentially just stories made up to tell the "Jewish people" about their traditions and what not. If we try to take a positive look at it, maybe it is simply a book of literary metaphors never meant to be taken seriously? Probably being too nice there but maybe partly that as well.

Also, documents and texts written with the purpose of "social control" tend to be poorly written anyway.

As far as the "does God have a right over my life because he created it" question: I'll go with Gary's straightforward answer as well: no, hell no. It's basically the slave argument. God can claim he has all the rights in the world but I'll simply reject the claim (until he smites me of course...).

 

[Kaiten]

The old testament is inconsistent because it was written by many different authors, over a long period of time. Part of it was written in the northern, wealthier Kingdom of Israel. Other parts in the southern, poorer Kingdom of Judah. Other parts were written after the Hebrews (Jews, a more modern term, would be a misnomer) returned from the Babylonian Captivity, a real historic event. The tone of the Israeli parts is more positive than the Judan. The Hebrews probably were not actually monotheistic until after returning from Babylon. The parts written before the captivity often reflect that. I'd recommend anyone interested read The Bible, by Karen Armstrong, for a historical perspective on the writing of the bible. She's an excellent comparative religion writer, a good way to find more tempered, academic analysis of religion. She is a revisionist religious writer, agnostic in tone, not someone who would please the religious orthodoxy. Anyone looking to get passed the type of debate in this thread would enjoy her writing. I'd also recommend reading Evolution of God by Robert Wright. Also revisionist religion, and very agnostic, it's an excellent book about the development of religious thought.

 

[M3J]

What religion? lol

All, it seems. Though, I was specifically talking about Christianity/Catholicism in Europe centuries ago.

 

[xi0]

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/w...snt-a-magician-with-a-magic-wand-9822514.html

...interesting

 

[kkck]

Well, the Vatican, as a whole in modern times, has never taken an official stance on evolution, it has never actually denied it. It has even made the point that things like creationism and whatnot are not real science or even properly catholic believes. IIRC all of the modern popes have had rather positive views of evolution as a legitimate scientific theory. Given the lack of an official response from the Vatican as a whole the topic is kinda subjected to what any particular priest thinks of the matter so to speak. As with most things Francis has done, what he said now does not entail a change in dogma, faith or believes of the church. It is merely a change in attitude (in this context, while no pope denied evolution Francis is the only one that has been so adamant about it being a thing).

 

[xi0]

Well, the Vatican, as a whole in modern times, has never taken an official stance on evolution, it has never actually denied it. It has even made the point that things like creationism and whatnot are not real science or even properly catholic believes. IIRC all of the modern popes have had rather positive views of evolution as a legitimate scientific theory. Given the lack of an official response from the Vatican as a whole the topic is kinda subjected to what any particular priest thinks of the matter so to speak. As with most things Francis has done, what he said now does not entail a change in dogma, faith or believes of the church. It is merely a change in attitude (in this context, while no pope denied evolution Francis is the only one that has been so adamant about it being a thing).

I think the point is that Francis seems to give no fucks in contradicting his clergy. Benedict brought up Intelligent Design on several occasions.

 

[kkck]

I think the point is that Francis seems to give no fucks in contradicting his clergy. Benedict brought up Intelligent Design on several occasions.

Really? how did I miss that? I find that a tad weird because as far as I have been aware the vatican does not consider intelligent design to be science or even something a catholic should believe (on a personal note, I went to catholic school, took part in countless hours of religion classes and even then learned against ID being a thing and at my science classes I was taught, well, actual hard science). As far as I can recall the Vatican's official stance is that the genesis is not meant to be taken literally. The form of "intelligent design", assuming it can even be called that, is usually along the lines of god creating everything including the laws of physics and whatnot and he in a way guides this. However the implication is not as with ID that requires god to complete theories, scientific theories stand on their own. Even with a quick google search I find stuff about benedict not opposing evolution. I did find stuff about him supporting theistic evolution although that is not quite the same as ID...

 

[xi0]

Really? how did I miss that? I find that a tad weird because as far as I have been aware the vatican does not consider intelligent design to be science or even something a catholic should believe (on a personal note, I went to catholic school, took part in countless hours of religion classes and even then learned against ID being a thing and at my science classes I was taught, well, actual hard science). As far as I can recall the Vatican's official stance is that the genesis is not meant to be taken literally. The form of "intelligent design", assuming it can even be called that, is usually along the lines of god creating everything including the laws of physics and whatnot and he in a way guides this. However the implication is not as with ID that requires god to complete theories, scientific theories stand on their own. Even with a quick google search I find stuff about benedict not opposing evolution. I did find stuff about him supporting theistic evolution although that is not quite the same as ID...

Yeah, but even Francis saying things like this now is, in a way, appealing to ID. Saying that science and religion require one another...or that the Big Bang or Evolition doesn't contradict the existence of God, but requires it. That sounds identical to ID to me.

 

[kkck]

Yeah, but even Francis saying things like this now is, in a way, appealing to ID. Saying that science and religion require one another...or that the Big Bang or Evolition doesn't contradict the existence of God, but requires it. That sounds identical to ID to me.

I'd say its an interpretation and context issue. In ID the designer is crucial for scientific theories to stand. They throw in weird rhetoric into scientific arguments along with things like the watchmaker argument or irreducible complexity. For instance, in evolution they claim that species do change but only because god made them because otherwise randomness would have made the gradual change impossible. Or that the gradual change is impossible with randomness. The catholic church at the moment has even taken a stance against those thing. What Francis or Bendict have said does not mean scientific theories need a god or a designer element to make sense. They are not vouching for god or religion to be taught at science classes, they are actually making the point that hard science should be taught just as it is. Their point is more along the lines that learning real, hard science, is a way of getting to know the work of god because, well, god made the very stuff science is studying. They are not making god into something scientific.

 

[xi0]

Their point is more along the lines that learning real, hard science, is a way of getting to know the work of god because, well, god made the very stuff science is studying. They are not making god into something scientific.

And how is that any different from what ID suggests...?

 

[kkck]

And how is that any different from what ID suggests...?

Well, you could call it a variation of ID (google calls it theistic evolution) but even then it would be a variation of it that does not attempt to pass itself as science. No weird rhetoric, no watchmaker argument, no irreducible complexity, no historical science, no god of gaps, or any of those things. Basically faith that does not change or otherwise affect your understanding of real science. The "debate" we were discussing earlier about ID and designers and watchmakers and whatnot is as it should be, non-existent.

 

[Introspectve]

Sincerest apologies that must perform the holiest necromancy of this topic. It is the general question and answer thread for religions and I am generally the only young earth creationist willing to say anything here.

So yes, before I throw myself into the lion's den called Darwin's Theory, I should address this question of free will. Our imagination actually makes the Christian God out to be much more powerful than he actually is. Take into consideration it took him 6 days to create the universe (according to Genesis), I assume as powerful as you imagine him he should have been able to do it instantly with less than a thought. But instead he had to craft the world with his voice and man with his hands. And it was so much work, he decided to rest on the 7th day.

Only by our standards of scientific natural law does god have the power to do anything and everything in regards to transgressing those laws. So back to free will, whether it's a hyperbole or mistranslation or misrepresentation, Christians are made to believe that God has emotions. God gets angry, sad, he is capable of love, obviously he can comprehend fear but it is unlikely he has ever experienced it because there is nothing to cause him fear as we experience it.

So why would God give us "free will". Free will means we can switch sides at any time. A person could be compelled to be an atheist, and then compelled to be a theist and then back atheism. It's possible. However, free will is actually a new concept according to biblical history. Angels do not have free will. Once the Angels decided to follow lucifer, their minds would never change, they would never come back to God.

Introspective, you still haven't answered the question!
Imagine you had a wife and she was forced to love you. How much would you love her back, knowing it is not her choice to love you, she probably would hate everything about you but she is forced to love you. (Ignoring her looks, ignoring her skills, her personality, her money) How much would you love her? Now imagine you have a wife (and imagine she is just a beautiful, and has the same perks) and she has made it her decision to love you. She could love anybody else at any time, but she loves you. Do you think you'd love her more?.

Introspective! I hate it when people answer a question with another question!
We humans have a desire to be loved and a desire to love something or someone. That doesn't make you weak, that doesn't make you evil, that's a perfectly harmless and even beneficial quality of our emotions. Genesis is very vague, but the statement "made in God's image" may refer to more than just the fact that we have two arms, two legs and a head. Also keep in mind those choice of words, God didn't say, "let's clone ourselves, let's make a perfect duplicate of everything that is God." God said, "let's make something that looks like us"

(If you're wondering why god refers to himself as multiple people then we have a real problem here)

I know many of you might be thinking, if God is anything like us how can he be perfect?
We were the ones that changed. Sin came in and humans became more like Satan. Adam and Eve were not as perfect as God, but they were as perfect as Angels except they had free will. Satan corrupted them just as he corrupted the angels, except their minds were changed. After they got kicked out of Eden they straightened up, you don't hear about anymore mess from Adam in genesis. Thus, God forgave them and God loved them.

You could be so arrogant as to say God wanted something to love, but can we consider ourselves better than him because of that? Imagine a world where you hated every single thing, you even hated your own flesh. You'd be suicidal to say the least. You need something to love more than he does and you wouldn't be alive if other humans never loved you, but that all depends on your definition of love. The bible gives a very absolute definition of love. It may help you to reference that when trying to understand God.

God is outside of time? Rarely. It would be physically impossible for him to interact with us if he never entered into time. Time is real, being a Christian doesn't mean you believe time is fake. The bible doesn't say that. The bible doesn't say a lot of the things that would contradict with science because in being a christian doesn't depend on how we came to be. If it did, the bible wouldn't have been so vague about it. See now the bible was very clear on how to be like Christ and have a relationship with god, but vague on all the things we needed science to figure out.

Modern science shows that time moves at different speeds in different parts of the universe, such as in black holes or as they speculate, when traveling at extremely high speeds. The bible imposes that time began when god "separated the light from the dark", (created day and night as in the 24 hour increments we experience today). This means that time began with the earth, and after he created Heaven and the angels. Angels cannot die and are as within time as God is. There are many doctrines in the bible that change maybe thousands of years after creation but affect all of time. Such as the death of Jesus. When Jesus died it wasn't just the people who died after him that were saved, but all the lives before him as well. Jesus's death encompassed all of time.

This concept of free will and immortal angels is why Hell was created. Angels could not die and would not change their minds, so they were punished for eternity, similarly, it is speculated that there are humans who have conformed to an eternal mindset against god, and thus they are sent to hell as well.

Now about darwin's theory, I'm not a scientist so I won't pretend like I am one. But I can refer to a very well informed creationist. It makes for something funny to watch too. I stick to my old statement, if creationism is not science, then atheism is not science. If the bible is not fact, atheism is not fact. I'm not saying that because I believe the bible is Scientific Law, i'm saying that because I believe atheism is also a leap of faith.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UrmHMpyIcdY
Kent Hovind

Referring to kent hoving, as opposed to the bible, if atheism and "molecules to man" evolution is scientific fact, as factual as gravity, then there shouldn't be a single question I could ask you that is inexplainable in terms of allowing evolution to happen. You could tell me all about gravity, you could tell me the rate you could tell me what affects the speed and we can even make amazing discoveries off it. Do we make those same kinds of discoveries off of molecules to man evolution? We make discoveries (such as vaccines) based on present day evolution based on what we actually observe. Molecules to man evolution is all speculation as would be biblical history, we didn't observe the flood story, Noah's ark, and you didn't observe non-living substances become living substances, therefore it is speculation. It is a theory. It is not on the same grounds as gravity unless you take that leap of faith. You observe everything about gravity, every time you test it, but you can't even test molecules to man evolution therefore according to kkck, it's not even a science. You can test bacteria A to bacteria B evolution, but not molecules to man. That's a logical fallacy called, a Hasty Generalization.

-Polytheism

God himself is actually 3 entities, God the Father, the Holy Spirit and the Son. Now the fact that others are referred to as gods is actually referring to a concept called "Idolatry" These are idols, figures of worship, this does not mean they are anything like the God of Abraham. If anything he is euphemizing Satan himself (or his angels) as their idols. Now I don't know anything about the credibility of the authors I haven't researched that, but you will find more physical and archaeological evidence of the old testament than the new, ironic because those writers were less credible than the writers of the new testament. There is no reason to accept the bible as scientific fact or law other than a leap of faith.

Christain/Jewish theology is quite fun to read about, and completely wild, although it doesn't compare to the crazy theology of other religions.

 

[z.5]

I can't be bothered to get back into the quagmire of the whole evolution business.

I am interested in your ideas of what 'free will' actually means, however.
I can not see how free will could ever exist, as it fails both biologically, as well as failing when you have an all powerful deity who knows what is going to happen before it does.

That said, you said the following:

So why would God give us "free will". Free will means we can switch sides at any time. A person could be compelled to be an atheist, and then compelled to be a theist and then back atheism. It's possible. However, free will is actually a new concept according to biblical history. Angels do not have free will. Once the Angels decided to follow lucifer, their minds would never change, they would never come back to God.

My question is related to why angels lack 'free will' but we have it. How could the angels 'decide' to follow Lucifer, if they lacked the free will to make such a decision? If they could make the decision to follow him, why couldn't they then decide later on that it was a stupid idea and go back to God's side?
Also, if they lacked the ability to make this decision in the first place, were they created that way by God himself?
Did he create them to disobey him?

 

[Introspectve]

I can't be bothered to get back into the quagmire of the whole evolution business.

I am interested in your ideas of what 'free will' actually means, however.
I can not see how free will could ever exist, as it fails both biologically, as well as failing when you have an all powerful deity who knows what is going to happen before it does.

That said, you said the following:


My question is related to why angels lack 'free will' but we have it. How could the angels 'decide' to follow Lucifer, if they lacked the free will to make such a decision? If they could make the decision to follow him, why couldn't they then decide later on that it was a stupid idea and go back to God's side?
Also, if they lacked the ability to make this decision in the first place, were they created that way by God himself?
Did he create them to disobey him?

The angels had the will to choose and they could only make that decision once to put it simply. I cannot answer for certain if that was his intention but he is not pleased by that fact. You'd think they would go back, but they don't have that free will. We would figure out that it was a stupid decision definitely.

 

[z.5]

The angels had the will to choose and they could only make that decision once to put it simply. I cannot answer for certain if that was his intention but he is not pleased by that fact. You'd think they would go back, but they don't have that free will. We would figure out that it was a stupid decision definitely.

So they did have free will, but it was a one choice deal?!?
Or they have free will to make simple decisions, with the single proviso that they can never change their minds on decisions which they have already undertaken?!?

And it surely must have been his intention - it would have been weird for him to give them a one time 'free will' card, only to know that they would blow it in the way that they did - know before he had created them in the first place.

Added to that, if he knew that they would (and it would then be likely that he intended it - unless he is just doing things at random), then why does the fact that they acted as he knew they would annoy him?

Why would he give them a one time free will card in this case?
Does God enjoy being annoyed?