Predict the 1st Banning for uncivil behavior in the new Religious Threads...

[BugI02]

Just out of curiosity, if I were to wander into the ISIS/religion thread, do you think I might find things a bit harsher to Islam then what you've taken offense to here as disparaging Christianity?

This strikes me through the heart, for I am guilty

 

[BehindBlueI's]

Would astrophysics be a better metaphor?

To my understanding everything physical is finite, so any metaphor I offer will fail at some point.

Maybe for some. I lost most of my interest in physics after my sophomore year of college sucked all the fun out of it. While I can't say I have zero interest, I have a limited amount of time to learn. Astrophysics is so far down on my list of things to know about that I'll never get to it. I'm much more interested in economics, behavior and decision making, that sort of thing. Even if I really understood what an electron is, I don't see how it'd help me as I'm not a professional physicist, etc. I am, in many ways, a professional at figuring out human behavior, though. Off topic, but no, any metaphors you make their will likely be of no use to me.

However we are back to can you truly understand something that you can only approach through metaphor? Or can you only say what God is not?

God knew you hated me. Re-read the Sermon on the Mount. Jesus goes beyond our actions and attacks our motives and state of mind.

OK, now we get to disagree.

Disagree? That's fine. I suspect there are a host of things we disagree on, religious and secular. I'm ok with that. I'm more concerned with actions.

If I hate you, but chose to treat you like a friend instead of acting on my hatred, did I sin? Or did I do what most all of us would consider good? Look beyond my hatred, refuse to act on it, and treat you as I'd want to be treated?

Are you only good because you fear an eternal punishment if you are not? Not hypothetical "they" but are YOU only good because of that fear? I doubt it. I'm sure you have feelings of connection with friends and family, and that radiates out to lesser feelings of connection to your community, etc. etc. If that fear is what you need to motivate yourself, then perhaps that is the best path for you, but I think you underestimate yourself. What's the term, virtuous pagans? We can separate "correct belief" and "correct practice" and get along quite well even if we don't share all the same beliefs.

 

[D-Ric902]

The scientist is right. There is no test now that can prove how all the 'particles that made up the big bang' (poetic license granted. big bang thought to be energy from which paricles 'condensed' as things cooled off) came into existence but it just doesn't interfere with my forming testable hypotheses from accepted science, testing them and acting on the results. Its truly not important. But if you want to assert that all the particles have always been here and always will be, as I've said before you are being proven wrong daily in labs all over the world. You keep thinking that experimental uncertainty is some kind of sword through the heart of a hypothesis, slaying the beast; but it just isn't so. And your assertion that 'There is no test that could ever be conceived to prove how all the particles that made up big bang came into existence/always existed.' is a falacy, unless you can scan the entire set of tests for the theory of the big bang that humans might possibly conceive. Can you?

your touching on what has been called "Revealed Truth"
the idea that (for example) my daughter is in second grade and is beginning the multiplication table. I can't help her with her homework and start teaching her Differential Calculus, she is not ready for it.
In the same way Moses was I'm sure an intelligent man but didn't have an understanding of Quantum Chromodynamics.

Revealed Truth is the thought that as we progress, God reveals more and more as we can handle it. And just enough to keep us on the right track and want more. What Moses did know is that God created it, and Genesis 1 is written in generalities as to not be wrong but not be complete. Why? Because it wasnt important. The Bible is not meant to be scientific. It is a book about humans, that is why creation is one chapter and the rest is about.........us.

As my daughter grows and build a foundation in mathematics she will understand Calculus, in time. As we explore and research, study, hypothesize, test, we recieve more and more information (Truth)
remember that Quark Mechanics isn't a surprise to God Almighty, he designed it. We are just trying to figure it out, and as a parent watching his child work at a math problem, he is smiling.

Even at our frustrations

 

[BugI02]

your touching on what has been called "Revealed Truth"
the idea that (for example) my daughter is in second grade and is beginning the multiplication table. I can't help her with her homework and start teaching her Differential Calculus, she is not ready for it.
In the same way Moses was I'm sure an intelligent man but didn't have an understanding of Quantum Chromodynamics.

Revealed Truth is the thought that as we progress, God reveals more and more as we can handle it. And just enough to keep us on the right track and want more. What Moses did know is that God created it, and Genesis 1 is written in generalities as to not be wrong but not be complete. Why? Because it wasnt important. The Bible is not meant to be scientific. It is a book about humans, that is why creation is one chapter and the rest is about.........us.

As my daughter grows and build a foundation in mathematics she will understand Calculus, in time. As we explore and research, study, hypothesize, test, we recieve more and more information (Truth)
remember that Quark Mechanics isn't a surprise to God Almighty, he designed it. We are just trying to figure it out, and as a parent watching his child work at a math problem, he is smiling.

Even at our frustrations

I like this. Have tried to filter for personal confirmation bias but still true. Beers someday. Raincheck issued

 

[ChristianPatriot]

Would people be opposed to the idea of God if He had set Big Bang in motion exactly as science theorizes and then sat back as a spectator and had absolutely nothing to do with the universe?

 

[BehindBlueI's]

Would people be opposed to the idea of God if He had set Big Bang in motion exactly as science theorizes and then set back as a spectator and had absolutely nothing to do with the universe?

Personally, that's the worst option for me. What's the point of a spectator in terms of either explanation or practice?

 

[T.Lex]

Would people be opposed to the idea of God if He had set Big Bang in motion exactly as science theorizes...

You lost me there.



There is no single consensus on how the Big Bang happened. You might say here are scientists in different camps. Or tribes. Or denominations. I'm not sure that the label is important.

 

[JettaKnight]

However we are back to can you truly understand something that you can only approach through metaphor? Or can you only say what God is not?

What I'm trying to get at is yes, it is possible for the finite to understand part, but not all, of the infinite.

Disagree? That's fine. I suspect there are a host of things we disagree on, religious and secular. I'm ok with that. I'm more concerned with actions.

If I hate you, but chose to treat you like a friend instead of acting on my hatred, did I sin? Or did I do what most all of us would consider good? Look beyond my hatred, refuse to act on it, and treat you as I'd want to be treated?

According to Jesus's own words, hatred in your heart is the same sin as the outward expression of it. (Matthew 5:21)

Are you only good because you fear an eternal punishment if you are not? Not hypothetical "they" but are YOU only good because of that fear? I doubt it. I'm sure you have feelings of connection with friends and family, and that radiates out to lesser feelings of connection to your community, etc. etc. If that fear is what you need to motivate yourself, then perhaps that is the best path for you, but I think you underestimate yourself. What's the term, virtuous pagans? We can separate "correct belief" and "correct practice" and get along quite well even if we don't share all the same beliefs.

For Xtians, all fear of eternal punishment is gone. There's nothing I can do (or not do) to gain my way into Heaven. In Xty, there is no scale - that's a works based form of salvation. There's no way I can do enough good works to cover the sin. The work of Christ on the cross is the only work that can save us and that's enough to cover any sin imaginable.

My "good deeds" are rooted in my love of Christ and desire to be more Christ-like and my devotion unto him. I desire to please him and therefore attempt to please him, not me, not my fellow man. It's out of that faith that works spring forth. I have faith that his way is best and therefore I try to follow them.

 

[D-Ric902]

Would people be opposed to the idea of God if He had set Big Bang in motion exactly as science theorizes and then sat back as a spectator and had absolutely nothing to do with the universe?

Deism

 

[ChristianPatriot]

I'm more speaking from an Atheists prospective. If a "god", doesn't matter which one, set it all in motion and let humans dictate the course of history. What's the harm? You still get to believe whatever you want to believe and all of the laws of science still apply exactly as they do today.

 

[JettaKnight]

your touching on what has been called "Revealed Truth"
...

Yup.

This is why I don't enter into cosmological debates. We humans are so arrogant about proving this or disproving that, that inevitably we only prove our selves to be stupider than men that come after us.


Unless Idiocracy is true, then we've hit the zenith.

 

[ChristianPatriot]

Even Richard Dawkins, one of the foremost supporters of Big Bang/Darwinian Evolution isn't opposed to Intelligent Design.

Richard Dawkins: ...if you look at the um, at the detail... details of our chemistry molecular biology you might find a signature of some sort of designer.
Share this quote

 

[CathyInBlue]

I think BBI has just invented a new off-shoot of Theology and Psychology, Quantum Morality. If you think like a sinner, but act like a saint, which are you?

I believe the Bible has actually already answered this question: "…whosoever looketh on a woman to lust after her hath committed adultery with her already in his heart." — Mat. 5:28
If you commit a sin (for some definition of sin) in your mind, you are a sinner. It matters not at all what your outward fasçade may portray. You may go through your whole life, never once letting the mask slip, but you will still die a convicted sinner in god's eyes. Now, that's Christianity. A different religion may have a different take on Quantum Morality, backed up by a different holy book.

I, myself, don't care what you have in your mind. If you are the most vile child molester in the universe, you can still baby sit my young daughter, provided you have never, ever acted on your predilections. Because, what is the important thing? That you don't think about raping my daughter, or that you don't rape my daughter? One might say that a person who constantly thinks about raping children is at a greater probability of acting to rape a child than someone who doesn't constantly think about raping children, but when you get down to it, both probabilities are down in the weeds compared with the probability of getting through another day with no one in the family getting killed or injured or contracting a deadly disease or going hungry, or any of a thousand other grave physical insults. Now, the instant the erstwhile child molester acts in that vein, gets a stiffy, browses kiddie porn on the internet, stares too long at a certain bodily area, all bets are off. Once they act once, they'll act again. Once a sinner acts on their thought crime once, they've collapsed the wave function of action and are now a fully practicing pedophile.

In this same, essential vein, I don't care what a person's religion is. If I'm interacting with you on the street, at school, at the office, out shopping, I am not interacting with you because of your religion. I am interacting with you despite your religion, whatever that religion may be. If you are Muslim, I will not change the seat I choose in the classroom to be either closer or farther from you because of it. If you are Hindu, I will not seek out or refuse projects to work on with you you because of it. If you are a Christian, I will not change where I cross the street to get to my destination because of it. If you are a Jew, I will not patronize or refuse to patronize your business because of it. Although, I do prefer to get my bagels from the Oy Vey Deli in 12 Points, but the fact that the proprietors are Jewish is completely beside the point.

Same goes for sexuality, politics, and favored sports teams. As long as these personal aspects of you remain personal, I will actively reject from my own mind any such information.

The problem comes when people want to play identity politics and wear their personality on their sleeve. If you treat me badly because of religion, politics, sexuality, or boosterism (RPSB), yours or mine, I will judge you to be a bad person. But, I will also note, in the back of my own mind, what your particular RPSB affiliations are so that at some point in the future, if, say, the only people of a certain B type are the ones who cut me off in traffic, or only people of a certain P type vote to curb my rights, or only people of a certain R type try to blow me up with suicide bomb vests, I can correlate that data and respond appropriately to such trends.

 

[CathyInBlue]

The Bible is not meant to be scientific.

Thank you for this frank admission. And yet, so many Creationists want it taught in our science classrooms. Thankfully, the SCOTUS has seen through their many ruses in this vein and have slapped them down for it time and again.

 

[CathyInBlue]

Would people be opposed to the idea of God if He had set Big Bang in motion exactly as science theorizes and then sat back as a spectator and had absolutely nothing to do with the universe?

Only if all religions predicated on this truth admitted to genuine scientific inquiry into the acts of this God person. Including, and especially, if it leads to evidence that God didn't do it, but someone else did, or even that it never happened at all.

 

[ChristianPatriot]

Only if all religions predicated on this truth admitted to genuine scientific inquiry into the acts of this God person. Including, and especially, if it leads to evidence that God didn't do it, but someone else did, or even that it never happened at all.

So you're ok with an intelligent designer so long as as "it" does not tell us how to live our lives? I hope you will see my sincerity in this post. It's not a "gotcha" question. I'm very curious.

 

[findingZzero]

If you think like a saint and act like a saint you are not of this world. If you think like a sinner, but act like a saint, you are human and you can be my drinking buddy. That takes more effort/courage.

 

[BehindBlueI's]

My "good deeds" are rooted in my love of Christ and desire to be more Christ-like and my devotion unto him. I desire to please him and therefore attempt to please him, not me, not my fellow man. It's out of that faith that works spring forth. I have faith that his way is best and therefore I try to follow them.

Then we are back to where we were earlier. It is irrelevant if I prove or disprove he was who he claimed to be (or who others proclaimed him to be). He set an example that pleases you, and you are attempting to emulate that example. Even if it turns out he spoke to acorn squash or whatever the comment you made earlier was, he led an exemplary life and we can learn and emulate regardless if we accept him as divine or not.

Now, Matthew 5:21 seems to deal with murder. As such, I will assume you are talking about 5:28 as Cathy brings up. When we look at the rest of the speech at that point, I note he talks about plucking out an eye. I'm going to assume that no one here has blinded themselves so that they don't look lustfully at a woman nor that they believe it is a good idea to do so. I'm going to equally assume that every man here has seen a woman and thought something pretty lusty, and will do so again in the future (like the next time Modern Family is on). So, perhaps there is a some differentiation going on here that isn't quite as simple as "thinking about it is the same as doing it." There is a qualifier there of "in your heart". Does that mean it is the same as the action? Is sin "in the heart" the same as sin "in action?" Or is it more along the lines of "lead me not into temptation..." instead? If I remind myself that lusty thoughts are bad, and attempt to control them, am I not less likely to act on those thoughts?

 

[CathyInBlue]

So you're ok with an intelligent designer so long as as "it" does not tell us how to live our lives? I hope you will see my sincerity in this post. It's not a "gotcha" question. I'm very curious.

Because a materialistic/mechanistic universe brought about through the actions of a blind watch maker and absentee landlord, is still a materialistic/mechanistic universe. There is no after life. There is no system of control or coersion based on the watch maker's inscrutable desires.

The problem with your proposition here is the very nature of Christianity. What is the life of Jesus if not the blind watch maker Jehovah taking off the blindfold and jabbing a screwdriver into the universe's gears to change it. Which is not to ignore all of the interventions depicted in the old testament, or the revelation of the Quran to Mohammed. As far as I know, there is no religion, save Atheism, which contains absolutely no breaking of this divine fourth wall. They all feature what I know to be a materialistic/mechanistic universe having a divine screwdriver shoved in its gears on some level to inject otherwise supernatural influence over it.

The point of religion is to exert control over people in this universe. The point of science is to understand the universe on its own terms. If religion is at all correct, the divine prime mover keeps shifting in his seat, which makes all of the attempts to understand the universe moot.

 

[deal me in]

Would people be opposed to the idea of God if He had set Big Bang in motion exactly as science theorizes and then sat back as a spectator and had absolutely nothing to do with the universe?

I'm fine with that God, assuming that I don't have to believe/worship him to avoid eternal damnation. Problem is, there is no evidence that God exists ether. If he does exist who created him? If he has always existed, lets just use Occam's razor to cut him out and say the universe has always existed in one form or the other without a prime mover.