Do you believe in God?

[TankAss95]

@niky:
I thought there was a view called materialism, where there is nothing past material (matter, energy). I was not using the view of property or wealth etc at all in my post, I apologise if I have mixed words up, or misunderstood.
What I mention to say is that there are two world views, one which there is nothing other that matter and such, and one in which says that there is a mind behind the material world (religious view).

The second of these views cannot be proven or disproven by science. I want to make that point clear, but I don't want to make that a point to my advantage. I want to defend the view that there is ultimately a mind behind it all.

I would first like to ask you a question, what makes you differ between what is right and wrong. Is it something to do with our own personal survival? How are we conscious between good and evil, and why do we enforce the good? Why do we have an inescapable sense of morality which makes us feel guilty when we feel we have done wrong, if there is no such thing as absolute law? If absolute law is to protect humanity, what drives us to believe that this is true?

EDIT: A two man may argue about wether they should be allowed one or multiple wives, but surely they both agree that they should treat their wife/wives with respect?

 

[Exorcet]

I would first like to ask you a question, what makes you differ between what is right and wrong. Is it something to do with our own personal survival? How are we conscious between good and evil, and why do we enforce the good? Why do we have an inescapable sense of morality which makes us feel guilty when we feel we have done wrong, if there is no such thing as absolute law? If absolute law is to protect humanity, what drives us to believe that this is true?

I decide right and wrong based on what effects an action might have on other people. My decisions are influenced by society which gave me my original sense of right and wrong, and society developed it over thousand of years once millions of years of evolution gave humans emotions and empathy.

EDIT: A two man may argue about wether they should be allowed one or multiple wives, but surely they both agree that they should treat their wife/wives with respect?

Except the ones who don't.

Slave owners really thought that all people were equal right? Even the ones using the Bible to back up their way of thinking.

Then you have murders, thieves, con artists, etc.

Now a lot of people might have similar moral standards. Does that imply God? No, because it does nothing to disprove the idea that they have the same ideas on morality only because they came from similar societies.

 

[niky]

@niky:
I thought there was a view called materialism, where there is nothing past material (matter, energy). I was not using the view of property or wealth etc at all in my post, I apologise if I have mixed words up, or misunderstood.
What I mention to say is that there are two world views, one which there is nothing other that matter and such, and one in which says that there is a mind behind the material world (religious view).

Depends on the religion. Yet, you are using "God" as the basis of all morality and reject the concept of morality without "God".

The view that there is nothing beyond or behind physical phenomena but what can be physically seen is not the view of science. You're also ascribing to all atheists a view that nothing beyond the immediate physical exists. An incorrect generalization. Atheists merely reject the idea of God. Agnostics reject the idea that existing concepts of God are accurate but still believe in the existence of the immaterial.

In science, we merely state that matter and energy is the limit of what we can observe. But science does try to model things we cannot directly observe but whose existence affects what we can. With quantum theory being well established, with repeatable, documented evidence, you'd be hard pressed to find any scientist who ascribes to the viewpoint that there is nothing beyond the material.

The second of these views cannot be proven or disproven by science. I want to make that point clear, but I don't want to make that a point to my advantage. I want to defend the view that there is ultimately a mind behind it all.

Science can only describe or model phenomena that can be observed. That is why we currently put a limit at the possible extent of our understanding at the Big Bang and the boundaries of our observable Universe, simply because whether or not there is mind beyond is completely untestable and unprovable. To defend the view that there is a mind, you would have to be able to model that mind. So far, the modelling done by religious beliefs ascribes conflicting actions and motivations for that mind merely to fit the observable randomness of the Universe, which points to the possibility that such a mind is not human and cannot be ascribed to have human motivations or the good of humanity as its main goal.

I would first like to ask you a question, what makes you differ between what is right and wrong. Is it something to do with our own personal survival? How are we conscious between good and evil, and why do we enforce the good? Why do we have an inescapable sense of morality which makes us feel guilty when we feel we have done wrong, if there is no such thing as absolute law? If absolute law is to protect humanity, what drives us to believe that this is true?

Right and wrong: Again: "Do unto others" (as per Jesus and Confucius). If you would like a logical explanation of that: Our survival within society depends on the survival of other people. Man is a social animal and cannot survive alone. To ensure that others will cooperate in my survival, I must adopt an ethical system that also prioritizes the survival of others.

Guilt is an emotion. An emotion that can be trained by culture. Which is why a Catholic may feel guilty masturbating whereas a Buddhist sees it as a means of release. Or why a Nazi soldier feels no guilt at killing a Jew, or a plantation owner feels no guilt about owning slaves, as Exorcet has mentioned.

Children don't feel guilty about running around naked, playing with their "thingies", writing on walls, stealing or breaking things. They also don't feel guilty about hurting other people, either emotionally or physically. They have to be taught to feel guilty about the former, and naturally learn to feel guilty about hurting others once they learn how to empathize with other human beings.

Then there are those who don't learn empathy, either through lack of experience or mental damage/imbalance, which causes them to treat other people as objects. (studying mental illness and criminal psychology is fascinating...)

-----

The "good" is basically the "good" of humanity as a whole, as I already explained in my previous post. The only absolute law should be for one to protect himself and others from harm and to respect the autonomy of other people and their rights to their own bodies and possessions.

EDIT: A two man may argue about wether they should be allowed one or multiple wives, but surely they both agree that they should treat their wife/wives with respect?

So, they argue about whether they can own one woman or many? While some in a polygamous marriage may feel genuine love for each other, that institution supports the disenfranchisement of women, not in the least because most polygamous systems don't allow women to have multiple husbands.

The cultural tradition of marriage in such cases arises as wealthier men can support more often offspring, and thus, can support more wives. Thus they are allowed to have more wives. This is "normal" in a culture where men are traditionally providers and have more rights to property, wealth and trade than women. To the point where courtship involves the exchange of money between the groom and the parents (a "dowry").

While such a man may agree to "respect" his wives, the mere fact that he feels entitled to many wives while his wives are only entitled to one-half/third/fourth/fifth/etcetera of a husband means that this "respect" is limited by his limited outlook.

The monogamous man may look at it this way, but may also still feel "ownership" over his wife, expecting her to accept all his financial decisions and to support his career over hers.

Or, he may be more "modern", and will look at marriage as a partnership (as I do), wherein husband and wife share equal responsibility and ownership of the relationship, as co-breadwinners and co-housekeepers. As my salary has always been larger (curse this patriarchal society! ), I've lately taken on the role of sole breadwinner while my wife cares for our child, but if the situation were reversed, I could have been the housekeeper (I know some couples like this). As soon as our child is older, my wife is thinking of going back to work. I accept this.

I cannot claim to have no cultural biases, as I do have my prejudices against "house-bands", but that's the world we live in, and as long as they are fulfilling a vital role (house-keeping, child-rearing), then that's the couple's choice.

 

[CSLACR]

@niky:
I thought there was a view called materialism, where there is nothing past material (matter, energy). I was not using the view of property or wealth etc at all in my post, I apologise if I have mixed words up, or misunderstood.
What I mention to say is that there are two world views, one which there is nothing other that matter and such, and one in which says that there is a mind behind the material world (religious view).

The second of these views cannot be proven or disproven by science. I want to make that point clear, but I don't want to make that a point to my advantage. I want to defend the view that there is ultimately a mind behind it all.

I would first like to ask you a question, what makes you differ between what is right and wrong. Is it something to do with our own personal survival? How are we conscious between good and evil, and why do we enforce the good? Why do we have an inescapable sense of morality which makes us feel guilty when we feel we have done wrong, if there is no such thing as absolute law? If absolute law is to protect humanity, what drives us to believe that this is true?

EDIT: A two man may argue about wether they should be allowed one or multiple wives, but surely they both agree that they should treat their wife/wives with respect?

You seem to have a lot to learn about the world, and the differences of culture. You could learn quite a bit by reading Niky's last two posts in a less argumentative frame of mind.

Really nothing to do with believing in God or not, just true information. You can accept all of it, and still accept any religion, it's not contradictory.

BTW - Niky 👍 Real good stuff.

 

[niky]

And to add to that, lastly... part of the last section of the post, on marriage, is why we chose to write our own vows. Because Church vows are not the ones I would force my wife to make. Our vows were written with a co-equal partnership in mind, rather than for her to be a submissive wife to me. While I appreciate her being supportive to me in what I do, her criticism and counterpoint are important in keeping me grounded.

 

[jtv90069]

The historical accuracy of the New Testament is overwhelming. The evidence for Jesus is strong. The fact that Christianity spread so rapidly after the death of Jesus Christ, even when it was so strongly opposed.

According to the legend, Jesus traveled widely, attracted followers, and gained support for his message. But he increasingly provoked the anger of the Jewish priesthood. After traveling to Jerusalem to preach, he was arrested by the authorities and executed. He died around the year 30.

The legend of Jesus continued to grow after his death. His followers idolized him for having been the heroic spokesperson for a more enlightened form of Judaism. Stories about Jesus grew more mythical as new followers added their own expectations about who they wanted Jesus to be and what they wanted him to have said. The one thing that united them all was their desire that his life and death should be significant enough to bring lasting social change.

Collections of wise sayings and stories about admirable deeds were attributed to Jesus. As the years passed and his following grew more enthusiastic, Jesus the man was gradually transformed into Jesus Christ, the mythical savior of mankind, so perfect in every way that that he was believed to be the spirit of God embodied in the flesh of a man.

There were no significant writings about Jesus until decades after his death. He was not mentioned in any reliable Jewish or Roman histories. Few people had heard about him and his following remained a small and relatively unimportant sect of Judaism.

Paul

Paul was a fanatical Jew who was initially hostile to those who believed in Jesus. He was authorized by the Jewish authorities to hunt down members of the sect, but after witnessing the strength of their faith, he realized that stories about the son of God might be persuasive enough to spread the Jewish faith in God to the Greeks and Romans.

After converting to Christianity, Paul traveled throughout the Roman Empire, preaching to anybody who would listen. He was regularly beaten, stoned, ridiculed, and arrested, but he did manage to attract new followers and establish growing congregations in many Greek and Roman cities.



Approximately 400 years later.

When the question is asked, what we are to believe in regard to religion, it is not necessary to probe into the nature of things, as was done by the Greek scientists. We need not be alarmed should the Christian not know the number of elements; the motion of the heavenly bodies; the shape of the cosmos; the species of animals and plants; the nature of stones, rivers, and mountains; about time and distance; the signs of coming storms; or about a thousand other things which these scientists have either found out, or think they have found out.

For even these men themselves, endowed as they are with so much genius, burning with zeal, abounding in leisure, tracking some things by the aid of human conjecture, searching into others with the aids of history and experience, have not found out all things; and even their boasted discoveries are more often mere guesses rather than certain knowledge.

It is enough for the Christian to believe that the only cause of all created things, whether heavenly or earthly, visible or invisible, is the goodness of the creator, the one true God; and that nothing exists but Himself that does not derive its existence from Him. And that he is the Trinity, meaning he is the Father, and the Son begotten of the Father, and the Holy Spirit proceeding from the Father, all being one and the same spirit.

Augustine knew that Christianity was not compatible with science. For Christians, there was no need for new discoveries. Everything that mankind would ever need to know about God, nature, or humanity was to be found in the Bible. The process of discovery that began in ancient Greece had come to an end. Books would be destroyed and knowledge would be lost, marking the beginning of a dark age that would last for the next thousand years.

http://www.evolutionary-metaphysics.net/history_of_christianity.html

 

[Wenders]

If any Christian wishes to correct or revise these properties then they can so wish, as it is done to the best of my interpretation from the Bible. As previously I have said, I'm a new Christian, so relatively un-knowledgable of the teachings of the Bible.

@niky:

I would first like to ask you a question, what makes you differ between what is right and wrong. Is it something to do with our own personal survival? How are we conscious between good and evil, and why do we enforce the good? Why do we have an inescapable sense of morality which makes us feel guilty when we feel we have done wrong, if there is no such thing as absolute law? If absolute law is to protect humanity, what drives us to believe that this is true?

Can I ask, before you became a christian did you live a lawless life? probably not. So where did you get your sense of right and wrong?

There are cultures who 200 years ago had never heard of a god. They may have still been tribal hunter gatherers not living the civilised life that Europeans knew 200 years ago but they still had there own sense of good and evil, right and wrong and based their own tribal laws on these morals without a god to guide them.

I have raised two children to young adulthood without the guidance of a god. They are both well adjusted responsible members of society, one a well adjusted member of the GTPlanet society. Neither of them have read the bible and possibly only attended a church twice in their lives and yet they still know right from wrong.

 

[ScouserInExile]

The historical accuracy of the New Testament is overwhelming.

No, no it isn't. It's actually all over the place and falls down very early on , there was no census being taken around when jesus was supposed to have been born and a census wouldn't have necessitated people travelling to their place of birth anyway.

The problem with comparing the bible to documented history it's that the bible as we know it now is only about 400 years old, has been translated from one language to another to another and, most relevantly, has been continually chopped, changed and edited to fit in with what is considered "right" at any given time.not so much "god's word" as "what you have ben told god's word should be because it fits in better with how you are told to behave"

 

[BiggRayy]

I am God !!! believe in me lol.

 

[Strittan]

The historical accuracy of the New Testament is overwhelming. The evidence for Jesus is strong. The fact that Christianity spread so rapidly after the death of Jesus Christ, even when it was so strongly opposed.

Oh, is it? What evidence? Have they found his body?

Yes, christianity spread, but have you thought about how? Do you think they came up to you and kindly asked "Hey there. Heard about a guy called Jesus?"

Maybe you should study the Bible yourself, and see the evidence firsthand.

This is your problem. You believe that just because it's written a few thousand years ago it must have happened. What makes the Bible more true than the Quran or the Tanakh, or any other religious text?

I've read some lines in the Bible here and there though, and if anything it makes me believe in it even less.

Above all though, personal experience.

As far as I know, you haven't told us about any of these personal experiences yet, so would you mind doing so?

 

[Sach]

And to add to that, lastly... part of the last section of the post, on marriage, is why we chose to write our own vows. Because Church vows are not the ones I would force my wife to make. Our vows were written with a co-equal partnership in mind, rather than for her to be a submissive wife to me. While I appreciate her being supportive to me in what I do, her criticism and counterpoint are important in keeping me grounded.

My wife and I were married in a unity brought together by God the father, under Christian vows, and she is in absolutely no way submissive to me. Co-equal partnership, criticism, and counterpoint are a few of the very foundations of our relationship.

I just want to make clear that Christian vows and marriages do not exclude these things.

 

[TankAss95]

Can I ask, before you became a christian did you live a lawless life? probably not. So where did you get your sense of right and wrong?

There are cultures who 200 years ago had never heard of a god. They may have still been tribal hunter gatherers not living the civilised life that Europeans knew 200 years ago but they still had there own sense of good and evil, right and wrong and based their own tribal laws on these morals without a god to guide them.

I have raised two children to young adulthood without the guidance of a god. They are both well adjusted responsible members of society, one a well adjusted member of the GTPlanet society. Neither of them have read the bible and possibly only attended a church twice in their lives and yet they still know right from wrong.

Either I have presented my argument wrongly, or everyone has misunderstood what I am trying to say.
At no point am I saying that because I am Christian I have a superior moral stance, and that the stance cannot be found but by believing in God. It is no man to judge who is Christian or not, but many outspoken atheists are nicer people than Christian people. I believe that being a good person is apart from which belief or stance a person has.
What I am trying to say is, that we all have a sense of morality, and all of the discomfort we feel by being bad (guilt, shame etc) indicates that there is an absolute law of nature (absolute moral code). I believe that this sense that we have indicates an ultimate law giver, God.
No matter how hard I try to explain this, no one does this better than C. S. Lewis. His book 'Mere Christianity' deals with this issue, and is the very thing that convinced Francis Collins that there was a God. I welcome anyone to begin listening to this for answers: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LxJwSIIqQrU&feature=youtube_gdata_player
Work your way through a few parts at your own will, after the introduction it is the first point he discusses.

No, no it isn't. It's actually all over the place and falls down very early on , there was no census being taken around when jesus was supposed to have been born and a census wouldn't have necessitated people travelling to their place of birth anyway.

The problem with comparing the bible to documented history it's that the bible as we know it now is only about 400 years old, has been translated from one language to another to another and, most relevantly, has been continually chopped, changed and edited to fit in with what is considered "right" at any given time.not so much "god's word" as "what you have ben told god's word should be because it fits in better with how you are told to behave"

I thought that the dead sea scrolls proved that wrong.

Oh, is it? What evidence? Have they found his body?

Yes, christianity spread, but have you thought about how? Do you think they came up to you and kindly asked "Hey there. Heard about a guy called Jesus?"

This is your problem. You believe that just because it's written a few thousand years ago it must have happened. What makes the Bible more true than the Quran or the Tanakh, or any other religious text?

I've read some lines in the Bible here and there though, and if anything it makes me believe in it even less.

As far as I know, you haven't told us about any of these personal experiences yet, so would you mind doing so?

Stop convincing yourself that you know what I think. I believe that the Bible is correct other than other religious texts because of it's historical accuracy,the fact that it was written by many different people who had no contact with each other it fitted together suspiciously well and the fulfilled prophesies that had taken place. Nothing about the age of the Bible took part in my decision. If you want to understand more about why the Bible is right, go to the link I provided above. No matter how hard I try, I cannot defend the faith of Christianity better than C. S. Lewis, indeed, I don't think no one has. I feel that many people would be interested in his work, because he was atheist himself at one point.

 

[jtv90069]

Stop convincing yourself that you know what I think. I believe that the Bible is correct other than other religious texts because of it's historical accuracy,the fact that it was written by many different people who had no contact with each other it fitted together suspiciously well and the fulfilled prophesies that had taken place. Nothing about the age of the Bible took part in my decision. If you want to understand more about why the Bible is right, go to the link I provided above. No matter how hard I try, I cannot defend the faith of Christianity better than C. S. Lewis, indeed, I don't think no one has. I feel that many people would be interested in his work, because he was atheist himself at one point.

The bible has very little in the way of historical accuracy, It was written by many people a generation or more after the events are said to have taken place. It fitted together suspiciously well after hundreds of years (approximately 325AD*) by debate over which parts were to be added and which to be dismissed as heresy.
I don't think you need to defend your faith at all, but you are trying to present the bible as historically correct, which it is not.
* http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_Council_of_Nicaea
Edit: First council of Nicaea held debate over Jesus being either divine in purpose or divine in being(as of the same substance as god).
First Canonising of the Bible approx 140AD
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biblical_canon

 

[nitrorocks]

The bible has very little in the way of historical accuracy, It was written by many people a generation or more after the events are said to have taken place. It fitted together suspiciously well after hundreds of years (approximately 325AD*) by debate over which parts were to be added and which to be dismissed as heresy.
I don't think you need to defend your faith at all, but you are trying to present the bible as historically correct, which it is not.
* http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_Council_of_Nicaea
Edit: First council of Nicaea held debate over Jesus being either divine in purpose or divine in being(as of the same substance as god).
First Canonising of the Bible approx 140AD
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biblical_canon

Wikipedia?

 

[Strittan]

Stop convincing yourself that you know what I think.

What? You keep telling us what you think all the time.

I believe that the Bible is correct other than other religious texts because of it's historical accuracy,the fact that it was written by many different people who had no contact with each other it fitted together suspiciously well and the fulfilled prophesies that had taken place. Nothing about the age of the Bible took part in my decision.

What the hell is this "accuracy" you're talking about? You just assume it's accurate.

According to the Bible this planet is no older than 10,000 years, right? You think that's accurate? Well, you think wrong.

If you want to understand more about why the Bible is right, go to the link I provided above.

No offense, but if there is one person in this thread who needs to try and understand more, it's you.

 

[Omnis]

Augustine knew that Christianity was not compatible with science. For Christians, there was no need for new discoveries. Everything that mankind would ever need to know about God, nature, or humanity was to be found in the Bible. The process of discovery that began in ancient Greece had come to an end. Books would be destroyed and knowledge would be lost, marking the beginning of a dark age that would last for the next thousand years.

That's a terrible and misguided interpretation of St. Augustine. What he means is that you can always go back to trace a cause or progenitor. But what happens when you reach the limit? There is always something beyond what man has the capacity to discover. That's the idea of God. Thanks to his goodness, we are free to discover his creation and everything derived from it. Mathematically, the limit as understanding approaches infinity is God. And it's good enough for simple people to assume god when their understanding is inadequate, but to misunderstand this idea and assume that god is the immediate answer is to blind yourself to the beauty and the intricacy of life, the universe, and everything. The glory of GAWD HALLELUJAH!

 

[TankAss95]

What? You keep telling us what you think all the time.

What the hell is this "accuracy" you're talking about? You just assume it's accurate.

According to the Bible this planet is no older than 10,000 years, right? You think that's accurate? Well, you think wrong.

No offense, but if there is one person in this thread who needs to try and understand more, it's you.

You are making assumptions about my beliefs which are false. Yes, I am telling you what I think, but I'm not telling everyone what you believe/disbelieve or think, and expecting others to take that as a fact.

As I have said, my Christian faith has nothing to do with how old the Bible is. You presumed so.

There is no mentioning in Genesis of the age of the universe, everything is controversial. The Bible is written very carefully so that people could understand the universe better at the time.

And understand more of what? A mere enthusiast has an equal valued opinion of the existence of a deity than a top level scientist. We simply don't know everything, and science will never achieve such knowledge. Even if we know everything about the contents, history and beginning of the universe with certainty, we still wouldn't know if there was a mind behind it or not. We make our judgements on our perceptions. Tell me exactly what I need to understand. What do you mean?

 

[Zoom!Zoom!]

So if I kill your family, or simply know it will happen and intentionally decide to not stop it, so long as you meet a new woman and make more children, all is well, right?
I sure wouldn't forgive someone for intentionally stepping aside to allow something like that, so why would I forgive a "God" that did the same?

I can't create life not resurrected life so I don't hold the title of God. There is no law I know of where if I create something that I'm not allow to destroy it and recreate it again.

 

[CSLACR]

My wife and I were married in a unity brought together by God the father, under Christian vows, and she is in absolutely no way submissive to me. Co-equal partnership, criticism, and counterpoint are a few of the very foundations of our relationship.

I just want to make clear that Christian vows and marriages do not exclude these things.

That's fine, the Bible pretty clearly states the man is supposed to be the boss though. I know modern "Christians" don't like to read or follow the old testament much though, it changes who "God" is pretty drastically.

I can't create life not resurrected life so I don't hold the title of God. There is no law I know of where if I create something that I'm not allow to destroy it and recreate it again.

I guess abortion is legal, so you're kind of right.

But once again, in your own words, "you don't hold the title of God", meaning God is allowed to do things you aren't.

 

[Sach]

That's fine, the Bible pretty clearly states the man is supposed to be the boss though. I know modern "Christians" don't like to read or follow the old testament much though, it changes who "God" is pretty drastically.

You obviously do not understand the relationship between the New Testament and the Old Testament.

 

[niky]

My wife and I were married in a unity brought together by God the father, under Christian vows, and she is in absolutely no way submissive to me. Co-equal partnership, criticism, and counterpoint are a few of the very foundations of our relationship.

I just want to make clear that Christian vows and marriages do not exclude these things.

Old school Catholic vows include the need for the wife to obey her husband at all times and to be a submissive wife. Since the Philippines is as dyed-in-the-wool Catholic as any gets, we chose to write our own wedding vows.

I understand that not all Christian sects are the same, but as I've said, times change. Religion changes. Any religious organization that doesn't adapt to the world around it or accept that some of its dogma may be wrong suffers because of it.

What I am trying to say is, that we all have a sense of morality, and all of the discomfort we feel by being bad (guilt, shame etc) indicates that there is an absolute law of nature (absolute moral code). I believe that this sense that we have indicates an ultimate law giver, God.

Yet you've ignored the example I've given of Confucius. And you ignore the example of Socrates. Both of whom, through pure philosophical means and logic, came up with the Golden rule centuries before Christ.

I thought that the dead sea scrolls proved that wrong.

Again, the Dead Sea Scrolls which included non-canonical books, textual differences from the current Bible and completely non-Christian writings from around the time of Christ?

I believe that the Bible is correct other than other religious texts because of it's historical accuracy,the fact that it was written by many different people who had no contact with each other it fitted together suspiciously well and the fulfilled prophesies that had taken place.

We've come full circle, and you're repeating that argument again, yet not coming up with any answer to the previous counter-argument. Those different authors did have contact with each other. Simply because they read the scriptures. Seriously.. what Hebraic holy man of the time would not have studied the laws of David, the psalms, and the holy books of the prophets? And yet we have authors who wrote from different viewpoints... whose view of history and of God's works show that they justify natural calamities, wars, plagues, healings, slavery and whatnot as the will of God. There are the militant writers, the spiritual writers and the apocalyptic writers. The themes are hardly the same from book to book.

And yet, you accept that Genesis is more allegorical than fact, right? That the Earth is not flat? The Bible is not purely a historical text, but a collection of books culled from over four thousand years of Jewish and Christian history. To accept it wholesale as correct would mean accepting contradictions in scripture and practice that still have theologians pounding away at the books to this very day.

To accept the Bible as perfect is to view man as perfect. And that, by the doctrine of Original Sin, is patently not true.

I can't create life not resurrected life so I don't hold the title of God. There is no law I know of where if I create something that I'm not allow to destroy it and recreate it again.

Homicide. You can't kill your own children.

But more seriously... define "something"... If you're talking about something that thinks and feels, then yes, the law protects things that think and feel and that are not human.

Increasingly, we are seeing the rise of sentience laws that recognize the rights of animals which are not as intelligent as humans but which are obviously thinking and feeling creatures.

There have been proposals for sentience laws for artificial intelligences (both serious and not), which would protect the rights of any artificial intelligence created by man... which could be similar to laws we have in place that protect the rights of the artificial personalities that we've already created.

Artificial personalities? Yup. Corporations.

Corporate laws are there to protect the rights and to define the wrongs for legal entities that are not human but which are created by humans, so yes, you could say that there are laws regarding "things you create"... though if you start a corporation, as long as you still have control and a majority share in it, you can legally dissolve it, but it has to be done in a very specific manner.

Of course, since true artificial sentience is still decades away, we currently have no laws, but believe me, we will have them when we start getting close to the threshold.

 

[TankAss95]

That's fine, the Bible pretty clearly states the man is supposed to be the boss though. I know modern "Christians" don't like to read or follow the old testament much though, it changes who "God" is pretty drastically.

I guess abortion is legal, so you're kind of right.

But once again, in your own words, "you don't hold the title of God", meaning God is allowed to do things you aren't.

In Christianity, marriage is when two become one flesh. The old testament often says that man does have rights over the woman, and to an outsider this seems like very subjective grounds.
When you look at the morality of Christianity, you'll find many seemingly possible things to follow. Again, C. S. Lewis has described these morals in his book, 'Mere Christianity', better than I would ever hope to.
Because man and woman become one through marriage, divorce is obviously not so linear and soluble as one might imagine. Divorce is like giving away part of your self which you have built upon, along with many other, more obvious complications (children primarily). This is why many different churches simply don't allow divorce.
When a married couple argue, obviously they would try to work it out, but what happens when the couple come to a difference they cannot agree on? You cannot take the majority vote obviously, and divorce would break the physical and primarily spiritual bond of the couple. Differences like these are mainly covered in the Bible through teachings or commandments, but often no clear answer is available.
Christianity leave the male with superiority over the argument, meaning that his view in the differences would settle the argument. This is because the man is traditionally the person of income to the family, but also because the man would more likely make his judgement based on a view for the bugger picture, rather than just his own family.
This seems very alarming and cruel at first, but you could imagine it so in numerous scenarios. The mother usually rushes to aid her child, as the inescapable urge of her nature makes her do so. This is usually the best course of action, but often a woman makes her judgement without seeing the full picture. A father, however much he loves his child, does not have that same bond as the mother may have. He would more likely see the bigger picture, and weigh immediate needs with long term implications of a situation with a more likely outcome of success.
This all sounds very alarming, and I feel that I may be doing more damage than good as a representative of Christianity in this discussion, describing my interpretation of such controversial laws in such way, as only when you become faithful to the main focus of Christianity, many of these laws make sense.
Morality of Christianity is a very complex issue, and as I have said C. S. Lewis explains these individual issues admirably. A non-Christian could condem or see these morals as even dangerous as he has only seen part of the picture, but when understood they are not so subjective as you would imagine. They work together harmoniously and with peace. The worst of the Christian sins is pride, and until remarkably recently I couldn't even understand why it was so seriously wrong to be proud in certain ways as I was doing, until I studied more.

 

[niky]

Men are superior? Absolute and utter tripe. As are religiously-inspired laws that allow men priority over financial decisions, these are based on outmoded and woefully incorrect thinking. While divorce has its negative effects, one of its more positive outcomes was to empower women to remove themselves from abusive, one-sided relationships such as you describe. There is no bigger picture within a marriage than the welfare of the child. If you're not getting married for the welfare of your children, why get married in the first place?

This all sounds very alarming, and I feel that I may be doing more damage than good as a representative of Christianity in this discussion, describing my interpretation of such controversial laws in such way, as only when you become faithful to the main focus of Christianity, many of these laws make sense.

In the sense that what you described was unrealistic, incredibly sexist, mysogynistic and patronizing towards women? Do tell.

Men are better big picture thinkers? Men are better long-range planners? Excuse me while I go dunk my head for a while because everything I've learned in Psychology, Marriage Counselling (Christian marriage counselling, mind you), Business and life in general is wrong.

You've just justified one of the doctrines of Islam which the Western world has been using to criticize it for the past century... all without paying heed to my post in which I noted that "Any religious organization that doesn't adapt to the world around it or accept that some of its dogma may be wrong suffers because of it."

And in which you ignored Sach's post in which he stated that their Christian vows were made in the same vein as mine.

-----

As has been suggested before, you really need more experience and knowledge before continuing on in this debate.

 

[Exorcet]

In Christianity, marriage is when two become one flesh. The old testament often says that man does have rights over the woman, and to an outsider this seems like very subjective grounds.
When you look at the morality of Christianity, you'll find many seemingly possible things to follow. Again, C. S. Lewis has described these morals in his book, 'Mere Christianity', better than I would ever hope to.
Because man and woman become one through marriage, divorce is obviously not so linear and soluble as one might imagine. Divorce is like giving away part of your self which you have built upon, along with many other, more obvious complications (children primarily). This is why many different churches simply don't allow divorce.
When a married couple argue, obviously they would try to work it out, but what happens when the couple come to a difference they cannot agree on? You cannot take the majority vote obviously, and divorce would break the physical and primarily spiritual bond of the couple. Differences like these are mainly covered in the Bible through teachings or commandments, but often no clear answer is available.
Christianity leave the male with superiority over the argument, meaning that his view in the differences would settle the argument. This is because the man is traditionally the person of income to the family, but also because the man would more likely make his judgement based on a view for the bugger picture, rather than just his own family.
This seems very alarming and cruel at first, but you could imagine it so in numerous scenarios. The mother usually rushes to aid her child, as the inescapable urge of her nature makes her do so. This is usually the best course of action, but often a woman makes her judgement without seeing the full picture. A father, however much he loves his child, does not have that same bond as the mother may have. He would more likely see the bigger picture, and weigh immediate needs with long term implications of a situation with a more likely outcome of success.
This all sounds very alarming, and I feel that I may be doing more damage than good as a representative of Christianity in this discussion, describing my interpretation of such controversial laws in such way, as only when you become faithful to the main focus of Christianity, many of these laws make sense.
Morality of Christianity is a very complex issue, and as I have said C. S. Lewis explains these individual issues admirably. A non-Christian could condem or see these morals as even dangerous as he has only seen part of the picture, but when understood they are not so subjective as you would imagine. They work together harmoniously and with peace. The worst of the Christian sins is pride, and until remarkably recently I couldn't even understand why it was so seriously wrong to be proud in certain ways as I was doing, until I studied more.

I think that this post is a standout piece of evidence supporting the idea that religion can create very wrong and harmful ways of thinking.

 

[homeforsummer]

"Any religious organization that doesn't adapt to the world around it or accept that some of its dogma may be wrong suffers because of it."

This point largely explains why I think that if I were to ever choose to follow a religion, it'd be Buddhism. It seems to exist largely to guide you towards being a better person, and has virtually no contradictions with modern living, other than an implication that you should separate yourself from materialistic ways. Which really is fair enough, since it's perfectly possible to live in the modern world without craving personal possessions.

Oh, and Buddhism is entirely open to the theory of evolution. It doesn't endorse it as such, but it's happy to accept it. Acceptance of modern progress over belief in old wives' husbands' (given previous patriarchal discussion) tales? Sounds good to me.

 

[TankAss95]

"So much for the Christian doctrine about the permanence of marriage. Something else, even more unpopular, remains to be dealt with. Christian wives promise to obey their husbands. In Christian marriage the man is said to be the ‘head’. Two questions obviously arise here. (1) Why should there be a head at all — why not equality? (2) Why should it be the man?
(1) The need for some head follows from the idea that marriage is permanent. Of course, as long as the husband and wife are agreed, no question of a head need arise; and we may hope that this will be the normal state of affairs in a Christian marriage. But when there is a real disagreement, what is to happen? Talk it over, of course; but I am assuming they have done that and still failed to reach agreement. What do they do next? They cannot decide by a majority vote, for in a council of two there can be no majority. Surely, only one or other of two things can happen: either they must separate and go their own ways or else one or other of them must have a casting vote. If marriage is permanent, one or other party must, in the last resort, have the power of deciding the family policy. You cannot have a permanent association without a constitution.
(2) If there must be a head, why the man? Well, firstly, is there any very serious wish that it should be the woman? As I have said, I am not married myself, but as far as I can see, even a woman who wants to be the head of her own house does not usually admire the same state of things when she finds it going on next door. She is much more likely to say ‘Poor Mr X! Why he allows that appalling woman to boss him about the way she does is more than I can imagine.’ I do not think she is even very flattered if anyone mentions the fact of her own ‘headship’. There must be something unnatural about the rule of wives over husbands, because the wives themselves are half ashamed of it and despise the husbands whom they rule. But there is also another reason; and here I speak quite frankly as a bachelor, because it is a reason you can see from outside even better than from inside. The relations of the family to the outer world — what might be called its foreign policy — must depend, in the last resort, upon the man, because he always ought to be, and usually is, much more just to the outsiders. A woman is primarily fighting for her own children and husband against the rest of the world. Naturally, almost, in a sense, rightly, their claims override, for her, all other claims. She is the special trustee of their interests. The function of the husband is to see that this natural preference of hers is not given its head. He has the last word in order to protect other people from the intense family patriotism of the wife. If anyone doubts this, let me ask a simple question. If your dog has bitten the child next door, or if your child has hurt the dog next door, which would you sooner have to deal with, the master of that house or the mistress? Or, if you are a married woman, let me ask you this question. Much as you admire your husband, would you not say that his chief failing is his tendency not to stick up for his rights and yours against the neighbours as vigorously as you would like? A bit of an Appeaser?" - Mere Christianity by C. S. Lewis

 

[Dennisch]

TankAss, maybe it's time to quit posting here. You seem to show a certain fanaticism towards christianity, and you do more wrong than right to prove your case.

 

[Exorcet]

(1) The need for some head follows from the idea that marriage is permanent. Of course, as long as the husband and wife are agreed, no question of a head need arise; and we may hope that this will be the normal state of affairs in a Christian marriage. But when there is a real disagreement, what is to happen? Talk it over, of course; but I am assuming they have done that and still failed to reach agreement. What do they do next? They cannot decide by a majority vote, for in a council of two there can be no majority. Surely, only one or other of two things can happen: either they must separate and go their own ways or else one or other of them must have a casting vote. If marriage is permanent, one or other party must, in the last resort, have the power of deciding the family policy. You cannot have a permanent association without a constitution.

Compromise. It's something two responsible adults should be capable of. If that doesn't work, seek outside help such as marriage counseling. I'm sorry, but just arbitrarily giving the final say to the man is just stupid and unfair.

And what if the problem apparently can't be solved? Divorce. The idea that divorce is totally bad is as insane as your view that men should be superior to women.

(2) If there must be a head, why the man? Well, firstly, is there any very serious wish that it should be the woman? As I have said, I am not married myself, but as far as I can see, even a woman who wants to be the head of her own house does not usually admire the same state of things when she finds it going on next door. She is much more likely to say ‘Poor Mr X! Why he allows that appalling woman to boss him about the way she does is more than I can imagine.’ I do not think she is even very flattered if anyone mentions the fact of her own ‘headship’. There must be something unnatural about the rule of wives over husbands, because the wives themselves are half ashamed of it and despise the husbands whom they rule. But there is also another reason; and here I speak quite frankly as a bachelor, because it is a reason you can see from outside even better than from inside. The relations of the family to the outer world — what might be called its foreign policy — must depend, in the last resort, upon the man, because he always ought to be, and usually is, much more just to the outsiders. A woman is primarily fighting for her own children and husband against the rest of the world. Naturally, almost, in a sense, rightly, their claims override, for her, all other claims. She is the special trustee of their interests. The function of the husband is to see that this natural preference of hers is not given its head. He has the last word in order to protect other people from the intense family patriotism of the wife. If anyone doubts this, let me ask a simple question. If your dog has bitten the child next door, or if your child has hurt the dog next door, which would you sooner have to deal with, the master of that house or the mistress? Or, if you are a married woman, let me ask you this question. Much as you admire your husband, would you not say that his chief failing is his tendency not to stick up for his rights and yours against the neighbours as vigorously as you would like? A bit of an Appeaser?" - Mere Christianity by C. S. Lewis

I cannot express my disagreement with the bold enough. It's completely ridiculous. Children do not make women become irrational and obsessive. It can happen, just like it can happen to a man.

Here's a better answer to your simple question than to just go to the man, decide based on the couple you are dealing with since they are all going to be different.

 

[TankAss95]

Compromise. It's something two responsible adults should be capable of. If that doesn't work, seek outside help such as marriage counseling. I'm sorry, but just arbitrarily giving the final say to the man is just stupid and unfair.

And what if the problem apparently can't be solved? Divorce. The idea that divorce is totally bad is as insane as your view that men should be superior to women.

I cannot express my disagreement with the bold enough. It's completely ridiculous. Children do not make women become irrational and obsessive. It can happen, just like it can happen to a man.

Here's a better answer to your simple question than to just go to the man, decide based on the couple you are dealing with since they are all going to be different.

http://merelewis.com/CSL.mc.3-06.ChristianMarriage.htm

Read.

 

[TankAss95]

http://merelewis.com/CSL.mc.3-06.ChristianMarriage.htm

Read.

EDIT: At no point do I think that divorce should be condemned, I'm just saying that between two Christians divorce is seen as a last option if you like.
This law is done at a woman's own will. It is an attempt to equalise a hostility in an unjustified manner, if there is no clear path out. When used correctly in union with other Christian laws, it proves beneficial.
Common sense is always applied to this rule just like any other.