Picards mistakes

[Sionnach Glic]

I am not in a position to defend Christianity per se, what with not being a Christian and all - and thusly doomed to eternal damnation by their definition. That's OK with me; if I end up in Hell, at least I'll be with my friends. However, here's my take in a nutshell -

Actually, God said he'd save 144,000 Jews at the end of the world, so you might be one of the lucky few. Remember to send me a postcard if you get there.

and while I can't comment on the New Testament, there are certainly some horrific things in the Old Testament which I can't condone; and which I don't believe can be taken fundamentally. Fundamentalism is, after all, what has led to many of the reiligion-related problems of the world.

I agree with you that fundamentalism is one of the major problems with religion. A few posts back, I took some quotes out of the New Testament which showed that it was pretty horific itself.

Many of the problems that were mentioned here, such as the Church changing its rules, stances, etc., are problems with an organization, not with the underlying faith. That is bound to happen, as these are organizations comprising imperfect beings - humans.

It's a problem with the underlying faith if it condones the murder of children. The changes made were mostly for the better.

*snippy*
"What are you talking about?" said G-d. "I sent two boats and a helicopter!"

I like it.

To the point though, you're right that a god's intervention may not be wholely obvious, but why be so obvious during the Old Testament, where he was blowing up cities, and such, and then go all quiet?

As for G-d providing proof of himself - well that's really the antithesis of faith, isn't it? In a coldly logical light, remember: we created G-d, not the other way around. In other words, mankind created religion to fill a need; religion did not develop before man created it. As a product of mankind, religion is bound to be both flawed and malleable - but for those of us who find comfort, solace, and a sense of community, bonding, and history in it, it's what we have to go with.

Well, as an atheist that's pretty much my perspective on religion. Humanity created God to explain why the sun rose, why it rained, what, earthquakes were, etc. Then they created the afterlife to explain/comfort death or those that had experienced a loss.

[Deepcrush]

Wow, this topic is just not something worth getting into. Its 2000 years old and really none of us were their so its silly to worry about. We don't want this turning into one of those - "Its wrong to kill in the name of God so in the Name of God we are going to kill you all!" - kind of threads.

[Sionnach Glic]

I am not in a position to defend Christianity per se, what with not being a Christian and all - and thusly doomed to eternal damnation by their definition. That's OK with me; if I end up in Hell, at least I'll be with my friends. However, here's my take in a nutshell -

Actually, God said he'd save 144,000 Jews at the end of the world, so you might be one of the lucky few. Remember to send me a postcard if you get there.

and while I can't comment on the New Testament, there are certainly some horrific things in the Old Testament which I can't condone; and which I don't believe can be taken fundamentally. Fundamentalism is, after all, what has led to many of the reiligion-related problems of the world.

I agree with you that fundamentalism is one of the major problems with religion. A few posts back, I took some quotes out of the New Testament which showed that it was pretty horific itself.

Many of the problems that were mentioned here, such as the Church changing its rules, stances, etc., are problems with an organization, not with the underlying faith. That is bound to happen, as these are organizations comprising imperfect beings - humans.

It's a problem with the underlying faith if it condones the murder of children. The changes made were mostly for the better.

*snippy*
"What are you talking about?" said G-d. "I sent two boats and a helicopter!"

I like it.

To the point though, you're right that a god's intervention may not be wholely obvious, but why be so obvious during the Old Testament, where he was blowing up cities, and such, and then go all quiet?

As for G-d providing proof of himself - well that's really the antithesis of faith, isn't it? In a coldly logical light, remember: we created G-d, not the other way around. In other words, mankind created religion to fill a need; religion did not develop before man created it. As a product of mankind, religion is bound to be both flawed and malleable - but for those of us who find comfort, solace, and a sense of community, bonding, and history in it, it's what we have to go with.

Well, as an atheist that's pretty much my perspective on religion. Humanity created God to explain why the sun rose, why it rained, what, earthquakes were, etc. Then they created the afterlife to explain/comfort death or those that had experienced a loss.

[Deepcrush]

Wow, this topic is just not something worth getting into. Its 2000 years old and really none of us were their so its silly to worry about. We don't want this turning into one of those - "Its wrong to kill in the name of God so in the Name of God we are going to kill you all!" - kind of threads.

[Sionnach Glic]

You're late Deep, the debate's just about over.

[Deepcrush]

OH thank G.... opps, wait can't say that, lol
Great golly gee!

[Graham Kennedy]

My question in all this is, assuming god does indeed exist, what right does he have to give humans laws to live by and then judge them?

Good to see ya in the forums, oh Grand Exalted...er, Webmaster. I'll try to answer your question as best as I can; basically, its because he created us.

I'm sorry, but I don't buy that one little bit. Your robot example lacks a crucial element; a robot is a non-thinking device.

Let's bring this vaguely on topic. Let's say I created a robot like Data. Would I then be within my rights to set rules for it and demand its compliance? Would I be within my rights to punish it if it chose not to obey? As in The measure of a Man, the answer is clearly a resounding NO!

If god made me, he did so for his own reasons. I don't owe him one single thing for it.

But the main reason that God has given us rules is not for his benefit, but for ours; that is how we were designed to live, our 'operating manual,' if you will

And again, I'm sorry but this doesn't cut it. "This is for your own good" is something an abusive husband says after beating his wife.

Suppose you go out for a pizza. I walk in and snatch your pizza off the table, throw it in the trash, then forcibly drag you out of the place, plonk you down on the pavement and hand you a salad. "Pizzas are unhealthy," I say. "This is better for you. It's for your own good."

Would you really, honestly thank me for that? Of course not! Because the fact that an oppressive action may be for your own good is in no way a justification for it.

Free people are ultimately governed by themselves, through whatever method works for them. I have a government which has a moral authority to write laws restricting my behaviour; it has that right ONLY because I have a hand in selecting that government.

This does not apply to god. Nobody ever got the chance to vote for god. God never stood for election, never argues his case with his opponents. He simply laid down a bunch of dictates, threatened infinite punishment to anybody who didn't comply, and retired from the stage. As described, god is the ultimate dictator and the ultimate tyrant. Well he's not the boss of me, and the simple fact that he holds punishment over my head won't make me bow and scrape to him or follow rules I think are ill founded and unwise.

[Deepcrush]

From what I remember "What you hold true upon man and earth I shall hold true in heaven." Along with "...Man is above the common beast for he was born of me and is free for his own will..." - its been a long time so i couldn't remember it all so its not quite word for word but close enough to. Maybe its because i was raised to the words of free will. Even when i go to church today i hear freedom and free will was given by God. Why should i think he would hold anything less for heaven. I have never heard a law of God upon Men. That was mostly writen later by followers and wayists. But anyhow, to follow God or not is choice and i have always believed that his words are guild lines to help us live better lives not laws to be beaten into us. I think its important to remember that Religion is a Point Of View!

Thats just my thought.
Peace! I'm out for lunch!

[Mikey]

Excellent questions, Mr. Kennedy, and I will answer as I answered Teaos and Rochey - G-d didn't give us rules which He commanded us to follow, he gave us optional guidelines and invited us to follow them. The Hebrew word mitzvah, which is used for a Biblical regulation, doesn't carry the same connotation as the word "commandment."

And since we don't have a conception of eternal reward or damnation, there is no duress to enforce compliance.

[Graham Kennedy]

Excellent questions, Mr. Kennedy, and I will answer as I answered Teaos and Rochey - G-d didn't give us rules which He commanded us to follow, he gave us optional guidelines and invited us to follow them. The Hebrew word mitzvah, which is used for a Biblical regulation, doesn't carry the same connotation as the word "commandment."

And since we don't have a conception of eternal reward or damnation, there is no duress to enforce compliance.

Because we can't conceive of infinite torment, that does not negate it as a threat. We can certainly conceive of long, horrible torment and therefore know that an infinite torment would be beyond that. And when you give people "optional guidelines" and then arrange it so that one of them leads to an eternity of firey torment, that's not a free choice.

Suppose I point a gun at you and say "Now you have a perfectly free choice here; sit down or stay standing. It's entirely up to you. Incidentally, if you remain standing I am going to empty this gun into your legs and then start stepping on the wounds. But that's just me, it's a free choice on your part."

You can't seriously suggest that I'm giving you a free choice there just because I claim it is.

[Mikey]

You mnisunderstand me - when I said we don't have a conception, what I meant that my belief, as a Jew, doesn't imclude any idea of reward or punishment in an afterlife. In other words, there is no threat of punishment or promise of reward; we are merely given the option of following G-d's guidelines; the incentive to do so is merely the faith that those guidelines are in mankind's best interests.

Don't ask me for proof that they actually are - that's why I used the word "faith."

[Graham Kennedy]

Ah, then I did misunderstand.

Still, it doesn't change the fact. God has no moral right to lay down any kind of rules for me or you.

[Mikey]

Perhaps not. But the idea of G-d that I hold means that he is vastly more wise, if enigmatic, than I could hope to understand much less attain; and that his guidelines do have a purpose, even if I can't fathom it.

This viewpoint is the main reason that millions of Jews in the Warsaw Ghetto, and then the concentration and death camps, and even those who escaped but were denied sanctuary in England, France, the US, etc., still never gave up their faith or cursed an unattentive G-d. As the poem written in the Warsaw Ghetto reads, "I believe in G-d, even when He is silent."

[Graham Kennedy]

And if you *choose* to follow his rules, then by all means have at it. But god has absolutely no right to *expect* you to do so.

[Mikey]

Perhaps not. That's one of the reasons I like my faith. Of course, hand in hand with that is the idea that you can't receive any sort of divine absolution for the sins you commit against your fellow man - only the person you have wronged can forgive you for that.