Religion — Page 43

thejediknighthusezni said:

The Chess playing computers are now superior to the designers in ability to play the game. They are superior to the players. Yet, they are utter slaves to the logic and design and the users can turn them off and on at will.

 Yeah, but that can't happen to huma-

I just finished reading the forty or so pages of this thread I had missed. All I can say is "I wish I was here [on this thread on this site, not in this plane of existence] back then." There were some great conversations and debates early on and I would have loved to be a part of them. I also got to figure out C3PS and some other members a bit better. I was confused by his seeming inconsistency with his defense of Christianity, sometimes seeming like a practicing Christian and other times seeming like he was against it. Now it all makes sense. :P

http://www.cam.ac.uk/research/news/morality-prevents-crime

http://thechristians.com/?q=node/1398&utm_source=TheChristians.com+Subscribers&utm_campaign=288dfcc94e-TCH-Issue0271&utm_medium=email&utm_term=0_e2d8bf6d30-288dfcc94e-61077257

That seems like common sense to me, but I guess it isn't to many.

So I have been thinking about addressing a concern for many with regards to the Bible.  Let's indulge in a little hypothetical scenario:

God has decided to update his Bible for the benefit of all mankind.  He speaks to his prophet, who invites all to help him write it.  Nearly everyone on earth participates, providing input and helping God create the perfect book of scripture, with modern day stories that are applicable and instructive as to what we actually morally believe.  That way, the majority of humanity and God are always in agreement.  Commandments make sense to us today.  Life is good.  When the Bible is completed, we are left with a book that should last for all time, filled with stories that truly teach us right and wrong!  And mankind uses this book for a couple thousand years.

The year is now 4014 CE.  People still read this new Bible.  They still worship God based on an understanding from time the book was written.  But many "modern" people of the day are deeply offended at the nature of the book.  Many of the stories are completely not applicable.  Sure, there are good moral lessons in some of them, but some of them are simply implausible or unacceptable by "present-day" standards.  Some things are downright offensive.  Surely no God could have been involved in the composition of such a barbaric book.

Now indulge in another hypothetical story:

God has come to earth to update the Bible.  He wishes to instruct mankind in really the ultimate, correct values.  God knowing all, always knows what is absolutely right and wrong in every situation and across time.  So he has his prophet compose a Bible based on his knowledge.  The ideas are utterly radical.  Even the most progressive thinkers could not have possibly conceived such a book.

Sadly, the book is not well received.  The ideas are far too radical.  The moral lessons do not fit our concept of right and wrong at all.  Few believe that a divine being, a benevolent God, could possible formulate such a radical book that does not compare with what we believe to be right and wrong.

Hopefully my stories are illustrative and need no clarification.

That's a great way to explain God's system of revelation, ender. According to the Bible, God had a hard enough time getting the Israelites/Hebrews to be faithful to him even with the Mosaic Law, so I doubt he would have had any luck giving them a full revelation all at once.

If I were to create a piece of software with the potential to complain, run it on hardware with a short shelf life and not update the operating manual regularly I wouldn't be surprised if my program lost faith in my skills and doubted my existence. Particularly if there were lots of competing derivative or wholly original operating manuals which offered different and sometimes better satisfaction.

Omnipotence should remove any surprise from what I have just written.If God is omnipotent he/she/it will not worry about situation I've just described or indeed that I have isolated it.

Then there are different models of Omnipotence, the ability to read every book doesn't necessarily equate to reading every book. The Almighty can make a rock He can't move, it doesn't mean He has to though.

I hardly think God is "surprised" when people reject him. I believe that he is a merciful and understanding God, since he made us this way and he is omniscient and omnipresent. An omniscient/omnipresent God wouldn't be surprised about anything, nor would he be worried in the normal sense of the word, since he already knows what's going to happen.

       I suppose there is a great difference between a cop who hides his car behind a bush to catch wrongdoers and a sociologist who puts up a sign seeking compliance in order to test the character of individuals and the culture at large.

       If God can see past, present and future simultaneously, The Being is at once knowing and learning.

Bingowings said:

If I were to create a piece of software with the potential to complain, run it on hardware with a short shelf life and not update the operating manual regularly I wouldn't be surprised if my program lost faith in my skills and doubted my existence. Particularly if there were lots of competing derivative or wholly original operating manuals which offered different and sometimes better satisfaction.

 This is why God needs to provide modern prophets in a modern age.  Of course, now I am just putting in a plug for my faith ;)

In all seriousness, my point isn't to point out any need to update the Bible.  It's about the fact that when people read the Bible, particularly the Old Testament, and attempt to judge God by giving a revelation to an ancient culture.  We are talking about an ancient culture and commandments consistent with what that culture is prepared to accept.  And do not forget that God did update those commandments with the higher law taught by Jesus Christ, laws that liberals and conservatives, progressives and traditionalists agree with.  Love your neighbor as yourself.  Love thine enemies.  Pray for them that despitefully use you and persecute you.  Whatsoever ye would that men should do to you, do ye even so to them.  Etc.  Good laws that require a little of one's own wisdom to apply them appropriately to particular situations.  The problem is too many people do not live by these laws, fail to apply them sufficiently, do not trust in the long-term success of many of these laws and instead cling to the short-term rewards, often to their long-term detriment.

But my point is that if we are dealing with people of a different culture and the commandments God gave to them, do not judge God for granting what the people were capable of accepting at the time.

In other words, the Old Testament is not Mein Kampf.

thejediknighthusezni said:

       I suppose there is a great difference between a cop who hides his car behind a bush to catch wrongdoers and a sociologist who puts up a sign seeking compliance in order to test the character of individuals and the culture at large.

       If God can see past, present and future simultaneously, The Being is at once knowing and learning.

It's a very silly God that makes laws he knows will be broken and then plays cop, judge, jury and executioner.

I'm not saying such a God is implausible, a lot of work goes into make the Grand Theft Auto series and I dare say enjoyment is derived from them but that does make us little more than an entertainment.

It's very silly that governments make laws they know will be broken, and then have a police force to enforce them, and courts to send the violators people to prison.

Bingowings said:

thejediknighthusezni said:

       I suppose there is a great difference between a cop who hides his car behind a bush to catch wrongdoers and a sociologist who puts up a sign seeking compliance in order to test the character of individuals and the culture at large.

       If God can see past, present and future simultaneously, The Being is at once knowing and learning.

It's a very silly God that makes laws he knows will be broken and then plays cop, judge, jury and executioner.

I'm not saying such a God is implausible, a lot of work goes into make the Grand Theft Auto series and I dare say enjoyment is derived from them but that does make us little more than an entertainment.

      Granted, it's an imperfect analogy.

      God is under no obligation to be an objective observer.

      Every test is a game and every game is a test. Novelty produces the most interesting results in entertainment as well as "science".

      The school districts that sponsor team sports might have a "scientific" interest in the outcomes of these competitions, feel entertained by the spectacle, and care a great deal that the children practice good sportsmanship and avoid hurting each other. 

RicOlie_2 said:

It's very silly that governments make laws they know will be broken, and then have a police force to enforce them, and courts to send the violators people to prison.

Governments are not omnipotent or almighty yet.  They are trying very hard at being omnipresent but what they do with your email and your medical records is reliant on humans who can make errors. The lawmakers themselves are largely ignorant people how only ascend the greasy pole but dint of connections to other rich connected people. The system for humans setting laws for humans works at best, at the best level possible for humanity to achieve.

God's PR team make out he is above all that and I have no evidence to prove that they are wrong.

So that God is a silly games programer and we are his toys, his bubble wrap to pop, his insects to feed, put through hoops, dress up in dolls costumes and to torture and kill.

Sounds like a monster to me or a child. A great big bug torturing monster child.

^People often mistake the motives of someone they haven't gotten to know sufficiently well.  And I'm talking about a personal familiarity, not merely a theoretical understanding based on hearsay.

darth_ender said:

^People often mistake the motives of someone they haven't gotten to know sufficiently well.  And I'm talking about a personal familiarity, not merely a theoretical understanding based on hearsay.

 I heard through the grapevine that you were going to say that.

darth_ender said:

^People often mistake the motives of someone they haven't gotten to know sufficiently well.  And I'm talking about a personal familiarity, not merely a theoretical understanding based on hearsay.

 As a matter of fact we went to school together and he was utterly awful even back then.

^ALLOL

Since I don't believe in a literal Satan and am pretty much convinced that there never was and never will be a literal Satan, I consider myself a moderate-to-hard asatanist. 

You can be agnostic to the belief in Satan.

Agnostic just means you don't know the answer to something, Ignostic means you aren't even sure if the question is right.

Your ideas are interesting and quite true in my mind.  The major difference between your views and mine is that God is willing to reveal himself to those who seek him on a level of comprehension they can understand.  It may be simplistic, but it's a finite way to understand the infinite.

I'm ignostic in the sense that I think the word "god" itself is meaningless without a common frame of reference. And since the definition/nature/defining characteristics of "god" varies between different religions, cultures, and individuals, that means there is no common frame of reference and never was.