Religious

[Show Me the Wire]

Originally Posted by thaskalos

I'm not sure if you are aware of this...but it was I who initially unearthed this highly-disturbing photo. I was overcome by "sympathy" when I first saw it...even though I am not altogether sure if our existence here is "planned" or an "accident"...or if it has any "meaning" or "value", in the wide scheme of things.

I know you did. However, you are not Actor and you do not champion Dawkins and his theories. I would like to hear form Actor if he feels sympathy, why.

[boxcar]

Originally Posted by Parkview_Pirate

The game plan for Christians is laid out with some clarity in the Bible, assuming you don't practice it like Bubba Clinton and get a free "reset" every Sunday. Turning the other cheek and forgiving others for their sins against us is what I would call a flavor of mercy.

Since man is created in God's image, ergo, one would conclude that God is also on the hook to dispense mercy and grace to all sinners, 'cept of course for blasphemers.

So, I would say the answer to that question is yes.

OTH, I can understand to a certain degree that man's ability to understand a truly Supreme Being is limited, so maybe He gets to play by a different rulebook.

Regardless, the conflict between good Christian morals and what we observe in the world is something that many of us never get past. And surely God realized that was going to result in incredible suffering for many, if not the vast majority, of humans.

If that is the case and God is obligated to us, then it can't be mercy by definition. Mercy, by definition, is withholding punishment or divine displeasure that is due a person.

Grace is similar but with one critical difference. Grace is God's unmerited favor bestowed upon someone who is not worthy.

In either case, mercy or grace are antithetical to such concepts as debt or obligation. These (mercy or grace) are mutually exclusive terms, contradicting the ideas of debt or obligation.

Aren't you glad God doesn't think like a man?

[boxcar]

Originally Posted by Show Me the Wire

You mean that book the the fathers of the Protestant Reformation questioned?

Lest we forget. boxcar said:

Why...you have never doubted? But regardless of initial doubts (over a few other books as well), did not the questioned books make into the canon? It appears to me that God's sovereign will prevailed in the matter, would you not agree? Or did God really have any say in the matter at all?

[Show Me the Wire]

Originally Posted by Parkview_Pirate

I'm not sure I follow your train of thought here. Human emotions are often illogical, but in this case sympathy for the child aligns with common values.

Are you saying that evolution and the existence of both vulture and child are accidents? Not hardly. It's simple math and physics, when considering the size of the universe, that made their existence a virtual certainty. No supreme being or creator required.

So life is not random? Life was planned? Planned by physics? Math is only an explanation so math could not have planned life? Where did the math to explain physics come from? Did man, Newton, invent it to describe classical physics or was it discovered, by man, because it already existed?

[VigorsTheGrey]

Originally Posted by Show Me the Wire

Our DNA is different, we can control our instincts, etc. However, we are made of atoms and cells just like other creatures. So my answer to you is no.

No what? That we ARE NOT the same on a fundamental level? That the bird eating the boy is NOT the same as the boy eating the bird? You might feel that way...but there is no real evidence that an absolute difference exists...our sympathies lie with our bias AS HUMANS and not as vultures...

....if we all were vultures, I'm sure there would be little sympathy for the child...so you see our sympathies are conditional upon WHAT WE ARE...there is nothing in a human being that warrants sympathy in an absolute sense more than any other living thing in the world...

...To think so is merely cultural, and individual, and species prejudice...human beings are not the end-goals, or ends-all of evolution, just other leafs on its' convoluted vine...all our laws and morals are merely malleable tactics, experimented with over time, in service to our survival, used when appropriate, discarded when not....sympathy, fashionable in times of plenty...sympathy, shaken-off when times are tough...

[boxcar]

Originally Posted by Light

Well, I find boxcar's definition of Christianity almost barbaric. I cannot reconcile where his God has unconditional divine love and then damns you to hell for all eternity. That is polar opposites. Plus his God seems less mature than most mortals. So his definition is useless.

Since this is the case with you, then the Cross of Christ must be the biggest contradiction in you mind on the planet; for you are unable to see that both Justice and Love met each other at His cross, the former being fulfilled and the latter being satisfied in Christ's body.

Behold the wonder of the Cross; for in one verse the compatibility between love and justice is succinctly summed up:

1 John 4:10
10 In this is love, not that we loved God, but that He loved us and sent His Son to be the propitiation for our sins.
NASB

But even so...someone skeptic might postulate that the Father had it in for the Son, and this is why Jesus bore his Father's wrath on the cross. But scripture says:

Matt 17:5
5 While he was still speaking, a bright cloud enveloped them, and a voice from the cloud said, "This is my Son, whom I love; with him I am well pleased. Listen to him!"
NIV

But you refuse to listen to Him, don't you? You only hear what you want to hear.

[Show Me the Wire]

Originally Posted by VigorsTheGrey

No what? That we ARE NOT the same on a fundamental level? That the bird eating the boy is NOT the same as the boy eating the bird? You might feel that way...but there is no real evidence that an absolute difference exists...our sympathies lie with our bias AS HUMANS and not as vultures...

....if we all were vultures, I'm sure there would be little sympathy for the child...so you see our sympathies are conditional upon WHAT WE ARE...there is nothing in a human being that warrants sympathy in an absolute sense more than any other living thing in the world...

...To think so is merely cultural, and individual, and species prejudice...human beings are not the end-goals, or ends-all of evolution, just other leafs on its' convoluted vine...all our laws and morals are merely malleable tactics, experimented with over time, in service to our survival, used when appropriate, discarded when not....sympathy, fashionable in times of plenty...sympathy, shaken-off when times are tough...

Depends on the level. Read and comprehend similarity is not equality. And you want us to believe you are a creative thinker, yeah right. Maybe you cognitively are on the same level as a real birdbrain, but don't project your thoughts on everyone else.

Do you think the vulture felt sympathy for the cooked turkey?

[Parkview_Pirate]

Originally Posted by boxcar

If that is the case and God is obligated to us, then it can't be mercy by definition. Mercy, by definition, is withholding punishment or divine displeasure that is due a person.

Grace is similar but with one critical difference. Grace is God's unmerited favor bestowed upon someone who is not worthy.

In either case, mercy or grace are antithetical to such concepts as debt or obligation. These (mercy or grace) are mutually exclusive terms, contradicting the ideas of debt or obligation.

Aren't you glad God doesn't think like a man?

Well, if you're now claiming that you understand how God thinks, then you're further 'round the bend than I thought earlier. You may have the opinion that grace and mercy are antithetical to debt or obligation, but in the case of an omniscient creator, that argument doesn't hold water.

In other words, if God lays down laws about morality which promote grace and mercy, He then becomes obligated to abide by those same laws himself - especially since He knows beforehand whether or not each person holds themselves to those laws.

[boxcar]

Originally Posted by thaskalos

Does this imply that feeling sympathy for this child is something that needs explaining?

Of course, the Actors and Hcaps of the world need to explain this because evolution itself is meaningless, which means our existence is meaningless, which means its meaningless to "feel" anything for anyone. It's a huge waste of time and energy. We'd all be better off watching our own backs against all the predators of this world. As I've stated many times, the ancient Law of the Jungle, i.e "survival of the fittest" has served the "lower" animal kingdom very well, so why should we ignore the great success of our ancestors?

[Parkview_Pirate]

Originally Posted by Show Me the Wire

So life is not random? Life was planned? Planned by physics? Math is only an explanation so math could not have planned life? Where did the math to explain physics come from? Did man, Newton, invent it to describe classical physics or was it discovered, by man, because it already existed?

In the whole scale of the Universe, life as we know it becomes a certainty. The concept of "planned" implies a Creator, which is not necessary.

Math and the laws of physics simply exist, and the concept of discovery involves the boundaries defined by man. Newton was a bright guy who discovered certain laws of physics, and created his own version of math to explain things.

It's the old problem of given enough of monkeys/typewriters/time = works of Shakespeare. Considering the billions and trillions and quadrillions solar systems, the age of the universe, and conditions required to initiate life and evolve to what we have on Earth today, it was going to happen. Some day.

Man, with his relative gauge of an average lifetime, finds it very difficult to comprehend the time and space scales involved. But that's hardly a case to explain it away by making up a Creator.

For the record, it's my opinion that the idea of God is a commonly held belief for a person to replace the Father figure of their childhood. Life without that all-powerful being is simply too awful for many to deal with.

[Show Me the Wire]

Originally Posted by Parkview_Pirate

In the whole scale of the Universe, life as we know it becomes a certainty. The concept of "planned" implies a Creator, which is not necessary.

Math and the laws of physics simply exist, and the concept of discovery involves the boundaries defined by man. Newton was a bright guy who discovered certain laws of physics, and created his own version of math to explain things.

It's the old problem of given enough of monkeys/typewriters/time = works of Shakespeare. Considering the billions and trillions and quadrillions solar systems, the age of the universe, and conditions required to initiate life and evolve to what we have on Earth today, it was going to happen. Some day.

Man, with his relative gauge of an average lifetime, finds it very difficult to comprehend the time and space scales involved. But that's hardly a case to explain it away by making up a Creator.

For the record, it's my opinion that the idea of God is a commonly held belief for a person to replace the Father figure of their childhood. Life without that all-powerful being is simply too awful for many to deal with.

There are physicist who disagree about the monkeys/typewriters/time = works of Shakespeare is certain to happen.

Also, opining that an uncaused cause is not necessary is not proof, that an uncaused caused is not needed.

Man through philosophy (reason) and math has proven the possibility of God. Science which is a product of man's reason as a method to acquire knowledge is not the last word on the existence of God.

I have to leave now.

[Parkview_Pirate]

Originally Posted by boxcar

Of course, the Actors and Hcaps of the world need to explain this because evolution itself is meaningless, which means our existence is meaningless, which means its meaningless to "feel" anything for anyone. It's a huge waste of time and energy.

This is faulty logic. Exactly how does the Creator-less theory of evolution equate to a meaningless existence?

Just because some of us doubt the existence of a Supreme Being hardly means we live meaningless lives. As humans, we enjoy the full spectrum of emotions the same as any Believer.

Granted, once we die then the scorecard gets marked up one way or another. But none of us knows how that pans out until then, so life has the same meaning for all.

[VigorsTheGrey]

Originally Posted by Show Me the Wire

Depends on the level. Read and comprehend similarity is not equality. And you want us to believe you are a creative thinker, yeah right. Maybe you cognitively are on the same level as a real birdbrain, but don't project your thoughts on everyone else.

Do you think the vulture felt sympathy for the cooked turkey?

What leads you to believe that I am cognitively on the level of a bird brain?

I do have sympathy for the boy but I also have sympathy for the vulture...it is merely doing what vultures do, no more no less....actually the vulture is not an essential piece of the photo...if you vanish the vulture, the photo retains its essential dynamic... That of a starved child dying in the desert...what is your response? What is the value and significance of your sympathy here? Is there a correct way on your mind to respond here?

[Parkview_Pirate]

Originally Posted by Show Me the Wire

There are physicist who disagree about the monkeys/typewriters/time = works of Shakespeare is certain to happen.

Also, opining that an uncaused cause is not necessary is not proof, that an uncaused caused is not needed.

Man through philosophy (reason) and math has proven the possibility of God. Science which is a product of man's reason as a method to acquire knowledge is not the last word on the existence of God.

I have to leave now.

Obviously, the exercise of proving the Works of Shakespeare appear one day in the cage of monkeys typing away is futile - but the logic of the narrative explains itself.

As for the Uncaused Cause argument, this is the question I asked my pastor in confirmation class, oh so many years ago. Who made God? Rather than get in an endless circle of argument about that, my view is that the Universe has always existed. Where it came from is anyone's guess, but putting a Supreme Being "layer" which cannot be observed on top of what we know exists doesn't explain anything. If you want to take the side of belief in a Creator and explain things that way, I don't require an explanation or justification of that faith. But it is based on faith, and not on science or the universe as we as a species understand it today.

I worked with a guy once who claimed to have proven mathematically that God existed. I found his definition of math quite dubious. That's not to say someday maybe math can prove it. And that's not to say that God doesn't exist, but the proof via math is quite lacking.

[MONEY]

Originally Posted by Parkview_Pirate

Obviously, the exercise of proving the Works of Shakespeare appear one day in the cage of monkeys typing away is futile - but the logic of the narrative explains itself.

As for the Uncaused Cause argument, this is the question I asked my pastor in confirmation class, oh so many years ago. Who made God? Rather than get in an endless circle of argument about that, my view is that the Universe has always existed. Where it came from is anyone's guess, but putting a Supreme Being "layer" which cannot be observed on top of what we know exists doesn't explain anything. If you want to take the side of belief in a Creator and explain things that way, I don't require an explanation or justification of that faith. But it is based on faith, and not on science or the universe as we as a species understand it today.

I worked with a guy once who claimed to have proven mathematically that God existed. I found his definition of math quite dubious. That's not to say someday maybe math can prove it. And that's not to say that God doesn't exist, but the proof via math is quite lacking.

[YT="Proof of no God"]mGBxUNaQI1I[/YT]