Religion II

[Actor]

Originally Posted by boxcar

But if God were to cast in hell even as few as one person, would you still not think he's a mean, sick and cruel God?

As described in the OT Yahweh is certainly mean and cruel. That suggests the following.

Suppose it was not Satan but Yahweh who fell. After all the Bible says "Let us make man in our image." Note the plurals. The image is certainly polytheistic. It is suggestive of a divine democracy.

Later Yahweh makes his first commandment "You shall have no other gods before me." What other gods? If he's the only one why not simply declare "There are no gods besides me."

How do you know that Yahweh is not the one in rebellion? The one who fell?

Why does Yahweh fear Adam's possession of the knowledge of good and evil? Is that really what he fears? It's more likely that he fears man's knowledge of anything. In particular he does not want man to have a knowledge of logic and science. After all he was unable to defeat an army that had chariots of iron. How much more must he fear man having knowledge of physics, biology, medicine, evolution, cosmology.

Perhaps in "tempting" Eve, Lucifer was actually trying to save mankind from Yahweh's tyranny. "Because thou hast done this, thou art cursed above all cattle, and above every beast of the field; upon thy belly shalt thou go, and dust shalt thou eat all the days of thy life" is nothing more than a shouting match between combatants, and Lucifer had enough savoir faire to not respond in kind.

So there's a divine war going on with Yahweh, Jesus and the Ghost on one side and Lucifer, Zeus, Odin, Vishnu, etc. on the other. Perhaps Lucifer is the duly elected president of the divine democracy. Yahweh is the rebel and the traitor.

[Actor]

Originally Posted by boxcar

The scriptures provide a more restrictive definition: To be just is to be righteous.

That definition is not more restrictive, it is more expansive. You've expanded it in an attempt to make it fit your particular view.

[boxcar]

Originally Posted by Actor

That definition is not more restrictive, it is more expansive. You've expanded it in an attempt to make it fit your particular view.

You do not understand what it means to be righteous. The biblical definition of righteousness is much more restrictive than "mere" goodness. How restrictive? The only people who will enter the kingdom of heaven are those who have had the righteousness of Christ imputed to them. That's pretty restrictive!

[boxcar]

Originally Posted by Actor

As described in the OT Yahweh is certainly mean and cruel. That suggests the following.

Suppose it was not Satan but Yahweh who fell. After all the Bible says "Let us make man in our image." Note the plurals. The image is certainly polytheistic. It is suggestive of a divine democracy.

Later Yahweh makes his first commandment "You shall have no other gods before me." What other gods? If he's the only one why not simply declare "There are no gods besides me."

How do you know that Yahweh is not the one in rebellion? The one who fell?

Why does Yahweh fear Adam's possession of the knowledge of good and evil? Is that really what he fears? It's more likely that he fears man's knowledge of anything. In particular he does not want man to have a knowledge of logic and science. After all he was unable to defeat an army that had chariots of iron. How much more must he fear man having knowledge of physics, biology, medicine, evolution, cosmology.

Perhaps in "tempting" Eve, Lucifer was actually trying to save mankind from Yahweh's tyranny. "Because thou hast done this, thou art cursed above all cattle, and above every beast of the field; upon thy belly shalt thou go, and dust shalt thou eat all the days of thy life" is nothing more than a shouting match between combatants, and Lucifer had enough savoir faire to not respond in kind.

So there's a divine war going on with Yahweh, Jesus and the Ghost on one side and Lucifer, Zeus, Odin, Vishnu, etc. on the other. Perhaps Lucifer is the duly elected president of the divine democracy. Yahweh is the rebel and the traitor.

You understand neither the Old or New Testaments; for God is the same yesterday, today and tomorrow (Heb 13:8). In other words, God is immutable. He was just in his dealings with the ancients in OT, as well in his dealings with people in this Age of the Gentiles in this New Covenant dispensation.

[Actor]

Originally Posted by boxcar

The biblical definition of righteousness is much more restrictive than "mere" goodness.

Where do I find the biblical definition of righteousness?

[Actor]

Originally Posted by boxcar

You understand neither the Old or New Testaments; for God is the same yesterday, today and tomorrow (Heb 13:8). In other words, God is immutable. He was just in his dealings with the ancients in OT, as well in his dealings with people in this Age of the Gentiles in this New Covenant dispensation.

Red herring! None of that has anything to do with what I posted. Your strategy is to simply ignore every argument that even suggests that you could be wrong. Yahweh could very well be the villain of the piece and Lucifer the hero.

Checkmate!

[ReplayRandall]

Originally Posted by Actor

Yahweh could very well be the villain of the piece and Lucifer the hero.

Laughable to the nth degree......Nice post, Lucifer..

[Lemon Drop Husker]

Take away Religion, and what percentage of wars would have been waged in the history of our planet?

5%? 10% at most?

Then again, maybe we need Religion. Our planet is overpopulated the way it is.

[Greyfox]

Originally Posted by Lemon Drop Husker

Take away Religion, and what percentage of wars would have been waged in the history of our planet?

5%? 10% at most?

Then again, maybe we need Religion. Our planet is overpopulated the way it is.

You have a very good point there, for sure.
But was Religion the cause or was it the GREED of leaders who used Religions to further their causes and desires?

[Lemon Drop Husker]

Originally Posted by Greyfox

You have a very good point there, for sure.
But was Religion the cause or was it the GREED of leaders who used Religions to further their causes and desires?

I'd argue it to be hate of the other more than anything. Hate. Prejudice. And we can never discount idiocy.

Why did these people hate each other? Borders are one thing, and trying to gain more than what one has, but the Middle East is, has been, and always will be a war torn area of the world. (The supposed Mecca of religion mind you.)

I don't want to discount Racism as a horrible disgust in our World history, but nothing has been more restrictive, more destructive, and more responsible for death in our planet's history than Religious persecution and prejudice.

[dnlgfnk]

Originally Posted by Lemon Drop Husker

I'd argue it to be hate of the other more than anything. Hate. Prejudice. And we can never discount idiocy.

Why did these people hate each other? Borders are one thing, and trying to gain more than what one has, but the Middle East is, has been, and always will be a war torn area of the world. (The supposed Mecca of religion mind you.)

I don't want to discount Racism as a horrible disgust in our World history, but nothing has been more restrictive, more destructive, and more responsible for death in our planet's history than Religious persecution and prejudice.

What bullshit.

The headliners here, responsible for 130,000,000 deaths...

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/home/mosl...mes-world.html

...dwarf the number of those killed throughout history in the name of religion.

Of the 25 most deadly terrorist groups since 1970, dueling for first place with ISIS are the LTTE...

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Libera...of_Tamil_Eelam (see ideology)...

"Religious fanaticism does not explain why the world leader in suicide terrorism is the Tamil Tigers in Sri Lanka, a group that adheres to a Marxist/Leninist ideology"...

http://www.danieldrezner.com/research/guest/Pape1.pdf

Also making the short list are:

The Shining Path...https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shining_Path

FMLN...https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Farabu...beration_Front

FARC...https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/FARC

The Kurdistan Worker's Party...https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kurdis...rkers%27_Party

New People's Army...https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_People%27s_Army

UNITA...https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/UNITA

CPI-Maoist...https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Commun..._India_(Maoist)

ETA...https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ETA_(separatist_group)

ELN...https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nation...Army_(Colombia)

FPMR...https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Manuel...atriotic_Front

Under "Religious" (Contents. 2.), the top players killed in order to rid themselves of religion, not establish their own...

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_o...us_persecution

[dnlgfnk]

Addendum:

The top 25...

http://terror.periscopic.com/

[hcap]

Originally Posted by Greyfox

I've thought about both boxcar and your views of the arrow of time.
The question which way the arrow is pointing, or if it points at all is philosophically a deep one and beyond my limited reasoning abilities.
It's an interesting concept to wrap one's mind around though.

Your article on the Dalai Lama from the WSJ was behind a pay wall. Thanks but I have readily available works of Buddhism and Zen Buddhism at hand.

The arrow of time is a well known concept dating back to among others Boltzmann's entropy and time's "one-way direction" or "asymmetry" of time. The thermodynamic arrow of time is provided by the Second Law of Thermodynamics, which says that in an isolated system, entropy tends to increase with time.

However here is a list of many things physicists use to point to asymmetry of time

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arrow_..._arrow_of_time

3.1 The thermodynamic arrow of time
3.2 The cosmological arrow of time
3.3 The radiative arrow of time
3.4 The causal arrow of time
3.5 The particle physics (weak) arrow of time
3.6 The quantum arrow of time
3.7 The quantum source of time
3.8 The psychological/perceptual arrow of time

Can boxcar demonstrate one logical argument in his reverse verion? No, he plays word games asking how "tomorrow transforms into today" as though he is exempt from time as the fourth dimension and as the local universe of events all contained and described by space time moves towards him mistakingly thinking he is standing still in space time.

If one is traveling in a car down a road and observe everything around you first moving toward you and then past you, if you do not realize you are moving down the road too, you can mistake this scenario as everything else is moving and you are not.

Alas his own monumental ego has even superseded honest physical observation. A demonstration of what is in error in most of his religious philosophy.

ps: If we lived on the scale of sub atomic, quantum mechanics allows for the symmetry of time. Not the scale we and boxcar inhabit

[hcap]

More: http://www.exactlywhatistime.com/phy...arrow-of-time/

[Parkview_Pirate]

Originally Posted by dnlgfnk

....The headliners here, responsible for 130,000,000 deaths...

...dwarf the number of those killed throughout history in the name of religion.

While I would agree the atheistic and "Teutonic insanity" religions of Red China, the Soviet Union and Nazi Germany win the numbers game, it's difficult to separate the violence committed by dictatorships in the name of religion, or just as a side effect from using religion (or lack of religion) as a controlling mechanism. But at the very least, we have the Crusades and more recently some of the Islamic acts of terror to look at in terms of what possibly lies ahead. And it's not looking good.

A recent survey revealed that income correlates to how free time is spent, and the poorer one is, the more likely that time is spent watching religious programming on TV.

http://www.visualcapitalist.com/amer...d-time-income/

Since the decline of industrial civilization is well underway, I can only see more of the world's population becoming poorer, and therefore religion, in the broadest sense of the term, becoming more popular as people attempt to deal with things changing for the worse.

In the Western world, this will be a challenge, as the decline means a lower standard of living, and worse, a lower set of expectations for children, as the "religion" of technological progress runs headlong into resource depletion and population overshoot. The decline of the popularity of religion in the past 150 years will reverse, but many will find the mechanical, dogmatic traditions doled out by traditional churches lacking. Eastern religions will become more popular, and some centered around ecology, Druidism, and even Paganism, though the numbers will remain small compared to what will become state-sponsored religions. These will be not just spiritual in nature, but more brain-washing in being a good drone in all aspects of life.

In the Eastern world, their religions focus more on the individual's spiritual journey, and less on the materialistic, mechanical overtones of the Western faiths - though, as irony would have it, one could argue the "herd effect" is much stronger for societies in the East. This will have them more prepared for the decline, though certainly wealthier citizens (and the elites) will have more difficulty adjusting, and that process usually isn't smooth.

Meanwhile, the elites will soon discover the power of using organized religion (again) as a tool for controlling the masses, and the table is being set perfectly for this as backlash to the liberal lack of morality we've observed recently. As we continue to become more and more polarized on various issues, expect that trend to spillover into religion - and the days "religious freedom" are numbered. Being a card-carrying atheist or agnostic may soon become a liability.