btlzu2's Journal: [religion] jesus is just alright with me

"And that servant [slave], which knew his lord's will, and prepared not himself, neither did according to his will, shall be beaten with many stripes."

he was pretty good at repeating some already established good ideas (golden rule, etc.) and performed some *cracking* miracles, but he was a bit overboard at times with his lashing of slaves and what-not. i know the current thinking is god wanted us to have slaves so we could grow to learn to not have slaves, but it would've been a bit nice if old hayzeus had suggested that having slaves is a bad idea.

also, what's with the "abandon your family and follow me [hale-bopp is coming 'round again]!" (comment mine) stuff? ;) sounds a bit creepy-cult-ish to me.

and, as julia sweeney so aptly puts it, jesus "suffering for our sins" was basically a bad weekend. she watched her brother suffer from cancer for 6 months--canker sores covering his throat, dropping to 60 pounds, lying in bed vomiting for an entire week at a time.

and WHAT THE HELL kind of "father" sends his son to die a miserable death when he supposedly has the power to clean things up with a "bewitched" nose wiggle?

oh...yeah...the old testament god is that kind of father. the one obsessed with sacrifice and ordering the people he "loved" so much kill their own children.

Actually...

[ellem]

it turns out his name was Josh. [amazon.com]

Trinity

[FortKnox]

and WHAT THE HELL kind of "father" sends his son to die a miserable death when he supposedly has the power to clean things up with a "bewitched" nose wiggle?

God's power is unknown. But this whole piece about the father and son.... this is the old Catholic fun of describing the holy trinity.
"God" is three persons: The Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit. Someone who's a better Catholic from me will hopefully explain this better, but Jesus is just the human avatar for God, its not a literal 'son' of Go

Re:

[btlzu2]

and my favorite atheist answer is (the correct answer): "I don't know" :)

science doesn't purport to have all the answers and filling in unknown answers with an arbitrary hypothesis, like "God", is unscientific and specious.

my favorite question to ask christians is: "Who created god?"

christian's favorite cop-out to that is: "God is eternal." Thanks a lot Thomas Aquinas.

Re:

[FortKnox]

and my favorite atheist answer is (the correct answer): "I don't know" :)

Yep. I would except that, "Sure", "Possibly", etc... :)

my favorite question to ask christians is: "Who created god?"

I get this all the time. The way I see it (which is just my humble belief) is that God/Heaven exists about the dimensions we live. There is no 'time' in heaven... in fact, maybe God 'created' time? So, yeah, 'eternal' would work, but its misleading to say that. Try to think outside of time... that's where God

Re:

[FortKnox]

s/about/above/

Re:

[btlzu2]

thanks for discussing this! :)

so...how do you know all these details about god's existence?

Re:

[FortKnox]

To me? The environment I was brought up in? Heh, I'm gonna get hell from the Christians on that one, but my upbringing taught me to look for miracles. Holding Joey for the first time after he was born. How can cells just morph together and build a person? I don't WANT to learn that there is some wierd biology going on that creates life. The way we all have a conscious built into our brains. The way ducks know how to swim the moment they are born. The way the earth is made 'just right' to support lif

Re:

[btlzu2]

no if that's what you want that's your choice! for me, i find SO MUCH amazing wonder in learning these things, searching, and thinking openly. when i let the Christianity go, the world and the universe became so much more interesting and i never expected that. the water's warm over here. :D

it's not about having all the answers--which science doesn't and religion *certainly* doesn't--it's the quest to find them and it's utterly fascinating for some.

thanks for being honest! it's really refreshing to hear

Re:

[FortKnox]

Honestly, if I let go of Christianity, I think I'd end up a Buddhist. I don't think I could become an atheist. Like I said... before the big bang... something did it! :)

Re:

[btlzu2]

i'm not so sure they think a god started the universe though. :)

it takes some thinking to become an atheist, but there's a definite logical path there. i'm sure some people are atheists out of spite, but most are because they've got good and logical answers for being atheists. i never wanted to admit it until the logic was so overwhelming i couldn't help it and it would've been dishonest to stay a christian or agnostic.

Re:

[Ethelred Unraed]

i'm not so sure they think a god started the universe though. :)

Buddhism is a bit unusual among religions in that it leaves that question blank. ;-)

i never wanted to admit it until the logic was so overwhelming i couldn't help it and it would've been dishonest to stay a christian or agnostic.

But there you've made a glaring mistake. It is no more logical to be an atheist (at least if you are a positive atheist, i.e. you think it is proven no God exists) than to be an agnostic. It is, however, more lo

Re:

[btlzu2]

there has to be a bias towards the probability of god existing being quite low. i'd never say with 100% certainty, but i would think it's much better probability against than for. all the major "proofs of god" throughout the years have pretty much other explanations. now it's reduced to peoples' own mental models or *opinions* of what god is, which is meaningless to those without models. basically, he's only a god of the gaps as far as i can see from an outsider view.

wish i could find a way to quantify

Re:

[btlzu2]

once sec--since you said it was your humble belief, i should've phrased my question differently. sorry!

my question should be: why are you satisfied with coming up with conjecture (iow: your humble belief) for details of God's existence when you most likely don't do that in any other area of life?

do you create a whole belief-based explanation of other things based purely on what you think it should be or do you learn about it and research the facts?

Re:

[FortKnox]

my question should be: why are you satisfied with coming up with conjecture (iow: your humble belief) for details of God's existence when you most likely don't do that in any other area of life?

You ask all the hard questions, eh? My 'humble opinion' was the whole God living about the dimensions we are bound by. The reason is that it is the most satisfying (scientific) theory that I have come up with. I do that with everythign I don't understand and, for some reason or another, can't find the right sol

Re:

[Tet]

The way I see it (which is just my humble belief) is that God/Heaven exists about the dimensions we live. There is no 'time' in heaven... in fact, maybe God 'created' time? So, yeah, 'eternal' would work, but its misleading to say that. Try to think outside of time... that's where God exists.

The problem I have with that argument is that for me, it's more likely that the Universe just sprang into existence than it is that a God capable of creating the universe, time and the other observable aspects of our

Re:

[FortKnox]

See my other comments to Smoochy. I choose to see the universe with God, cause, honestly, I'd hate to view it without Him. Maybe it was the way I was raised, but when I saw Joey when he was first born, it just reiterated my beliefs. Sorry to go outside the box on that...

Re:

[Tet]

No need to apologise for your beliefs. True, they're different to mine. Which naturally mean yours are wrong :-) But then again, you almost certainly feel the same way about mine. I guess that makes us even...

Finite Infinity

[sielwolf]

This is a nice post because it provides the basic dialectic argument of religion: how does one compromise between divine compassion with divine wrath? Between divine omniscience, omnipotence and (apparent) divine antipathy. The nature of free will, determinism, the purpose of human life in a spiritual discussion all derive from this.

Is there an answer that allows someone to come to a compromise between these? Or are they an unreconcilable contradiction?

It's interesting; I offer no sure explanation to it

Re:

[btlzu2]

to me it simply betrays the fatal flaws with belief in a supernatural god. no need to get all twisted up about it. :)

nothing like creating a speculative concept and then debating all sorts of issues around it when it doesn't hold together, you know?

Re:

[sielwolf]

Well it comes down to the root challenge of deciding the point of our lives. Speculation is fine as long as it is not tautological; if it depends or reflects something quantifiable or qualifiable in the world, then it merits some debate. If a belief system is absolutely closed (e.g. "our central belief is that our central belief can never, ever be challenged") then it is useless beyond a philosophical 'plug' that saves the person from never having to consider anything ever again (which can get a person in

Re:

[btlzu2]

however, i'd contend that edison had evidential reasons to believe the light would work. it wasn't raw, unbridled speculation with no hope of testing the hypothesis. but, when you get here (i'm not a philsopher), i imagine you can't define a generalized limit of when speculation is worthwhile or when it isn't.

of course, all hypothesis begins with speculation, but if it never can move past that, you would think it should at least be put on the back burner for a while instead of basing your life on it for t

Re:

[sielwolf]

however, i'd contend that edison had evidential reasons to believe the light would work. it wasn't raw, unbridled speculation with no hope of testing the hypothesis. but, when you get here (i'm not a philsopher), i imagine you can't define a generalized limit of when speculation is worthwhile or when it isn't.

That is the definition of an untested anecdote. And you say there is no hope of testing a religious hypothesis. Logically that is not true. That is the definition of trying to prove a negative, the same connundrum behind the Halting Problem. Because we haven't found a way of testing for God doesn't mean he does or doesn't exist nor that we won't. The closeness of the probability to 100% or 0% doesn't mean anything: it either is true or it isn't. But the only way to find the truth is to exhaustively

Re:

[Ethelred Unraed]

would you say Carl Sagan *believed* in the mysticism of numbers or was fascinated by the idea of it? i always thought he had cool ideas about what it could be, but never *believed* in a supernaturalism of them. i certainly don't, unless something is found in them to prove otherwise.

Sagan is often considered a pantheist, a panentheist, an atheist, and/or an agnostic. Personally I think he was a pantheist, or at least that's the label that would have fit him best.

As for 'believing in the mysticism' of n

Re:

[btlzu2]

my intent was to respond to sielwolf's statement about sagan believing in the mysticism of numbers. i wasn't clear what he meant actually. :)

he's recent posthumous book (sagans' not sielwolf's--ha) is very clear on the religion points actually and i, of course, interpret his views a bit differently than you. seems to me he was using "religion" as a loose metaphor for fellowship with each other and with reality. the latest book's a good read--a collection of speeches. (sure you'd like it too) he also sa

Re:

[Ethelred Unraed]

he also said the god of the bible is a small meaningless god.

I would actually agree with him on that point in a sense, because I don't think it would be terribly rational or helpful or useful to insist on a definition of God solely based on the text to be found in the Bible. The Bible to me is an ultimate and primary source -- a starting point -- but the experience of God is something that has to unfold though a great deal of reflection.

It would be as if someone insisted that the Universe is only that

Re:

[Tet]

how does one compromise between divine compassion with divine wrath? Between divine omniscience, omnipotence and (apparent) divine antipathy.

Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able? Then he is not omnipotent.
Is he able, but not willing? Then he is malevolent.
Is he both able and willing? Then whence cometh evil?
Is he neither able nor willing? Then why call him God?

-- Epicurus, c.300 BC

(There are various alternate translations, and indeed, no written original from which to work. But the one I'v

Wel...

[Ethelred Unraed]

he was pretty good at repeating some already established good ideas (golden rule, etc.) and performed some *cracking* miracles, but he was a bit overboard at times with his lashing of slaves and what-not. i know the current thinking is god wanted us to have slaves so we could grow to learn to not have slaves, but it would've been a bit nice if old hayzeus had suggested that having slaves is a bad idea.

It's actually kinda obvious and didn't have to be said. Having slaves doesn't really fit too well with "

Re:

[btlzu2]

just a question and thanks for posting your views.

do you honestly believe god is sitting up there picking and choosing who to let die mercifully?

Re:

[Ethelred Unraed]

The short answer is yes. Unfortunately, the short answer is also rather misleading and incomplete, and I really have to get some work done now, so you'll have to wait for the long answer. :-) But yes, I believe that God is active in our Universe.

Cheers,

Ethelred

Re:

[btlzu2]

ok thanks. there are more important things than this i suppose... ;)

anyway, i think you explained a bit about that already. since you used the word 'believe', i really can't argue with that. :)

An interesting snippet

[redhead-kitten]

My ex- was a catholic raised, self proclaimed agnostic (his definition "maybe there is, maybe there isn't. prove it to me.")

He didn't really believe in any god, because he couldn't see the logic and was unable to simply have faith.

An average person will walk up to a light switch that is down, switch it up to the on position and has faith that the light will come on. (Most people don't know the ins and outs of how the light switch works.)

He, on the other hand, would flip the switch, knowing that the light

Re:

[btlzu2]

yeah, but how did he know the bulb hadn't blown and wouldn't turn on--or that he hadn't blown a fuse?

if i were arguing with ya, i would've said there's much more reason to have faith in a light switch than an invisible all power supernatural being that no one can prove the existence of! :)

Re:

[redhead-kitten]

there's much more reason to have faith in a light switch than an invisible all power supernatural being that no one can prove the existence of!

Absolutely!! My point to him was the fact that he couln't simply have faith in a light switch. Why could anyone ever *think* that he could have faith in any diety?

^_^

On death and redemption

[RevMike]

and WHAT THE HELL kind of "father" sends his son to die a miserable death when he supposedly has the power to clean things up with a "bewitched" nose wiggle?

Too many of my peeps don't understand this, so let me lay the 411 on you...

Ancient Jews had a custom, a sacred right. Once a year they would take a lamb and each member of the village would lay their hands upon the lamb. By laying hands on the lamb, they would transfer - at least symbolically - their own sins to the lamb. Then the lamb would be s

Re:

[btlzu2]

i guess i'll still have to go with "biiiiig deeeeeal". :) intellectually it means nothing to me. i realize that it meant something to ancient man--sort of like not walking under a ladder type stuff. ;) i was aware of that and all the shepherd/sheep metaphors. as a lutheran, i supposedly had more access to the bible than you catholic folk. i read it many times and it always was just like someone was smoking too much pot and then lacing it with LSD in revelations.

furthermore it's a concept entangled with