How Much Do You Know About Christianity?

Off Topic Politics & World Issues
1421

[quote]pat wrote:
pookie wrote:
pat wrote:
Make sure you spell my name right…

Sure thing, mat.

Please provide an example of a causeless event in any quantum theory.

I didn’t say causeless; I said causality violations. Although many phenomenons might be termed “causeless”, such as radioactive decay. There is no way to predict exactly when an atom will decay; the event is causeless. If it had a cause, we could observe it and predict the decay.

Other examples here: http://www.phy.olemiss.edu/~luca/Topics/c/causal_viol.html and here: causality violation site:arxiv.org - Google Search

Thanks kookie!

Unpredictable effects are still caused even if not able to be observed reliably. Just because the effects are weird and unpredictable, doesn’t mean they are not caused. The resultant effect is just not predictable.
[/quote]

The whole concept of cause and effect is a bit of a misnomer if you take into account that time is a contstruct.

1422

[quote]forlife wrote:

Agreed. But since we don’t know if there is a creator (and afterlife), the most honest approach is to admit we don’t know rather than jumping to one conclusion or the other.

[/quote]

Here’s what I’m trying to get at, though. If I accept that there might be (not is, but might) a creator(s) and an afterlife, then I’m wondering why we’re not automatically in the afterlife, in the prescence of the creator(s). I have to conclude that there would be types the creator(s) (if they might exist) would not tolerate in the afterlife. Therefore, a judgement would be made after a time. Maybe the time could be a lifespan, in fact. Since there is judgement, there are do’s and dont’s. Since there are do’s and dont’s, they must be revealed to the created so they know what pleases and earns the eternal reward. Therefore, there must be some kind of deposit of revelation in the created’s history.

And why even be agnostic about the afterlife, forlife? Haven’t I seen you question something like “So do you believe in fairies and such?” If I’m not mistaken and you have, I’d like to pose the question to you. Do you? Are you “agnostic” about it? Mermaids? Unicorns? Hobgoblins? Let’s say only enchanted people can observe such things. If you say no, then why are you agnostic about an afterlife? Why isn’t your view that since the mechanics for thought are gone (decay), you’re gone for good also?

And how can agnostics be certain the Christian God doesn’t exist? I ask, because oddly this is usually the stance of “agnostics” on this board. If one is not certain there is a god(s) or not, how can one be so certain of his/they’re nature?

1423

[quote]forlife wrote:
Sloth wrote:
Persuaded, would imply free will, no? You were hardwired for agnosticism all along. You were simply a closet agnostic.

Not at all. A dog can be persuaded to salivate at the sound of a bell through a system of well timed rewards, without needing to invoke the idea of free will.[/quote]

Is it, “persuaded” as we commonly think of it? Or is it something it MUST do, even if subconsciously, by it’s nature? Something it is actually a “slave” to by the software running it’s wetware?

1424

[quote]Chushin wrote:
I have not perceived the same level of derision on their part.

Or perhaps you’re just more skilled at it? [/quote]

They’re off the hook because they suck at it?

Let’s see… I’ve been accused of “utter douchebaggery”, suffering from diarrhea of the brain, called an atheistic imbecile, an omni-ass (amusing one, that), being rabid and drooling were mentioned somewhere; not to forget the various colorful metaphors by flushharder. Ok, those were mostly in good fun, so he gets a pass.

Then there’s pat, but he’s just confused.

I’ll let you be the judge of the “levels” involved, but seems to me that the derision flies both ways.

Anyway, where would the fun be without it?

1425

[quote]Sloth wrote:
And how can agnostics be certain the Christian God doesn’t exist? I ask, because oddly this is usually the stance of “agnostics” on this board. If one is not certain there is a god(s) or not, how can one be so certain of his/they’re nature?
[/quote]

The point is that we aren’t certain, but seeing as there is no proof, we’ll just live as if there isn’t.

1426

[quote]Sloth wrote:
And how can agnostics be certain the Christian God doesn’t exist? I ask, because oddly this is usually the stance of “agnostics” on this board. If one is not certain there is a god(s) or not, how can one be so certain of his/they’re nature?
[/quote]

The point is that we aren’t certain, but seeing as there is no proof, we’ll just live as if there isn’t.

1427

[quote]Sloth wrote:
Here’s what I’m trying to get at, though. If I accept that there might be (not is, but might) a creator(s) and an afterlife, then I’m wondering why we’re not automatically in the afterlife, in the prescence of the creator(s).[/quote]

Excellent question.

Your conclusion brings up the question of why the creator would create beings he can’t tolerate. If the creator is omnipotent/scient/benevolent, it also seems illogical for him to have “intolerances” towards some of his creations.

Sadly, many, many beings never make it old enough to be able to follow the do’s and don’ts. What about them? What about those who die from miscarriages or diseases? Is the creator either allowing them to skip judgement, or are they getting a free pass?

If there is a God, it seems improbable that one of the world’s 3000 religion has got it right, while the other 2,999 are wrong. More likely, they’re all wrong; if not about the existence of God, at least about his nature and his will.

Furthermore, if you study the history of religions, you can see that there’s been a lot of cross-pollination between the various faiths. Christianity borrows heavily from Judaism and absorbs various pagan rites as it spreads; Judaism was heavily influenced by Zoroastrianism. Many motifs are found repeatedly: Trinities, virgin births, resurrections, healings and miracles, fulfilling prophecy, etc.

For one of those religions, developed through borrowing and accretion, to get the entire picture right seems to me unlikely in the extreme. Among believers, only deists or pantheists have a truly justifiable position.

1428

[quote]Sloth wrote:
Is it, “persuaded” as we commonly think of it? Or is it something it MUST do, even if subconsciously, by it’s nature? Something it is actually a “slave” to by the software running it’s wetware?[/quote]

What would the difference be between truly free will and the perfect illusion of it?

1429

[quote]pookie wrote:
Sloth wrote:
Here’s what I’m trying to get at, though. If I accept that there might be (not is, but might) a creator(s) and an afterlife, then I’m wondering why we’re not automatically in the afterlife, in the prescence of the creator(s).

Excellent question.

I have to conclude that there would be types the creator(s) (if they might exist) would not tolerate in the afterlife.

Your conclusion brings up the question of why the creator would create beings he can’t tolerate. If the creator is omnipotent/scient/benevolent, it also seems illogical for him to have “intolerances” towards some of his creations.

Therefore, a judgement would be made after a time. Maybe the time could be a lifespan, in fact. Since there is judgement, there are do’s and dont’s. Since there are do’s and dont’s, they must be revealed to the created so they know what pleases and earns the eternal reward. Therefore, there must be some kind of deposit of revelation in the created’s history.

Sadly, many, many beings never make it old enough to be able to follow the do’s and don’ts. What about them? What about those who die from miscarriages or diseases? Is the creator either allowing them to skip judgement, or are they getting a free pass?

And how can agnostics be certain the Christian God doesn’t exist? I ask, because oddly this is usually the stance of “agnostics” on this board. If one is not certain there is a god(s) or not, how can one be so certain of his/they’re nature?

If there is a God, it seems improbable that one of the world’s 3000 religion has got it right, while the other 2,999 are wrong. More likely, they’re all wrong; if not about the existence of God, at least about his nature and his will.

Furthermore, if you study the history of religions, you can see that there’s been a lot of cross-pollination between the various faiths. Christianity borrows heavily from Judaism and absorbs various pagan rites as it spreads; Judaism was heavily influenced by Zoroastrianism. Many motifs are found repeatedly: Trinities, virgin births, resurrections, healings and miracles, fulfilling prophecy, etc.

For one of those religions, developed through borrowing and accretion, to get the entire picture right seems to me unlikely in the extreme. Among believers, only deists or pantheists have a truly justifiable position.
[/quote]

See, I’m not interested in the using to board to convince or convert anyone to my faith, so I don’t feel the motivation to respond at length (if at all) to why I believe, or how I explain this or that belief within my faith. I’m just curious, why agnosticism? Why not come down firmly. Either the universe is completely material without the need for a creator at any point, or not. And how can someone who is not sure about the nature of God, since he’s not sure if he exists or not, be certain that his nature isn’t just as the Christians describe.

1430

[quote]pookie wrote:
Sloth wrote:
Is it, “persuaded” as we commonly think of it? Or is it something it MUST do, even if subconsciously, by it’s nature? Something it is actually a “slave” to by the software running it’s wetware?

What would the difference be between truly free will and the perfect illusion of it?
[/quote]

One’s real?

1431

[quote]Sloth wrote:
What would the difference be between truly free will and the perfect illusion of it?

One’s real?[/quote]

Which one?

1432

[quote]pookie wrote:
Sloth wrote:
What would the difference be between truly free will and the perfect illusion of it?

One’s real?

Which one?[/quote]

The one that isn’t an illusion.

1433

[quote]pookie wrote:
Among believers, only deists or pantheists have a truly justifiable position.
[/quote]

I am curious about what’s behind this statement. Why is their position justifiable?

1435

[quote]Sloth wrote:
pookie wrote:
Sloth wrote:
What would the difference be between truly free will and the perfect illusion of it?

One’s real?

Which one?

The one that isn’t an illusion.
[/quote]

I’m not phrasing this right. I interpret “One’s real?” as “One exists in reality.” But if we don’t have actual free will, but only a perfect (or near enough to be entirely convincing) illusion of free will, could we ever tell the difference?

1436

[quote]Chushin wrote:
pookie wrote:
Chushin wrote:
I have not perceived the same level of derision on their part.

Or perhaps you’re just more skilled at it?

They’re off the hook because they suck at it?

Nope, I was just admitting that MAYBE I noticed you more because you were more effective with it. Acknowledging a possible faulty perception.[/quote]

Ok, I get your point. On the bright side, it leaves me the choice of cutting down on either quantity or quality.

1437

[quote]Sloth wrote:
I am curious about what’s behind this statement. Why is their position justifiable?[/quote]

They believe in the existence of a God, but add no “mythology” (for want of a better word) to that belief. They view God as the creator of our universe (or as the universe itself, in the case of pantheism) but those beliefs are generally not accompanied by commandments, moral fables, promises of answered prayers, etc. No afterlife either in many cases.

It’s a step removed from agnosticism; they think/believe there is a God, but don’t think we can know anything about him other than through his creation. You often hear believers say that you can’t intellectualize God, or conceive or know of God, they reflect that thought in their beliefs.

1439

[quote]pookie wrote:
Sloth wrote:
I am curious about what’s behind this statement. Why is their position justifiable?

They believe in the existence of a God, but add no “mythology” (for want of a better word) to that belief. They view God as the creator of our universe (or as the universe itself, in the case of pantheism) but those beliefs are generally not accompanied by commandments, moral fables, promises of answered prayers, etc. No afterlife either in many cases.

It’s a step removed from agnosticism; they think/believe there is a God, but don’t think we can know anything about him other than through his creation. You often hear believers say that you can’t intellectualize God, or conceive or know of God, they reflect that thought in their beliefs.
[/quote]

Ok. I actually take a different view. I find Deism even less justifiable than agnosticism. In fact, it’s sort of because of the justifications you listed.

1440

[quote]Sloth wrote:
Ok. I actually take a different view. I find Deism even less justifiable than agnosticism. In fact, it’s sort of because of the justifications you listed.[/quote]

Care to expand a bit?