christianity and dinosaurs> can they be friends? (1 Viewer)

[Iron]

No, he brought it back as a propaganda tool just as he brought back the use of the old Soviet Hymn (National Anthem) rather than using the Internationale because it promoted nationalism and patriotism. The reintroduction of the Russian Orthodox church was used to further reinforce this nationalism and patriotism. He saw the VALUE of using this as a propaganda tool.

I disagree. The 'propaganda' was already there. Many communists saw religion as a tool of the ruling class i.e. 'accept your suffering, because you'll have eternal paridise in heaven when you die'.
Please let me study now. This is driving me nuts...right-wing religious nuts. I've heard of devils advocate, but this is forcing me down a road I dont want to go for the sake of debate....

 

[neo o]

i should have known

people cause suffering to happen, god causes good things to happen, but god created everything and has a plan for all of us, so his plan must be for us to cause suffering

seems harsh

People cause 'good things' to happen as well, we are our own creators, the creators of our own destiny

 

[MoonlightSonata]

Im saying that there is more reason for a religious person to 'spread the word' than an athiest to declare that God is dead, simply for the fact that one offers hope and comfort for millions of the world's unfortunate and disadvantaged, while the other offers...nothing.
Of course you can be good and lead a good life without religion, but you're aware that it's ultimatly futile and pointless. The issue of our purpose in the universe is not dead.

Who's to say purpose is objective? What's wrong with defining our own purpose of existence?

Im also thinking about russian communism, that enforced atheism and abolished most religious practice. However, when Stalin seemed in trouble in ww2, he brought it back. Why? for hope. He didnt believe in it, but he believed in the VALUE of it....but i digress

I understand that, even if god does not exist, religion may have benefits, such as providing hope, etc. I suppose that is fair enough, so long as people don't take it too far. If it were possible to realise the hope, comfort and good values (mostly, with some very abhorrent exceptions) of religion without actually believing in a god, I think that would be a great step for humanity. That said there are the dangers of following a religion without question, asserting views which are only in place "because god commands it" rather than because they are good (rejecting gays for example).

Yes, religion has benefits. It must be kept in place however, for the simple reason that the idea must not blind people. Still, it is all quite dubious. As already mentioned, it is a very "ignorance is bliss" type of attitude which personally, I won't adopt.

 

[MoonlightSonata]

Since I've never clashed with Moonlight before I think

Great minds think alike

Oh wait, found it.

Combine the two posts in your mind
Since I don't think I've clashed with Moonlight before , here's my best logical proof of a God, loosely based on scientific phenomena.

Newton states that things will not change unless acted upon.

Now, say we're looking at the last carriage of the train. I wonder, what is making this train move? I look ahead of it, to see another carriage. And then another one. And another one.

I'm witnessing the train move, so I know the engine's task is being completed.

Because I'm actually witnessing it move (i.e. it's not just an abstract formula), I know there can't be infinite cars. Because the task is practical, and I'm witnessing it's completion, the task can't have infinite steps (i.e. train carriages).

Now, what's alike between all the train carriages moving is that they're all dependant on the car in front of them. Except for the engine car. Which is independant (no gravity or coal please, it's just an analogy, I'm getting to the point).

So:
1. The situation is practical
2. The task is practical
3. I can see it finished.
4. There are not infinite steps (1,2,3).
5. I can observe all the cars are dependant.
6. Therefore, there is something invisible (as the train start has long passed), which is independant of the observed relevant dependancies.

Now, with the universe. We can observe the end of the long task,

Sounds like the classic Aquinas argument of the 'prime mover' -

1. Everything had a cause
2. Every cause is the effect of a previous cause
3. Something must have started it all
4. Therefore God is the first cause, creator of the universe

But it is guilty of question-begging Just because there is a mystery (something started it all) does not mean that god caused it.

 

[dangerousdave]

But it is guilty of question-begging Just because there is a mystery (something started it all) does not mean that god caused it.

I thought that was one of the purposes of religion in our modern society. If theres something science can't explain then Christians simply state it was "done by God for reasons beyond current human knowledge".

Thats what my physics teacher says.

 

[spell check]

suffering is a relative term.

you can't have people 'not suffer', unless everyone is in exactly the same mood, in which case there is no happiness.

i guess if thousands didn't die in floods in bangladesh i wouldn't know happiness

yes, suffering is clearly relative

oh and with respect to the "god has a plan" thing, that's just what i was told by christians in scripture at school.

 

[dangerousdave]

Well I see it as God must have a plan otherwise he wouldnt started creating stuff. If he was a God that randomly does stuff, then he's a pretty crap God.

 

[hipsta_jess]

Well I see it as God must have a plan otherwise he wouldnt started creating stuff. If he was a God that randomly does stuff, then he's a pretty crap God.

That's presuming there is a God, which, as far as I'm concerned is pretty unlikely.

 

[dangerousdave]

That was from a Christian's perspective. I'm not Christian, therefore I also dont believe that there is a god.

 

[Rorix]

But it is guilty of question-begging Just because there is a mystery (something started it all) does not mean that god caused it.

Would you accept that the primary cause must exist outside the 'natural' world?

i guess if thousands didn't die in floods in bangladesh i wouldn't know happiness

yes, suffering is clearly relative

?????? Is that a point? If you don't think it's inituitively obvious, I'll see if I can't dig up some psychology as evidence. There was some experiment about a torture which gradually decreases in pain over time being preferred post-act to a torture of a lesser, but constant pain that I remember.

oh and with respect to the "god has a plan" thing, that's just what i was told by christians in scripture at school.

*shrug* I'm not actually religiously scholared.

Well I see it as God must have a plan otherwise he wouldnt started creating stuff. If he was a God that randomly does stuff, then he's a pretty crap God.

There is a problem with God having a plan. Firstly, it's generally accepted that God is omniscient. That means God knows everything that can be known. Now, God can't know something false, so if He does know the future (think 4D universe), then he can't change it.
Thus, God's plan is redundant, as He already knows the outcome and is unable to change it.

 

[Rorix]

God is Powerless to stop it... isn't this guy omnipotent?

omnipotent doesn't mean you can do something that's impossible
like God can't draw a square circle.

 

[Rorix]

a square circle?
knowing something false?
all the assorted 'can God create a rock so heavy he can't move it' junk?

 

[waterfowl]

i should have known
people cause suffering to happen, god causes good things to happen, but god created everything and has a plan for all of us, so his plan must be for us to cause suffering
seems harsh

People cause 'good things' to happen as well, we are our own creators, the creators of our own destiny

Very well said neo_o.
God does have a plan for everyone, but it is up to us wether we follow that plan or not. If you think He should just zap murderers down or people who cause pain to stop suffering, then He would be taking away our free will which unfortunately a lot of us abuse.

 

[waterfowl]

A misconception that everyone has is that God can do everything. Well He can't!
Just a couple for example: God cannot lie, God cannot sin, God cannot violate His own Laws and God is not a hypocrite.
Basically the whole "nothing is impossible with God" thing is referring to "all things good".

 

[waterfowl]

The problem i have with christianity is.. that they don't believe that you can reject christianity without knowing the intricacies of the religion.. however they themselves to not know the intricacies of other religions..

Do you know the intricacies of other religions?
And FYI many pastors (or whatever u would like to call them ... ministers etc) do know the intricacies of other religions; they study them in order to understand where they are coming from. For example I know of a School of Ministry that has core subjects that are other religions such as Muslim, Judaism etc

 

[waterfowl]

GE 3:1-7, 22-24 God allows Adam and Eve to be deceived by the Serpent. They eat of the "Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil," thereby incurring death for themselves and all of mankind for ever after. God prevents them from regaining eternal life, by placing a guard around the "Tree of Eternal Life."

God stopped adam and eve from eating from the tree of life however he allowed them to eat from the tree of knowledge of good and evil... did he know they were going to eat from that tree? why didn't he stop them from eating from that tree? Did he just not know?

He stopped them after they ate from the tree of knowledge. He told them not to eat of the tree of knowledge. He didn't stop them from eating it because that would be taking away their free will. He had already warned them! He had told them not to eat the fruit, they disobeyed, he punished.

 

[waterfowl]

Yet he takes away their free will to eat from the tree of eternal life by placing a guard around the tree...

Just like your parents ground you when you do something wrong.

 

[waterfowl]

i get annoyed when christians say i simply do not believe because i don't understand it enough.

This is not an argument or rebutal, simply my point of view:

I don't need to understand Christianity fully. I don't require answers to every single question I may think of about the origins of the universe etc etc.
But I have faith, and I have seen things and experienced things that support that faith - eg. after giving my tithes, or an offering I have been blessed much more than I put in; I have seen people healed of incurable diseases;

and the one that I stick by the most (it may sound small and insignificant but it is enough for me): a couple of years ago I was at a youth conference at my Church, and the pastor called up all the young guys who were my age onto the stage. After we all lined up, he started praying for us one by one. Now I really didn't want to be up there because I get extremely embarassed in front of crowds. I was saying in my head "please let him hurry up and get to me so I can fall over pretending and get off this stage". Now the pastor had prayed for everyone before me, and everyone after me - but when he got to me he said "No. Not you." and moved on. How could he have known what I was thinking and feeling without some help from God.

 

[waterfowl]

What is more likely... that he was talking to a divine spirit that cared alot about how you were feeling etc
Or that he saw that u were noticably nervous and didn't want to spin you out too much?

Yes and that spirit was God/the Holy Spirit.
And I was not notably nervous, I stood there like everyone else and without trembling or anything like that. And he would not, not pray for people simply because he thought it may "spin them out" - he had prayed for people before me, so I obviously knew what was going on.

 

[waterfowl]

btw i edited my former post to include the question about why adam and eve should be punished when before eating from the tree of knowledge it would have been impossible for them to know that the serpent was bad and that disobeying god's commandments was the wrong thing to do.

Also, although the prohibition regarding the forbidden fruit was made to Adam before Eve came on the scene, eve was the one who was blamed for doing everything.

Genesis 2:16-17:: "You are free to eat from any tree in the garden; but you must not eat from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, for when you eat of it you will surely die."

Genesis 3:2-3 2 "The woman said to the serpent, "We may eat fruit from the trees in the garden, 3 but God did say, 'You must not eat fruit from the tree that is in the middle of the garden, and you must not touch it, or you will die.' "

They knew the consequences!