106 replies to this topic

[william]

Again, Zoo, you're making my point perfectly. Experiments on the results of prayer in health matters are just too difficult to conduct in any type of accurate or meaningful way. All the variables in such an endeavor can't be took into consideration.

God is not acting like a Nazi or a tyrant as you think. God set forth a way for us to live so we can live longer, healthier and happier lives. Whenever we live or act contrary to that way, we suffer some type of harm that automatically flows from the act of disobedience. Right now God is letting us go our own way and do as we please - allowing us to define truth as we want to see it. That's why the world is in such a mess today. You should checkout the free booklet "Why Does God Allow Suffering?" at http://www.gnmagazin...S/whysuffer.htm. Notice the part where it says:

"Many assume God angrily intervenes to punish us whenever we step out of line, when in reality He generally allows us to suffer the consequences of our own selfish, shortsighted behavior (see Jeremiah 2:19; 10:23). Most people fail to recognize that God doesn't have to directly intervene every time we sin; the spiritual laws He set in motion are self- enforcing, bringing their own punishment when we break them."

I read a few books on TM awhile back and tried it for a period of time without much success. My attention span is too short for focusing on breathing or mantras. I ended up practicing a different form of meditation, according to Psalm 1:2; 39:3; James 1:25, where I focused on God's law or Christ's teachings. It worked real good for me.

I receive about 30 e-mails a day from two Calorie Restriction Society lists, and about 10 or more from other sources. Do you think I would waste my time responding to you and live Forever's posts if I didn't believe what I was saying was true and important for obtaining a longer life span? Writing doesn't come easy to me.

And, you and Live Forever only "think" you're demonstrating holes in my arguments. I'm on firm ground when I argue from the Scriptures.

Edited by william, 10 July 2006 - 01:19 PM.

[william]

Remember Live Forever, the same can be said of you and the others. You have too much blind faith in science to explain the unexplainable, to lead society out of the serious mess it's in, and, at the same time, to give us life forever. I'm not totally against science when I say this. I just believe this tool could be much better used by a people with a new and better understanding of the Bible.

The Bible, if seriously looked at, is quite abit different than the fairy tale you suggest. It's the all time bestselling book, its influenced the lives and actions of many great men of history, and its ideas are tightly interwoven into the fabric of our social life in such a way that it can't be readily dismissed as mythology or fairy tales. See http://www.gnmagazine.org/booklets/BT/.

May be you and the others could develop a "utilitarian" view of God and the Bible if you can't become outright believers at the moment. We need all the help we can get on this immortality quest we're on. God says in the Bible He'll help us. Pray on it.

Also, those scientists in the prayer study should of been investigating how living according to God's law and Christ's teachings in the correct way could of prevented the heart problems in the first place. Look at how those people were eating and how they were living to cause those heart conditions. God is interested in prevention, not prayers involving an after the fact surgical intervention.

[zoolander]

[sleep]

[william]

Get em Don! Zoo's off topic and sleeping on the job!

[zoolander]

[spectate]

[zoolander]

I think I ate to much popcorn

[sick]

[william]

The way I fiqure it zoo, you guys got sometype of special privileges with the Immortality Institute to be able to alter the page to use different smilies that are not otherwise available and do some of the other stuff you guys do. Am I right?

[zoolander]

You can use them to william. When you are typing your post below the square box beside the submit button you have the "Go advanced" button. If you click on this you go to a different screen. On this screen you have a series of options. Beside the box that you are typing your post in there a collection of icons. These are called emoticons.

Give it a go

[Live Forever]

Again, Zoo, you're making my point perfectly. Experiments on the results of prayer in health matters are just too difficult to conduct in any type of accurate or meaningful way. All the variables in such an endeavor can't be took into consideration.

So you admit there is no way to prove that prayer works, I assume the same assertation goes for God? or is there proof for God?

God is not acting like a Nazi or a tyrant as you think. God set forth a way for us to live so we can live longer, healthier and happier lives. Whenever we live or act contrary to that way, we suffer some type of harm that automatically flows from the act of disobedience. Right now God is letting us go our own way and do as we please - allowing us to define truth as we want to see it. That's why the world is in such a mess today. You should checkout the free booklet "Why Does God Allow Suffering?" at http://www.gnmagazin...S/whysuffer.htm. Notice the part where it says:

"Many assume God angrily intervenes to punish us whenever we step out of line, when in reality He generally allows us to suffer the consequences of our own selfish, shortsighted behavior (see Jeremiah 2:19; 10:23). Most people fail to recognize that God doesn't have to directly intervene every time we sin; the spiritual laws He set in motion are self- enforcing, bringing their own punishment when we break them."

Aah, ok, so your view of God is one that created everything, knows all things, is all powerful, and is all good (does not sin or knows no evil), correct?

If you answered yes to the above, then your god is logically inconsistent, and is a contradiction, therefore can not exist.

Take this example: If you walked up to a group of paintings by one artist and saw that they all heavily utilized the color green, then would you not say that the artist probably liked the color green? Even if you could somehow explain away that he didn't like the color green, at least he knows what the color green is. The same analogy applies to Earth, how can God not know what sin is if he created the world? The world is so full of sin and evil, that either 1) He didn't create everything, or 2) He knows what evil and sin is.

Other logical inconsistencies arise as well:

An all knowing God cannot be all powerful. If you know what is going to happen in the future for certain, then you are powerless to stop it, otherwise if you are powerful enough to change things in the future, then you are not all knowing, because you cannot be certain of what will happen in the future. So either God is 1) All knowing and not all poweful or 2) all powerful but not all knowing

An all good God and a God that knows everything is also logically inconsistent. I can know what it feels like to steal something, know what it feels like to envy someone, know the satisfaction that comes from lust, or any number of other things that God can not know. So, God is either 1) not all knowing, or 2) knows what it is to sin (not all good).

I could go on and on with these, but you get the point with these 3 I hope, that there are logical inconsistencies in the view of God that is being put forth by william and others. I can not argue against there being any god, just the god that they are putting forth.

I receive about 30 e-mails a day from two Calorie Restriction Society lists, and about 10 or more from other sources. Do you think I would waste my time responding to you and live Forever's posts if I didn't believe what I was saying was true and important for obtaining a longer life span? Writing doesn't come easy to me.

You can respond all you like, I would just caution you to tone down the religious rhetoric. You do know that you can be interested in stuff and carry on conversations about stuff without injecting dogmatic religious teachings, right? Or, at least build up some respect and such before you start up with the religious stuff. If you had come here and started off on some other stuff before just pounding the religious stuff like you do in every single post that you make, people wouldn't get so tired of it so easily. You really are doing yourself a disservice by pounding it in at every point. When you talk of nothing else besides one thing, people quickly tire of your rhetoric. Look at the posting of others here. We don't simply post about the same thing over and over and over again.

And, you and Live Forever only "think" you're demonstrating holes in my arguments. I'm on firm ground when I argue from the Scriptures.

Umm, no. Arguing from a book with so many problems does not strengthen your case. We could argue about the problems with the Bible in another thread, if you wish.

Remember Live Forever, the same can be said of you and the others. You have too much blind faith in science to explain the unexplainable, to lead society out of the serious mess it's in, and, at the same time, to give us life forever.

I don't have blind faith in science, but yes I think science will eventually lead us to long life spans.

I'm not totally against science when I say this. I just believe this tool could be much better used by a people with a new and better understanding of the Bible.

I am quite the opposite. I think there should be a great division between scientists and religion. The more religion tries to muck around with science, the less information and progress we get. The teaching of evolution and the use of embryotic stem cells are two of the current event topics that illustrate this well, but there are many others.

The Bible, if seriously looked at, is quite abit different than the fairy tale you suggest.

You are right, there is more proof against the Bible than the fairy tale.

It's the all time bestselling book, its influenced the lives and actions of many great men of history, and its ideas are tightly interwoven into the fabric of our social life in such a way that it can't be readily dismissed as mythology or fairy tales. See http://www.gnmagazine.org/booklets/BT/.

So were the Greek myths in their time, or the Egyptian religion with their gods and goddesses, or any of the African religions (voodoo, etc.), or religions today (Islam, Hinduism, etc.), or any of a number of others throughout history. I would assume that you agree that these are all false religions as well. Just because a religion influences a lot of different people throughout history, does not mean it is the right religion.

May be you and the others could develop a "utilitarian" view of God and the Bible if you can't become outright believers at the moment.

Definition: Utilitarianism (from the Latin utilis, useful) is a theory of ethics that prescribes the quantitative maximization of good consequences for a population.

I think that our quest to extend lives is just this, and I don't think we need any of the mysticism that you are prescribing to help us out.

We need all the help we can get on this immortality quest we're on. God says in the Bible He'll help us. Pray on it.

I will leave the praying to you, I have done enough in my life for a few lifetimes already, thanks though. One thing I would pray for (and I have many, many, many times before) is for God to reveal himself to me if he exists. Unfortunately, it has not happened yet.

Also, those scientists in the prayer study should of been investigating how living according to God's law and Christ's teachings in the correct way could of prevented the heart problems in the first place.

William, there would be no way for them to test for every single religious nuance. That would take more time and money than they would ever have available to them, and there would still be someone like you around saying "well they didn't test for this". I think the study was adequate to prove what they wanted to prove, which was whether prayer worked or not.

Look at how those people were eating and how they were living to cause those heart conditions. God is interested in prevention, not prayers involving an after the fact surgical intervention.

So God doesn't answer prayers of people whose life is in danger, or when people pray for things to happen in the short term? I would say that cuts out about 99% of prayers people pray.

[zoolander]

Wicked arguments Live Forever. [applause]

[william]

Live Forever, we're going back to old territory, on whether God exists or not, I thought I covered sufficiently in those past posts. I provided a link to the best video and literature on the subject I know of. Here's the link again. http://www.beyondtod...ProgramID=bt015.

I think most people who give the matter honest consideration, after seeing the video and reading the literature, are forced to the realization that God must exist and must of created the heavens and the earth and everything in them including man. The evidence and the reasoning is just too compelling. Only people with very negative and narrow views or agendas will wilfully resist the obvious. Life just could not have arose by a chance event and then developed unaided to its present forms. The odds against such a series of chance events and unguided development occurring is just too great. Only people with blind faith in chance events of this nature applying some type of hocus pocus illogical reasoning can believe in it.

It's impossible for me or you to know the extent of God's knowledge and power. Therefore, it's impossible for you to say "[G]od is logically inconsistent, and is a contradiction, therefore can not exist." Also, He's a creator God who is clearly trying to teach man the correct way to live and is not trying to determine every thought and action of man like a puppet or a pre-programmed robot. So, all your other arguments must fail too.

I'm going to consider your advice to tone down the religious stuff so as not to offend others. However, religion is my strong point and where I feel I can provide some direction on the path to increased life spans and immortality. You must admit you're wrong where you say I've only posted on religious matters. I've made a number of posts that didn't mention religion at all.

The mythological gods and religions you mention nowhere near approach the degree of sophistication and consistency as the God of the Bible does. Nor have they endured as long. Generally, they last for a few hundred years and then die out or are changed by a new god idea with a new set of practices. Have any of those mythological gods ever promised man longer, healthier, and happier life spans - including immortality - and shown man how to obtain it? Where else could you have gotten your handle, Live Forever, but from the book of Genesis (Ge 3:22)(NIV) where God put it?

God only answers the prayers of the righteous who are making a reasonable effort to practice the religion and way of life He taught. Those people who are praying only when their life is in danger or when they want something usually don't receive an answer. Prayer depends on the goodness of heart and sincerity of the person praying whether God will answer it or not.

[Live Forever]

[quote]
Live Forever, we're going back to old territory, on whether God exists or not, I thought I covered sufficiently in those past posts. I provided a link to the best video and literature on the subject I know of. Here's the link again. http://www.beyondtod...ProgramID=bt015.
[/quote]
Yes, and it was already stated that they use pseudo-science and misdirection instead of real science. You chose not to respond to the previous claims on this, so I took it to mean you agreed. Since you fail to address any argument that is ever brought up on any of these threads, I will assume that either 1) you agree with all of the arguments raised, or 2) you do not understand the arguments raised. In either case, I am done presenting arguments if you will not be arguing them, and instead simply using the same pseudo-scientific links.

[quote]
I think most people who give the matter honest consideration, after seeing the video and reading the literature, are forced to the realization that God must exist and must of created the heavens and the earth and everything in them including man. The evidence and the reasoning is just too compelling. Only people with very negative and narrow views or agendas will wilfully resist the obvious. Life just could not have arose by a chance event and then developed unaided to its present forms. The odds against such a series of chance events and unguided development occurring is just too great. Only people with blind faith in chance events of this nature applying some type of hocus pocus illogical reasoning can believe in it.
[/quote]
See above comments, but I think it is you who are being narrow in scope, not taking into account evidence, or even arguing points. Just making blanket statements like you seem to enjoy doing proves nothing, please make valid arguments, and quit relying on other pseudoscience websites to do your bidding. If you see a point you disagree with, then argue it. Don't simply wave your hand and say, well you don't know anything, go to this website. You actually need to say "This is what is wrong about what you are saying". At least if you did that, I could have some intellectual respect for you, but this is just baloney, and I refuse to continue participating if you continue to act in that manner.

[quote]
It's impossible for me or you to know the extent of God's knowledge and power. Therefore, it's impossible for you to say "[G]od is logically inconsistent, and is a contradiction, therefore can not exist." Also, He's a creator God who is clearly trying to teach man the correct way to live and is not trying to determine every thought and action of man like a puppet or a pre-programmed robot. So, all your other arguments must fail too.
[/quote]
I only stated that the classical Christian definition of God was logically inconsistent. If you have a different definition than that, please elaborate. If you think that God knows sin, or is not all knowing, or other stuff, then please elaborate. You can't simply say "well you don't know enough about God, so you can't possibly know what he is like". I was simply using the classical definition, and if that is not what you believe, then by all means correct me, but quit simply making blanket "you don't know what you are talking about" statements, that gets very annoying, very quickly.

[quote]
I'm going to consider your advice to tone down the religious stuff so as not to offend others.
[/quote]
Please do, not necessarily to not offend others, just for your own benefit. Do they not teach you in your prosthelitizing classes or whatever you go to, to build up a report with people before you start brow beating them with trying to convert them to your religion? If they don't, then they should, it would be much more effective in my view.

[quote]
However, religion is my strong point
[/quote]
debateable, but I'm going to keep my mouth shut cause I'm a nice guy [wis]

[quote]
and where I feel I can provide some direction on the path to increased life spans and immortality.
[/quote]
It has no bearing on increasing lifespans.

[quote]
You must admit you're wrong where you say I've only posted on religious matters. I've made a number of posts that didn't mention religion at all.
[/quote]
[?] [huh] [?]
Honestly william, you may have made a couple of posts that didn't mention religion, but I would reckon that most people's impression of you here is an extreme fundamentalist, or at least someone that seems to spout religious rhetoric at every opportunity. You will notice that there are very few people that even respond to you any more. I think, perhaps, zoolander and I have greater patience than the rest, but it is very draining for me as well.

[quote]
The mythological gods and religions you mention nowhere near approach the degree of sophistication and consistency as the God of the Bible does.
[/quote]
I am in no way an expert on all religions, but I was simply rebutting your point about how since many people had been influenced by the Christian God, that it must be the true god. I was showing you that that statement was untrue, nothing else was meant by it. Please re-read if you misunderstood.

[quote]
Nor have they endured as long.
[/quote]
That is a false statement. Many religions have taken up larger swaths of time than Christianity. "The God of the Bible" (your words, not mine) is short lived compared to many religions. This is especially true if you are talking about modern Christianity and the view of God.

[quote]
Generally, they last for a few hundred years and then die out or are changed by a new god idea with a new set of practices.
[/quote]
Look back at the history of the Christian church, william. The same thing has happened there since inception.

[quote]
Have any of those mythological gods ever promised man longer, healthier, and happier life spans - including immortality - and shown man how to obtain it?
[/quote]
In general, not any more or less so than Christianity. Buddhism, for instance says we will be reincarnated, and has a very detailed plan on how to reach "nirvana". Christianity is not as special as you make it out to be, william.

[quote]
Where else could you have gotten your handle, Live Forever, but from the book of Genesis (Ge 3:22)(NIV) where God put it?
[/quote]
I got it from wanting to live forever. I definitely didn't get it from a book that is not particularly any more true than other religious texts.

[quote]
God only answers the prayers of the righteous who are making a reasonable effort to practice the religion and way of life He taught. Those people who are praying only when their life is in danger or when they want something usually don't receive an answer. Prayer depends on the goodness of heart and sincerity of the person praying whether God will answer it or not.
[/quote]
This seems like one of the more narrow minded things you have said, but since I don't even believe in the larger issue of whether prayer works, I will let you have your individual approach to it, because I really could care less about your particular view of it, only that it does not work.

Ok, since I have answered each and every one of your concerns (in direct contrast to the broad statements that you seem to enjoy making without the need to rebut anything of mine, which is quite annoying in and of itself) I will make the following statement regarding this thread and all further threads in which you participate (and this time I promise to stick to it):
Your ploys have, it appears, once again succeeded in driving a thread off topic. Please, please, please, please, please, please, please, please, for the love of all that is holy, start your own thread, and discuss whatever you want there, but this has got to end with the driving of threads off topic. I keep falling for it, and so perhaps it is equally my fault, but I am making a promise to myself that I will be more diligent in the future to not continue answering your religious fiddle faddle that you keep raising, but seem to never have an answer for.

[zoolander]

At some stage william you need to take a step back or out of your consumed state. It's ok to discuss/argue a point but the discussion/argument needs to progress. Move forward. Aren't you getting dizzy spinning around and around on the spot.

Your blind faith is manifesting itself as an inability to recognise valid points i.e your are becoming blind yourself

Edited by zoolander, 12 July 2006 - 04:47 AM.

[william]

(Live Forever)

Your ploys have, it appears, once again succeeded in driving a thread off topic. Please, please, please, please, please, please, please, please, for the love of all that is holy, start your own thread, and discuss whatever you want there, but this has got to end with the driving of threads off topic. I keep falling for it, and so perhaps it is equally my fault, but I am making a promise to myself that I will be more diligent in the future to not continue answering your religious fiddle faddle that you keep raising, but seem to never have an answer for

I feel I have adequately rebutted you on every point, but maybe we should let this argument go for now since we're not getting anywhere. I don't want to get Don mad about being off topic - even though he hasn't said anything against what we're doing. I believe our digression is a legitimate one and relevant to the topic of whether research into the health benefits of prayer is a worthwhile scientific endeavor that should be continued. Maybe you or zoo could get Don's permission to continue this argument further. Isn't that what an "Advisor" is for?

Edited by william, 11 July 2006 - 01:10 PM.

[william]

Your blind faith is manifesting itself as an inability to recognise valid points i.e your are becoming blind yourself

Not the truth zoo and you know it in your heart! It's nothing but intransigence on you and Live Forever's part.

[zoolander]

It's not for me to know it my heart it's for you william. You need to ask yourself this honestly

[jaydfox]

If only I had the time...

It is only in the last couple months that I'm truly beginning to understand the idiom "You're not worth my time".

[Live Forever]

If only I had the time...

It is only in the last couple months that I'm truly beginning to understand the idiom "You're not worth my time".

You are a Mormon, correct Jay?

I (unfortunately) do not know a lot about Mormons, you are still practicing Jay?




Totally seperate, I think that all are worthy of our time. I have often been called (not on these boards) a "bleeding heart" not because I am so liberal (at least I think not), but because I care so much about individuals (disclaimer: ok, this might just be me painting myself in a rosy light). In any event, I dont think anyone is not worthy of our time, I think that everyone deserves to know the whole truth, and no matter the length of time it takes arguing, it is a duty we have to enlighten others.

(yet another disclaimer: I have been drinking a bit, so if the above does not make sense, please disregard)

[jaydfox]

It's not that they aren't valuable and worthy in some way. It's just that the time I would spend trying in vain to convince william of the errors of his ways is time I could spend on efforts that will be far more productive. I used to have so much free time that I could afford to engage in debates with people like william. But in the last couple months, between moving across the country, switching jobs, travelling to customer sites, and dealing with general ImmInst duties, I don't have as much time for healthy debate, let alone hitting my head against a brick wall.

As for the Mormon thing, I still "practice" in the outward sense, but only for my wife's benefit. Inwardly, I no longer practice. I still hear the siren call, and it tempts me from time to time, but reason and rationality inevitably help me snap out of it.

[emerson]

In the presence of abudant resources, I would be more than willing to open myself up to the most unprobable experiments. However, we happen to live in a real world where resources are unfortunately scarce.

That's why resources should be directed at experiments most likely having positive impact.

In an odd roundabout way, I think they have been. If I recall, the bulk of the funding came from the John Templeton Foundation. So that's 2.4 million dollars that's going from a religious organisations coffers and into the pockets of the Duke UMC. From there, I'd say the money definitely would have a higher chance of funding studies with better statistical payback than if it'd remained with the JTF.

That said, I actually rather like the JTF. Whether they're a net benefit to science, or a trap which gives scientific credibility to subjects which shouldn't be so linked, the JTF is at the very least a great source of social novelty. And, even if I disagree with their overall conclusions about the world, I do often agree with them on other issues. Which has been pointed out a couple times in this thread by others. No matter how hard we try, humans can never become the labels we put on ourselves. There's always something a bit different and exciting that comes out every now and again. In particular, the senior vice president of the JTF has issued some of the greatest 0wnings of the discovery institute I've ever seen. Nobody, but nobody, can dis someone like a member of their own family.

I (unfortunately) do not know a lot about Mormons

Feel free to take my place in Lethbridge while I'm away! It's actually the very first time that I'd lived in a town with a heavy percentage of mormons. The funny thing is that I'd just assumed from the beginning that there'd obviously be no real difference between mormans and anyone else in terms of how they related to people. Sterotypes have a way of building up pretty quickly, and pretty easily, from a really flimsy base. But, oddly enough, I have to say that I found them on average to be an exceptionally pleasant group. Varied in that respect as any person will be, but still, quite often with an innocence I almost hope was just an affectation. Of course then there's the aspect of former members I've known in acquaintance who were pretty resentful of the church. Thinking of it, I can almost see from the vantage point of the average person on the street when they begin thinking about scientists. In any case, it was a fun experience simply for the fact of being able to talk to people with such a radically different worldview than my own.

Edited by emerson, 12 July 2006 - 12:18 PM.

[william]

If only I had the time...

It is only in the last couple months that I'm truly beginning to understand the idiom "You're not worth my time".

That sounds like a challenge jay. If you can find the time, I'll oblige you with a good argument. I might make a believer out of you.

[Trias]

william, seeing you quoting from the bible amuses me to an unfathomable degree.

the way you find strength in that blind belief, astounds me...
you... find your absolute truth in a mere book, written by folks just like you and me; you allow these people to think for you and differentiate between right and wrong. pathetic.

Quoting from the bible as a method used to defend your stance is a disgrace to reason. everyone can quote; I can quote the Muslim Ku'ran saying contradictory things about your jesus. Do 2.4 billion muslims are sinners and going to your silly idea of a christian hell? -So primitive is the blid-faith point of view. What gives you, sir, the impression that your holy book (the new testament) is superior and more "divine" or trustworthy than the Muslim Kur'an, for instance? -the muslims are wrong and christians are right? - According to the "Nasch" doctrine of Islam faith, the old & new testaments are, in effect, considered obsolete and are not to be followed. What would you say to that? -are the billions of muslims who believe that wrong?

if allah/jehovah are the same one - than why does the idol permit such a great schism amongst our kind?

prayer is weakness.
to pray, or even worse - to teach children to pray - is to teach them that they cannot trust themselves alone and other natural means to get what they want and desire. to teach them how to cry for the aid/mercy of a non-physical and fantastic deity is, in my mind, a silly and primitive attempt.

if you'd ask me:
"do you believe in god?"
I'd probably answer: "which god are you referring to? Allah, Jehovah, Shiva?"
And if you'd say: "These are but synonyms to the omnipotent and all-loving ONE"
I'll reply: "Then this 'one' you speak of must be capricious and whimsical in nature, allowing millions of human being to torture and slaughter each other, each in the name of a different synonym..."

if you'd say: "there is only one god, and one form of salvation through Jesus Christ"
I'll say: 4,000,000,000 people would beg to differ.


"The day will come when the mystical generation of Jesus by the Supreme Being as his father, in the womb of a virgin, will be classed with the fable of the generation of Minerva in the brain of Jupiter." Thomas Jefferson (1823)

*Minerva, Roman goddess of wisdom

"God either wants to eliminate bad things and cannot, or can but does not want to, or neither wishes to nor can, or both wants to and can. If he wants to and cannot, he is weak -- and this does not apply to god. If he can but does not want to, then he is spiteful -- which is equally foreign to god's nature. If he neither wants to nor can, he is both weak and spiteful and so not a god. If he wants to and can, which is the only thing fitting for a god, where then do bad things come from? Or why does he not eliminate them?" -Epicurus


-Daniel S.
[Israel]

[jaydfox]

"God either wants to eliminate bad things and cannot, or can but does not want to, or neither wishes to nor can, or both wants to and can. If he wants to and cannot, he is weak -- and this does not apply to god. If he can but does not want to, then he is spiteful -- which is equally foreign to god's nature. If he neither wants to nor can, he is both weak and spiteful and so not a god. If he wants to and can, which is the only thing fitting for a god, where then do bad things come from? Or why does he not eliminate them?"

While I'm no longer religious, sentiments like this show no clear comprehension for how a god would want to raise his children. Should we be spoiled brats, having never known a single uncomfortable, let alone painful, experience? Were the worst aspects of humanity prevented at every turn by divine intervention, would we not rely on that intervention instead of on our own agency to act?

If we are god's children, and destined to become his heirs (if there's one problem I have with most non-Mormon Christians, it's that they think our divine heritage it to become angels, lapdogs to master; if we are made in God's image, is not our ultimate destiny to become as our Father, a god in every right?), shouldn't we learn everything there is to know about human experience, the good and the bad?

The biggest problem I see isn't the suffering, it's the inequity that some are born to predominate pleasure and privilege, while others are born to predominate suffering and poverty. But were we all created to equal stature, then how could a generation screw up, if their children were guaranteed to be born of equal stature? If god is no respector of persons, then he must judge those born to riches and knowledge much more harshly than those born to poverty and ignorance. Easiest, then, it must be for those who are born without knowing his Gospel, for why should they be held accountable to a law they've never known, when their only crime was being born in the wrong family or nation?

Those who claim that non-Christians will go to hell have no comprehension of God, for if they knew him, they'd know that it is the Christians who are in greatest danger of hellfire, for they have his word and the concomitant responsibility to study and live it.

I have a lot of problems with the Mormon faith, but of all the Christian churches I've superficially studied, they are the most compassionate and the most in tune with the character of God, were He to exist.

[william]

I strongly disagree about it being a waste. It sounds absurd, but history is full of instances where people continued to believe what we now know to be false simply for the fact that they went by the "everyone knows" method of science. Instead of actually putting a claim to the test, just laughing off the possibility. Two strong examples I can think of are the development of neurology when Thomas Willis actually put the untested theories which had become "common sense, everyday knowledge" about the relation of mind and anatomy to the experimental process. The other is the initial controversy around the claims of Anton van Leeuwenhoek that humans were covered in tiny invisible animals of bizarre shape and activity. Both had detractors who felt that the propositions being put before them were so ludicrous that to even hear their argument out, let along put it to the test, would be an insult to science.

The main importance of science to me is its utility as a prosthesis to make up for the illogical nature of much of our mental processes, and for letting us move beyond the inherent bias which we may have put over some issues. To use it in that fashion, we're pretty much stuck with using it as a catchall for any seemingly stupid, but testable, idea put out there. Most of us would like to assume we'd not have sat around mocking Leeuwenhoek's colourful rants about invisible creatures, viewable only with "his" microscope, which "sometimes stuck out two little horns, which were continually moved, after the fashion of a horse's ears". Unfortunately, I could easily see myself doing so were a similar situation to appear. As a result, I'm willing to look at absolutely anything which has been put to a well designed experiment.

That was a nice post emerson. It shows you got an excellent grasp of philosophy of science and the history of medicine. I still think prayer and its healing effects is too difficult for scientists to study accurately or in a truly meaningful way. Maybe I'm wrong. I, however, wish scientists would start studying the healing effects of kibbutz living and its potential to increase longevity. There's an experiment I would like to see.

inarchunite, I'm going to try to argue with you a little bit if I can see a way to do it where I won't get checked for being off topic. I've been warned about this on several occasions and I'm leary of doing it too much.

[Trias]

Is allah/elohim the same one?
if so, cruelty seems more fitting as a core trait rather than compassion.

If allah and elohim are not the same one,
which of them truly exists?


it is almost funny, what is happening here in israel.

many jewish fanatics pray for Elohim to "defeat" the enemy (muslim palestinians) and overtake the additional territories of the holy land.

the muslim fanatics on the other hand, pray for Allah for the exact opposite cause - - to re-conquer the sacred lands of islam.

Who is right and who errs?

Answer: none.

all are but wretched fools when it comes to dealing with reality.



your god must be sitting there up in the skies, laughing his heavenly ass off.

[opales]

I don't have as much time for healthy debate, let alone hitting my head against a brick wall.

I can't believe how much people are putting effort here in trying to convert the religious cooks back to land of reason. I gave up on that like 10 years, because it's basically just wasted resources. No amount of reasonable argument is ever going to be enough.

[william]

[quote](jaydfox)The biggest problem I see isn't the suffering, it's the inequity that some are born to predominate pleasure and privilege, while others are born to predominate suffering and poverty. But were we all created to equal stature, then how could a generation screw up, if their children were guaranteed to be born of equal stature? If god is no respector of persons, then he must judge those born to riches and knowledge much more harshly than those born to poverty and ignorance. Easiest, then, it must be for those who are born without knowing his Gospel, for why should they be held accountable to a law they've never known, when their only crime was being born in the wrong family or nation?[quote]

If you're against the suffering, poverty and equality as you say, wouldn't you agree then that we should be studying and discussing ways to eliminate these problems? What if the only way to eliminate the problems is through a correct application of God's law and Christ's teachings in a communal setting like an Israeli kibbutz?

[/quote]Those who claim that non-Christians will go to hell have no comprehension of God, for if they knew him, they'd know that it is the Christians who are in greatest danger of hellfire, for they have his word and the concomitant responsibility to study and live it.[quote]

You're absolutely right. Especially those living high on the hog, so to speak, without compassion for the downtrodden, and following pagan practices they claim are Christian in place of what God and Christ actually taught.

[quote]I have a lot of problems with the Mormon faith, but of all the Christian churches I've superficially studied, they are the most compassionate and the most in tune with the character of God, were He to exist.[/quote]

Don't the Mormons keep the Roman catholic holidays Christmas, Easter, and the Sunday replacement for the true Sabbath which occurs on the last day of the week and not on the first day? See, for example, http://www.gnmagazine.org/booklets/HH/, for an excellent free booklet that explains these holidays are pagan in origin and not from God who strongly disapproves of them. Doesn't the Mormon church still follow the teachings and practices of Joseph Smith who claims to be a prophet who received the book of Mormon from the angel Moroni?

[Trias]

I don't have as much time for healthy debate, let alone hitting my head against a brick wall.

I can't believe how much people are putting effort here in trying to convert the religious cooks back to land of reason. I gave up on that like 10 years, because it's basically just wasted resources. No amount of reasonable argument is ever going to be enough.

well said ;-)

[jaydfox]

Don't the Mormons keep the Roman catholic holidays Christmas, Easter, and the Sunday replacement for the true Sabbath which occurs on the last day of the week and not on the first day? See, for example, http://www.gnmagazine.org/booklets/HH/, for an excellent free booklet that explains these holidays are pagan in origin and not from God who strongly disapproves of them. Doesn't the Mormon church still follow the teachings and practices of Joseph Smith who claims to be a prophet who received the book of Mormon from the angel Moroni?

Er, yes, yes, yes, and yes.

Yes to Christmas, though we don't celebrate it as the anniversary of Christ's birth, but because it's a generally recognized Christian holiday, so why avoid it. Santa Claus is not officially sponsored as a religious doctrine, nor are Christmas trees. We just focus on the birth of Christ, as told in Luke 2 mainly.

Easter is honoring the Resurrection of Christ. Easter Bunny optional. Eggs optional. Remembering the Resurrection mandatory, so to speak.

As for Sunday, I don't know all the ancient details, other than that Christ arose on Sunday, so with the fulfillment of the Law of Moses (of which the original Sabbath was a part!), a new day was to be honored in its place. Or something like that.

As for Joseph Smith, yes, the Mormons still follow his teachings, in addition to the Old and New Testaments. I point this out because some people don't realize that Mormons believe in and follow the Bible. Mormons don't "worship" Joseph Smith, any more than Baptists worship Matthew or Paul. Mormons, like all good Christians, worship Jesus Christ.

the religious cooks

Religious kooks?