VoyForums
[ Show ]
Support VoyForums
[ Shrink ]
VoyForums Announcement: Programming and providing support for this service has been a labor of love since 1997. We are one of the few services online who values our users' privacy, and have never sold your information. We have even fought hard to defend your privacy in legal cases; however, we've done it with almost no financial support -- paying out of pocket to continue providing the service. Due to the issues imposed on us by advertisers, we also stopped hosting most ads on the forums many years ago. We hope you appreciate our efforts.

Show your support by donating any amount. (Note: We are still technically a for-profit company, so your contribution is not tax-deductible.) PayPal Acct: Feedback:

Donate to VoyForums (PayPal):

[ Login ] [ Contact Forum Admin ] [ Main index ] [ Post a new message ] [ Search | Check update time | Archives: 1, [2], 3, 4 ]

[ Next Thread | Previous Thread | Next Message | Previous Message ]

Date Posted: 11:29:54 04/26/02 Fri
Author: stored
Subject: R1

Religion I


The Philosopher's Corner, (and its varied forums) is for those wishing to debate ideas in an
environment relatively free of personal attacks. This does NOT mean that ideas are not to be
challenged and/or heavily debated. Bringing arguments from another forum to this forum or any
other PC forum totally distorts the original message made, gives a biased slant and is
inappropriate. Standing firm and making one's case on its own merits is the intelligent choice.
Attacking and/or challenging an opinion is fair game.. Attacking someone personally is not.
--Susan

Alternative R1 forum
Benefits: length of posts are basically unlimited, and if webforums break down we'll have a
backup forum. :)








MESSAGES IN THIS FORUM ARE PRESENTED AS NEWEST TO OLDEST.

`Ctaj
In Response To Murray
Friday April 26, 2002 at 13:28

By the way, any chance you and Stephen are the same person? I'd so no by the writing
style, but the basic attitude toward Christians seems uncannily similar. Lump then all
together and condemn the whole lot. Bigot.

Seems to me you just lumped Coinkydink together with Stephen James, and condemned them.
Bigot.

Ten Megaton Solution
In Response To Inquisitive
Friday April 26, 2002 at 13:24

You presume a person has the freewill to make the choice in the first place. You are placing
the cart before the steam roller.

Choice is only possible if freewill actually exists. That's what the word "choice" means. If your
God truly exists with all the attributes I've defined, you have no choices, regardless of how you
might feel about it.

GerryB.
In Response To RonB.
Friday April 26, 2002 at 13:24

RE: "I'm sure that's true, saints are very rare, especially in the world today."

I would guess then that you don't use the word "saints" in the same way in which Paul used it is
his epistles to the various first century Churches as in Ephesians, Philippians and 1 and 2
Corinthians. IE: "1Paul, an apostle of Jesus Christ by the will of God, to the saints which are at
Ephesus, and to the faithful in Christ Jesus:"
Ephesians 1:1(KJV). Paul considered all Christians to be "saints." The Roman Catholic Church
idea of sainthood being something which is conferred by the hierarchy did not come into being
for a few centuries later when the RC Church was founded. Yes, the number of true saints in
the world is growing on a regular basis.

Ten Megaton Solution
In Response To Murray
Friday April 26, 2002 at 13:22

If God is perfect (error-free), if God is omniscient (all-knowing), and if God is omnipotent
(all-powerfull), then Man is a pre-programmed machine following pre-established paths and
He has no choice whatsoever in what He does.

Only if God is not perfect, or not omniscient, or not omnipotent, can Man be free.

And pulling one of the legs off the tripod topples Christian mythology.

~Inquisitive~
In Response To TMS
Friday April 26, 2002 at 13:19

Everyone has the choice, (freewill) to believe in God or not. If one chooses to believe, then
freewill is no longer important. We choose to do that which is righteous (try daily) in His eyes.

When you married, did you still have freewill to do whatever you wanted? Or did you respect
your wife enough to give up past liberties that were permissible as a single man.

Murray
In Response To TMS
Friday April 26, 2002 at 13:17

So, the robot became a man because the robot maker programmed him to do so? Is that what
you're saying?

Murray
In Response To Coinkydink
Friday April 26, 2002 at 13:10

"Sad or not, most of the doctrines that Acnr or Tamarisk posts are the same as the ones
espoused here...they are ruder, but about the same brand of Christian as far as I can see.
You could all be going to the same church, except for Dori, who is Catholic. It would be
hard to recognise ACNR in his sunday suit singing in the pew next to you."

Thanks for posting this, Jeanie. It clears up a lot of questions in my mind about you. By the
way, any chance you and Stephen are the same person? I'd so no by the writing style, but the
basic attitude toward Christians seems uncannily similar. Lump then all together and condemn
the whole lot. Bigot.

Ten Megaton Solution
Friday April 26, 2002 at 12:59

IF man was a robot in the Garden of Eden, how was he able to make a decision apart
from the agency of his robotic control?

Why are you saying he made a decision? It's part of the programming, of course. After all,
God knows everything, and therefore God knew that Adam would follow the little head, not
the big one.

Because God made him that way. To believe in God is to deny of Freewill.

Murray
In Response To Ctaj
Friday April 26, 2002 at 12:57

IF man was a robot in the Garden of Eden, how was he able to make a decision apart from
the agency of his robotic control?

~Inquisitive~
In Response To Ctaj
Friday April 26, 2002 at 12:52

was that he gained the virtues required to live. These virtues, by their standard, are his
Sin. His evil, they charge, is that he's man

No Ctaj, these "virtues" required to live are not mans sin. They are the necessities by which
man needed to survive because of sin.

Why do you keep assuming people who believe in God/Christ, don't think?

Ten Megaton Solution
In Response To Connie
Friday April 26, 2002 at 12:50

That is "either/or" reasoning which is illogical

Actually, the hard definition of "OR", along with "AND", and "NOT" form the basis of
computer programs. Correct use of "OR" is essential for today's society, and it is entirely
logical.

God either exists, or She does not. No middle ground is possible.

If God exists, then He either does, or does not, give a fig about us.

If what the Bible claims for Jesus is true, then people who disbelieve have something to lose.

If what the Bible claims for Jesus is false, then people who believe are wasting their time.

It's that simple, and why you people took offense at statements logically derived and easily
followed is mystifying.

`Ctaj
In Response To Connie
Friday April 26, 2002 at 12:44

Be careful, dear... you're trying to think. You could go to hell for that.

No, what Pascal's Wager said was that if you believe and you're wrong, you sacrifice nothing.
That's wrong, as I have shown.

It has nothing to do with the notion of a zero sum game.

*Coinkydink
In Response To Stephen
Friday April 26, 2002 at 12:44

"Whew!!! I had this awful image of a baby with it's head stuck in a paint can or sitting in the
corner licking a paintbrush... ;-) " Yeah, that's what Dori was thinking too, I guess...LOL

*Coinkydink
In Response To Stephen
Friday April 26, 2002 at 12:38

"For people who live with the idea that Armageddon will begin in their lifetime, what is the
point in trying to save anything? To them, there never is going to be a "next generation" to save
anything for...we are all soon to die at the hands of God and the world remade, so lets drain
this planet... " Yes, that is exactly why a lot of Christians are so anti-environmental. They
practically make a religion of using it all up...but I do wonder why so many Christians are so
prosperity oriented and pray for money, try to get ahead by using up the Earth's wealth...do
they think they can take it with them?

Connie
In Response To Ctaj
Friday April 26, 2002 at 12:35

That is "either/or" reasoning which is illogical. Kinda like those who think there's xxx number of
dollars to go around so if you have xx dollars and I only have x you have too much and have to
split that extra x with me. The fact that we could both attain xx dollars is beyond their
comprehension.

*Coinkydink
In Response To Connie
Friday April 26, 2002 at 12:27

"Do you really think Dori, Robin, Kim, and I are like ACNR? He's attacked us a lot more than
he has you. Have you seen the posts at his forum directed at Dori lately? To have you
compare us to him after knowing us all these years really saddens me. I thought you knew us
better than that." Sad or not, most of the doctrines that Acnr or Tamarisk posts are the same
as the ones espoused here...they are ruder, but about the same brand of Christian as far as I
can see. You could all be going to the same church, except for Dori, who is Catholic. It would
be hard to recognise ACNR in his sunday suit singing in the pew next to you... ;)

`Ctaj
In Response To Murray/RonB
Friday April 26, 2002 at 12:25

"Thinking is not an automatic process. A man can choose to think or to let his mind
stagnate, or he can choose actively to turn against his intelligence, to evade his
knowledge, to subvert his reason. If he refuses to think, he courts disaster: he cannot with
impunity reject his means of perceiving reality."

And this, man's mind, is what Pascal overlooks when he says we sacrifice nothing when we
choose to believe the irrational.

`Ctaj
In Response To Murry/RonB
Friday April 26, 2002 at 12:23

“Man’s mind,” states John Galt, the protagonist of Atlas Shrugged, "is his basic tool of survival.
Life is given to him, survival is not. His body is given to him, its sustenance is not. His mind is
given to him, its content is not. To remain alive, he must act, and before he can act he must
know the nature and purpose of his action. He cannot obtain his food without a knowledge of
food and of the way to obtain it. He cannot dig a ditch — or build a cyclotron — without a
knowledge of his aim and of the means to achieve it. To remain alive, he must think." [more]

*Coinkydink
In Response To Dori
Friday April 26, 2002 at 12:20

"Oh, the other "b" was for bulbous, not blue." Too bad, I thought blue would have been much
more interesting...blue is such a nice color, don't you think? :)

Murray
In Response To Ctaj
Friday April 26, 2002 at 12:13

Since when do robots make decisions apart from that or who which robotically controls them?

`Ctaj
In Response To RonB
Friday April 26, 2002 at 11:41

"It is not his vices that their myth of man's fall is designed to explain and condemn, it is not his
errors that they hold as his guilt, but the essence of his nature as man. Whatever he was - that
robot in the Garden of Eden, who existed without mind, without values, without labor, without
love - he was not man.

Man's fall, according to your teachers, was that he gained the virtues required to live. These
virtues, by their standard, are his Sin. His evil, they charge, is that he's man. His guilt, they
charge, is that he lives. They call it a morality of mercy and a doctrine of love for man."
Ayn Rand, from John Galt's Speech, Atlas Shrugged

`Ctaj
In Response To RonB
Friday April 26, 2002 at 11:40

"What is the nature of the guilt that your teachers call his Original Sin? What are the evils man
acquired when he fell from a state they consider perfection? Their myth declares that he ate the
fruit of the tree of knowledge - he acquired a mind and became a rational being. It was the
knowledge of good and evil - he became a moral being. He was sentenced to earn his bread
by his labor - he became a productive being. He was sentenced to experience desire - he
acquired the capacity of sexual enjoyment. The evils for which they damn him are reason,
morality, creativeness, joy - all the cardinal values of his existence. [cont'd]

`Ctaj
In Response To correction
Friday April 26, 2002 at 11:35

"...but if I disbelieve and I'm wrong, I lose my immortal soul."

`Ctaj
In Response To RonB
Friday April 26, 2002 at 11:33

Yes, it was Pascal's Wager that I had in mind when I spoke of the false dichotomy. His
reaoning was, "If I believe and I'm wrong, I lose nothing, but if I disbelieve and I lose nothing, I
lose my immortal soul."

The flaw in this false dichotomy lies in the assumption that one loses nothing when one
sacrifices the integrity of his mind.

Murray
In Response To All
Friday April 26, 2002 at 11:07

What's the difference between the Boy Scouts and the current church sexual abuse scandal?
The Boy Scouts have had aggressive policies in force to protect children in their charge from
sexual predators. The church has not.

What do the Boy Scouts and these churches have in common? They both have had to endure
intense media scrutiny and heavy, unfavorable media coverage, but for completely opposite
reasons. The Scouts were taken to task for adopting strong measures to prevent sexual
predators from having access to children. The church is being taken to task for not adopting
strong measures to prevent sexual predators from having access to children.

[ Next Thread | Previous Thread | Next Message | Previous Message ]
[ Contact Forum Admin ]

Forum timezone: GMT-8
VF Version: 3.00b, ConfDB:
Before posting please read our privacy policy.
VoyForums(tm) is a Free Service from Voyager Info-Systems.
Copyright © 1998-2019 Voyager Info-Systems. All Rights Reserved.