Does God Hide Himself?

[This_person]

And i would like to add, it doesn't matter if homosexuality is a sin, since we don't live in a theocracy. Christians can believe homosexuals are going to hell; as long as they don't make it a secular law issue, then that's their right.

This isn't really a political thread, but I would agree that being a sin is not a reason to have any laws with respect to homosexuality.

Just so you understand, sinning does not automatically take someone to hell. If it did, there would be only one person who was ever a human in Heaven, because only one person ever did not sin.

There are more than enough secular reasons to reject same-sex unions having the exact same name and petty perqs and disadvantages as opposite-sex two-person unions, but that's for a political thread, not a religious one.

 

[This_person]

NO standard for 'good/evil' - objective, subjective, or otherwise - can be inferred by a simple colloquial statement in a prior post. And why is it that religious always feel it's an effective counter-argument to claim that the non-religious are just as irrational as they are

I don't think either your belief system or mine are "irrational", I think they're subjective belief systems. Do you really believe yourself "irrational"?

 

[This_person]

Quite an assertion. Fits well with fundamentalist religious thinking, and it's a small step then to attempt to drive religious 'morality' into societal laws. In fundamentalist Christian Uganda, many were looking to impose the death penalty on homosexual act offenders. Little do they realize in that 3rd world country, that homosexuality and bisexuality is exhibited not only in humans, but in other primates, and has been documented in more than 600 animal species. Scientists have found genetic biomarkers for homosexuality in humans. Yet, Ugandans -and some Americans - still think homosexuality is a "choice". Obviously, Americans have no excuse for demonstrating the same ignorance as 3rd world illiterate societies.

Thank God we have the first amendment to the Constitution that disallows using religious beliefs as specific reasons for laws!

As for choice vs. biology, I'm pretty confident (without specific proof) that it is biology.

As for other animals, there's also documented proof that they'll screw stuffed animals, statues, legs, pillows, etc. I think tying human behavior to animalistic instincts where there is no documented way to demonstrate love is pretty silly. :shrug:

 

[This_person]

Jesus's 'love others as oneself' golden rule of ethical reciprocity is predated in the ancient philosophical writings of several civilizations. So, as it turns out, his best moral precept is not original.

Well, then, that means..... um, what are you trying to say that means?

While unfortunately, many of his original moral precepts are immoral.

Support of slavery is one example.

Jesus never supported slavery, He merely acknowledged its existence. He did inspire other people to try and stop slavery, but He never supported it.

The 'love' offered by jesus is conditional. You must accept him on bad evidence, or, by "rejecting" his love by simply not believing, he will condemn you to eternal torture. This is consistent with the conditional 'love' of a masochistic psychopath. And the pinnacle of absurdity to agnostics, atheists, freethinkers, and intellectuals. You and jesus will do just fine without me

Jesus' love is unconditional. He does not condemn, He saves you from what would happen without Him. While I'm certain I can do fine without you, I do love you enough to wish you could find Him in your heart. I find your informed decision to choose to reject salvation irrational, so maybe you're right about you're belief system being irrational

My personal morality is influenced primarily by a Modern Western Societal viewpoint, that is in turn, influenced by universal human rights and precepts that support the well-being and flourishing of humanity.

Which, in turn, are essentially Judeo-Christian values. So, you have values based on Christianity (although they're also, by definition, based on how you feel at the moment, not a set standard) while rejecting Christianity! Yes, you're convincing me you're irrational.

It's apparent to most who live in Western Nations that primitive religious texts cannot be used as a 'standard' for morality. Fundamentalist Christians and Muslims who espouse this worldview, are viewed by advanced western societies, as throwbacks to the dark ages'

Their uninformed position is their issue, not mine.

Western nations realize the continued progress and well-being of humanity depends on a morality (and secularly driven government) consistent with universal human rights, not retrograde religious dogma. But the US is unfortunately an outlier, being by far the most religious of the Western countries. Religious based ignorance and stupidity is in the view of many, not only a threat to world peace and prosperity, but negatively impacts America's influence and effectiveness as the leader of the free world.

That's one heck of an assertion - source?

 

[TheLibertonian]

This isn't really a political thread, but I would agree that being a sin is not a reason to have any laws with respect to homosexuality.

Just so you understand, sinning does not automatically take someone to hell. If it did, there would be only one person who was ever a human in Heaven, because only one person ever did not sin.

There are more than enough secular reasons to reject same-sex unions having the exact same name and petty perqs and disadvantages as opposite-sex two-person unions, but that's for a political thread, not a religious one.

People like Proxima assume the two are one in the same, that if you're religious you're going to use your politics to push religion on everyone.

For a true atheist, it doesn't matter what other people believe unless they dip it into secular law.

 

[PsyOps]

People like Proxima assume the two are one in the same, that if you're religious you're going to use your politics to push religion on everyone.

For a true atheist, it doesn't matter what other people believe unless they dip it into secular law.

This country is nearly 240 years old and no religion has been pushed on anyone. You are proof of this. Certainly we can agree certain laws have been passed that were influenced by Christian tenets, but this is not pushing religion on us; it does not force you to believe. If we were able to elect a congress that banned abortion, and this was rooted in some sort of Christian movement, this is A law we all must adhere to; it is NOT A religion we all are being forced to believe.

This is where I think the whole 'separation' clause gets all screwed up... passing a law that may have religious influences is not akin to forcing you to believe in that religion. The 1st amendment is strictly about government establishing a religion, or religion; it is NOT about passing laws influenced by religion.

 

[ProximaCentauri]

Well, then, that means..... um, what are you trying to say that means?Jesus never supported slavery, He merely acknowledged its existence. He did inspire other people to try and stop slavery, but He never supported it.Jesus' love is unconditional. He does not condemn, He saves you from what would happen without Him. While I'm certain I can do fine without you, I do love you enough to wish you could find Him in your heart. I find your informed decision to choose to reject salvation irrational, so maybe you're right about you're belief system being irrational Which, in turn, are essentially Judeo-Christian values. So, you have values based on Christianity (although they're also, by definition, based on how you feel at the moment, not a set standard) while rejecting Christianity! Yes, you're convincing me you're irrational.Their uninformed position is their issue, not mine.That's one heck of an assertion - source?

Do you consider a belief in the monkey god Hanuman to be rational? Allah? Mohammed flying to heaven on a winged horse? Virgin births and Resurrections from the dead? Do all these seem rational to you? Or perhaps just the last two?

Christianity has always been irrational and similarly so has Hinduism, Islam, and any religion in man's history. Belief without evidence is irrational. The doctrinal writings of every religion contain absurdities that people like you not only believe, but claim to have complete certainty in these 'beliefs'.

That any one of these religions represents reality, is extremely improbable. Of course, you believe with certainty your faith is the one true faith in spite of the probabilities. And so do your Muslim brothers. You are brothers because you have similar belief systems, and your faiths both originate in the same Abrahamic god. But even though you are brothers, there's obviously no love lost between you.

If one can convince oneself to believe in absurdities, one can convince oneself to commit atrocities.

Religion has no place in a rational world. Our western allies are chucking religion into the dustbin of history. America needs to follow their lead.

 

[littlelady]

Do you consider a belief in the monkey god Hanuman to be rational? Allah? Mohammed flying to heaven on a winged horse? Virgin births and Resurrections from the dead? Do all these seem rational to you? Or perhaps just the last two?

Christianity has always been irrational and similarly so has Hinduism, Islam, and any religion in man's history. Belief without evidence is irrational. The doctrinal writings of every religion contain absurdities that people like you not only believe, but claim to have complete certainty in these 'beliefs'.

That any one of these religions represents reality, is extremely improbable. Of course, you believe with certainty your faith is the one true faith in spite of the probabilities. And so do your Muslim brothers. You are brothers because you have similar belief systems, and your faiths both originate in the same Abrahamic god. But even though you are brothers, there's obviously no love lost between you.

If one can convince oneself to believe in absurdities, one can convince oneself to commit atrocities.

Religion has no place in a rational world. Our western allies are chucking religion into the dustbin of history. America needs to follow their lead.

No kidding. Religion will be the end of the world. No God necessary. Japan is interesting. They have banned any Islamic shenanigans all together. Hello?

I appreciate that there are peaceful Muslims. My question is that they all read the same book.

That is the Catch 22. The Koran is intolerant of any religion but their own; to the point of killing people that don't believe as they do. I still don't understand how Muslim dads can kill their own daughters. There are many cases in
America that this has been done and those dads are on the run. If they so believed in their Muslim religion, they would stay put, and defend their actions.
They are cowards and can't even defend what they believe in. The horror if it all is unbelievable in a so called civilized world.

And, I have said this before many times on this forum...why is religion even a factor in the workings of the World? It is intangible. It is just a belief that no human can prove until he/she is dead. It is the ultimate moot point, and will likely be the down fall of human kind and the end of the World as we know it. No God necessary.

One more thing. I think the key word in your post is 'rational' I think that word is gone with the wind. Jmo.

 

[Bird Dog]

Religion has no place in a rational world. Our western allies are chucking religion into the dustbin of history. America needs to follow their lead.

Not in your lifetime............


Unless your ilk, like Stalin can outlaw it......now there is a concept and those that don't agree you just murder...

 

[This_person]

Do you consider a belief in the monkey god Hanuman to be rational? Allah? Mohammed flying to heaven on a winged horse? Virgin births and Resurrections from the dead? Do all these seem rational to you? Or perhaps just the last two?

Christianity has always been irrational and similarly so has Hinduism, Islam, and any religion in man's history. Belief without evidence is irrational. The doctrinal writings of every religion contain absurdities that people like you not only believe, but claim to have complete certainty in these 'beliefs'.

That any one of these religions represents reality, is extremely improbable. Of course, you believe with certainty your faith is the one true faith in spite of the probabilities. And so do your Muslim brothers. You are brothers because you have similar belief systems, and your faiths both originate in the same Abrahamic god. But even though you are brothers, there's obviously no love lost between you.

If one can convince oneself to believe in absurdities, one can convince oneself to commit atrocities.

Absurdities such as eugenics? That was a totally secular, atheistic view. So, you're right in that people who are willing to go out of their way to hurt others based on their belief system which has no evidence is likely to be an atrocity.

Because, there isn't a bit of evidence that our universe always existed, and in fact natural laws that demonstrate that assertion to be untrue. Therefore, there is evidence that it did not always exist. If it did not always exist, then it must have come from something beyond the universe that we believe we are learning (anyone notice that it's the 21st century and we're still finding out about planets in our own solar system?). If there's something outside the universe, then an intelligence beyond the universe we think we're starting to understand is almost a certainty.

Or, we're just the absurdly-improbable result of an almost impossible set of circumstances that we can't even begin to comprehend in a universe we can't comprehend - all just by happenstance that any reasonable statistician would explain to you is the definition of impossible. That's certainly a reasonable belief system.

Religion has no place in a rational world. Our western allies are chucking religion into the dustbin of history. America needs to follow their lead.

Again, source?

 

[TheLibertonian]

Do you consider a belief in the monkey god Hanuman to be rational? Allah? Mohammed flying to heaven on a winged horse? Virgin births and Resurrections from the dead? Do all these seem rational to you? Or perhaps just the last two?

Christianity has always been irrational and similarly so has Hinduism, Islam, and any religion in man's history. Belief without evidence is irrational. The doctrinal writings of every religion contain absurdities that people like you not only believe, but claim to have complete certainty in these 'beliefs'.

That any one of these religions represents reality, is extremely improbable. Of course, you believe with certainty your faith is the one true faith in spite of the probabilities. And so do your Muslim brothers. You are brothers because you have similar belief systems, and your faiths both originate in the same Abrahamic god. But even though you are brothers, there's obviously no love lost between you.

If one can convince oneself to believe in absurdities, one can convince oneself to commit atrocities.

Religion has no place in a rational world. Our western allies are chucking religion into the dustbin of history. America needs to follow their lead.

Without religion the rational world wouldn't exist. Some of our greatest scientist and philosophers were also religious, some of them were clergy. Like say, the basics of genetics. Discovered by a German monk. Literacy was kept alive by the Catholic Church, and they were the ones who wrote down the books of early scientist and philosophers from the classical world.

Also, rationalism was originally come up with to try and discover the nature of God in understanding His creations.

Also also, any decent theologian will tell you the difference between faith and blind faith, and the opinion among most theologians about blind faith is generally negative.

 

[ProximaCentauri]

Absurdities such as eugenics? That was a totally secular, atheistic view. So, you're right in that people who are willing to go out of their way to hurt others based on their belief system which has no evidence is likely to be an atrocity.

Because, there isn't a bit of evidence that our universe always existed, and in fact natural laws that demonstrate that assertion to be untrue. Therefore, there is evidence that it did not always exist. If it did not always exist, then it must have come from something beyond the universe that we believe we are learning (anyone notice that it's the 21st century and we're still finding out about planets in our own solar system?). If there's something outside the universe, then an intelligence beyond the universe we think we're starting to understand is almost a certainty.

Or, we're just the absurdly-improbable result of an almost impossible set of circumstances that we can't even begin to comprehend in a universe we can't comprehend - all just by happenstance that any reasonable statistician would explain to you is the definition of impossible. That's certainly a reasonable belief system.
Again, source?

It can be postulated that the universe could have been created from a spontaneous event as a result of other forces, which are heretofore undiscovered, and or as an outgrowth of another space-time expanse with different physical laws. Multi-universes have also been postulated, could be infinite in number, and be governed by the same physical laws or infinite variations thereof. None of these scenarios in the realm of theoretical astrophysics necessarily infer or require a creator.

Religious folks like yourself require a creator deity to substantiate your faith claims, as you lay a claim of certainty to your version of a 'personal god' and creator deity from a list of many such 'personal gods'. Science is not interested in proving/disproving any of these personal gods that men claim, or even a generic version of a creator deity, and its unnecessary for science to assume one.

As far as a source for western nation societal trends - religious or otherwise, I'm confident you're quite capable of doing your own research but would not rely solely on the internet. It helps to live abroad, as my wife and I have, and to study International Relations as she has. After graduating from AU, she did a stint with the International Trade Commission before joining a multinational corporation where we met. We have both lived and worked in Europe and Asia. Experience is sometimes the best teacher.

 

[ProximaCentauri]

No kidding. Religion will be the end of the world. No God necessary. Japan is interesting. They have banned any Islamic shenanigans all together. Hello?

I appreciate that there are peaceful Muslims. My question is that they all read the same book.

That is the Catch 22. The Koran is intolerant of any religion but their own; to the point of killing people that don't believe as they do. I still don't understand how Muslim dads can kill their own daughters. There are many cases in
America that this has been done and those dads are on the run. If they so believed in their Muslim religion, they would stay put, and defend their actions.
They are cowards and can't even defend what they believe in. The horror if it all is unbelievable in a so called civilized world.

And, I have said this before many times on this forum...why is religion even a factor in the workings of the World? It is intangible. It is just a belief that no human can prove until he/she is dead. It is the ultimate moot point, and will likely be the down fall of human kind and the end of the World as we know it. No God necessary.

One more thing. I think the key word in your post is 'rational' I think that word is gone with the wind. Jmo.

I'm still hopeful the human race can advance beyond its obsession with primitive belief systems before its too late. Hopefully reason and rationality can still win out. Btw, I lived and worked in Japan and know that while they enjoy visitors, their society is very averse to outsiders, or 'gaijin' in the Japanese language, making Japan their permanent home.

 

[PsyOps]

I'm still hopeful the human race can advance beyond its obsession with primitive belief systems before its too late. Hopefully reason and rationality can still win out. Btw, I lived and worked in Japan and know that while they enjoy visitors, their society is very averse to outsiders, or 'gaijin' in the Japanese language, making Japan their permanent home.

It doesn’t serve your argument well to marginalize Christianity to ‘a primitive belief system’. Some of our most intelligent, successful, learned people are believers. I think 2000+ years of the most influential religion in this earth’s existence is a testament to how relevant Christianity is in this world.

 

[This_person]

It can be postulated that the universe could have been created from a spontaneous event as a result of other forces, which are heretofore undiscovered, and or as an outgrowth of another space-time expanse with different physical laws. Multi-universes have also been postulated, could be infinite in number, and be governed by the same physical laws or infinite variations thereof. None of these scenarios in the realm of theoretical astrophysics necessarily infer or require a creator.

You miss the obvious question - from where did the stuff which makes up the universe (or multi-universes) come?

It's true it does not require a creator, but it also does not exclude the potential of a creator of this universe as a reasonable consideration.

Religious folks like yourself require a creator deity to substantiate your faith claims, as you lay a claim of certainty to your version of a 'personal god' and creator deity from a list of many such 'personal gods'. Science is not interested in proving/disproving any of these personal gods that men claim, or even a generic version of a creator deity, and its unnecessary for science to assume one.

I do not require a substantiation of my faith. That would actually be counter to the concept of "faith". I have a belief, not a quantifiably-provable certainty, of a Creator based on my personal observations of life as it unfolds, the universe, etc. I listen to scientists, like Frank Tipler (Professor of Mathematical Physics) when he says: "When I began my career as a cosmologist some twenty years ago, I was a convinced atheist. I never in my wildest dreams imagined that one day I would be writing a book purporting to show that the central claims of Judeo-Christian theology are in fact true, that these claims are straightforward deductions of the laws of physics as we now understand them. I have been forced into these conclusions by the inexorable logic of my own special branch of physics.", or Arno Penzias (a Nobel prize winner for physics): "Astronomy leads us to a unique event, a universe which was created out of nothing, one with the very delicate balance needed to provide exactly the conditions required to permit life, and one which has an underlying (one might say 'supernatural') plan."

These people are far more studied than you and I combined, and started generally speaking as atheists or at least agnostics. Their scientific study proved to them the idea of a Creator. Given that neither you nor I nor anyone else in the universe can create a peer-reviewable, repeatable test in which we start with the absence of everything including time and generate a universe, pretty much any other concept of the universe is nothing more than people's opinions based on the observations of ourselves and others. Unless - do you know of such a repeatable, peer-reviewed test that has been conducted? I'd love to read the published articles on it!

As far as a source for western nation societal trends - religious or otherwise, I'm confident you're quite capable of doing your own research but would not rely solely on the internet. It helps to live abroad, as my wife and I have, and to study International Relations as she has. After graduating from AU, she did a stint with the International Trade Commission before joining a multinational corporation where we met. We have both lived and worked in Europe and Asia. Experience is sometimes the best teacher.

Anecdotal, but it is a teacher. My experience is the opposite.

 

[ProximaCentauri]

Without religion the rational world wouldn't exist. Some of our greatest scientist and philosophers were also religious, some of them were clergy. Like say, the basics of genetics. Discovered by a German monk. Literacy was kept alive by the Catholic Church, and they were the ones who wrote down the books of early scientist and philosophers from the classical world.

Also, rationalism was originally come up with to try and discover the nature of God in understanding His creations.

Also also, any decent theologian will tell you the difference between faith and blind faith, and the opinion among most theologians about blind faith is generally negative.

I'm quite familiar with European History and the influence and the dominate role of Roman Catholicism. You overreach with your assertion that "the rational world would not exist without religion." For one, you ignore Chinese cultural contributions to knowledge and philosophy, and secondly your assertion infers that had the RCC never existed, Western Civilization would not or could not have advanced in knowledge, reason, and the sciences. It's unknown what the evolution of Western culture would have looked like, devoid of the church's influence. Additionally, the opportunity for advancement of knowledge was squandered during the dark ages in large part due to the societal stranglehold of the church.

 

[ProximaCentauri]

You miss the obvious question - from where did the stuff which makes up the universe (or multi-universes) come?

It's true it does not require a creator, but it also does not exclude the potential of a creator of this universe as a reasonable consideration.



I do not require a substantiation of my faith. That would actually be counter to the concept of "faith". I have a belief, not a quantifiably-provable certainty, of a Creator based on my personal observations of life as it unfolds, the universe, etc. I listen to scientists, like Frank Tipler (Professor of Mathematical Physics) when he says: "When I began my career as a cosmologist some twenty years ago, I was a convinced atheist. I never in my wildest dreams imagined that one day I would be writing a book purporting to show that the central claims of Judeo-Christian theology are in fact true, that these claims are straightforward deductions of the laws of physics as we now understand them. I have been forced into these conclusions by the inexorable logic of my own special branch of physics.", or Arno Penzias (a Nobel prize winner for physics): "Astronomy leads us to a unique event, a universe which was created out of nothing, one with the very delicate balance needed to provide exactly the conditions required to permit life, and one which has an underlying (one might say 'supernatural') plan."

These people are far more studied than you and I combined, and started generally speaking as atheists or at least agnostics. Their scientific study proved to them the idea of a Creator. Given that neither you nor I nor anyone else in the universe can create a peer-reviewable, repeatable test in which we start with the absence of everything including time and generate a universe, pretty much any other concept of the universe is nothing more than people's opinions based on the observations of ourselves and others. Unless - do you know of such a repeatable, peer-reviewed test that has been conducted? I'd love to read the published articles on it!

Anecdotal, but it is a teacher. My experience is the opposite.

Education and experience. My wife and I both hold advanced degrees. And your education and experience would be?

 

[TheLibertonian]

I'm quite familiar with European History and the influence and the dominate role of Roman Catholicism. You overreach with your assertion that "the rational world would not exist without religion." For one, you ignore Chinese cultural contributions to knowledge and philosophy, and secondly your assertion infers that had the RCC never existed, Western Civilization would not or could not have advanced in knowledge, reason, and the sciences. It's unknown what the evolution of Western culture would have looked like, devoid of the church's influence. Additionally, the opportunity for advancement of knowledge was squandered during the dark ages in large part due to the societal stranglehold of the church.

Right, and were we a Chinese colony I'd talk about the Chinese influence on us, but we're not.

This is a common false-equivalency made by new liberal arts students; you cannot just say "well things were different on the other side of the globe!" as an argument, unless you can link the development of rationalism in China directly to the development of rationalism in the west.

Also, I don't deal in what ifs. In history we have what happened. And what happened was that the RCC preserved a bunch of knowledge.

 

[ProximaCentauri]

Right, and were we a Chinese colony I'd talk about the Chinese influence on us, but we're not.

This is a common false-equivalency made by new liberal arts students; you cannot just say "well things were different on the other side of the globe!" as an argument, unless you can link the development of rationalism in China directly to the development of rationalism in the west.

Also, I don't deal in what ifs. In history we have what happened. And what happened was that the RCC preserved a bunch of knowledge.

"Religion has no place in a rational world." Where do you see the word "western".

In this post I was talking about world religions, Muslim, Hinduism, Christianity...all of which I view as irrational especially when they are used solely by their adherents to formulate their worldviews. The 'rational world' refers to the entire world; had I wanted to refer to only western societies, I would have inserted the world western.

Why would anyone assume the 'rational world' to include only western societies? The fact that I followed with a comment on western societies tossing religion into the dustbin of history, in no way implies that I would consider only western societies to make up the rational world. If that was your assumption it's an incorrect one.

 

[TheLibertonian]

"Religion has no place in a rational world." Where do you see the word "western".

In this post I was talking about world religions, Muslim, Hinduism, Christianity...all of which I view as irrational especially when they are used solely by their adherents to formulate their worldviews. The 'rational world' refers to the entire world; had I wanted to refer to only western societies, I would have inserted the world western.

Why would anyone assume the 'rational world' to include only western societies? The fact that I followed with a comment on western societies tossing religion into the dustbin of history, in no way implies that I would consider only western societies to make up the rational world. If that was your assumption it's an incorrect one.

And when you find a rational world, do let me know. In the mean time, I'll be over here living in this one, where humans are by nature, practice, and need, irrational.