volkethereaper

To be honest with you, Dark Elves, the title of this topic is misleading. It wasn't my first choice, to say the least. In retrospect I wish I had named it "Theology, or Lack Thereof", but I hadn't thought of it at the time. Ah well. As Kierkegaard said: "Life must be lived forwards, but it can only be understood backwards."

To answer your question Esau: Yes, there is. What right do you have to mock something "illogical" when the very basis on which you judge it is inherently illogical? By virtue of your humanity you are an inherently flawed thing. This means that all of your logic is inherently flawed, also. Even if, by some improbable chance, your reasoning matches with with some overarching logic and your morals equate with those of some great objective morality, you cannot possibly know. Further, because other people share your views doesn't make them any more or less valid. All human beings share your utter imperfection. In such a cosmos how can you be justified in mocking someone else's ideals? Your every post reeks of a superiority which you simply do not posess. You are no better than anyone else, your morals are no more justifiable than their's, and you have no right to mock another persons ideals, however illogical they may appear to you. So, for the good of your precious logic, shut up and quite taking yourself so seriously.

For the record, in the three great western religions Eve is the goddess and the serpent is her consort, and this traces back to the Sumerians, Semites, north Africans and nearly all Occidental faiths. Really, all the possibilities are open to you. I have but one question: why this course? I certainly have no objection to it, but I am curious as to what would lead someone down this path.

I dunno, maybe the weight gain, cravings, pain of childbirth, morning sickness, stigma associated with it, and a plethora of other things. Not your strongest arguement.

I'd call Slize an open minded atheist. Hope that meets your definition of yourself.

This is a fair point. Both denotation and conotation are with you on this one. However, this has been, and will continue to be, debated by philosophers far greater than you or me. I hold with those who see "fact" and "truth" as something all together seperate. I'm afraid we'll just have to disagree, old boy. But, by your definition of "truth" you have defended yourself nobely, I commend you and withdraw.

So why do you all believe what you believe?

A good and honest Christian seems fitting.:)

No, that would be beliefs, ideologies, and facts that are transitory. Truth is truth. It always has and always will be correct. Whether we know any truth, though, is an entirely different matter.

So the easy for most people to get along with kind? That's pretty cool.

What about Hinduism? Mormonism? They believe in multiple gods (although Mormons only "worship" one, while there are concepts more important than gods in hinduism).

I, myself, am a self-proclaimed Siddharthan. And no, that is not the same as Buddhist.

Ah, but is truth transitory, or just what humankind percieves as truth?

I'm not debating what the point of Christ is. I had an idea, I put it out there. I don't necessarily believe it, but it seemed interesting. Why should you use an innacurate, outdated source of information? This debate is about the Christian God, and talking about him outside the context of the Bible, the only source of information we have on him, invalidates your arguement. In an arguement you can only use the resources you have in front of you. In some arguements the sources are widespread, but in an arguement about the nature of the Christian God we have one source: The Bible. Taking the arguement out of this context is impossible, because it ceases to be a debate about the nature of the Christian God.

Tell us about your beliefs, whatever they may be. Debate them if you wish, since that's fun, too. But above all else, show other people respect. Human beings are imperfect, and so no belief system is inherintly better than any other, no matter the number of its desciples. Don't call anyone's beliefs stupid. After all, your's may seem just as stupid to them. Now that the playing field has been leveled, let's have some fun.

My primary problem with the concept of the "christian" interpretation of God is that he and Christ are one. It seems an inherint contradiction to say that Christ and God are one, yet that Christ is the son of God. Further, there seems to be some (although minor) evidence against the "three in one" theory. In St. Matthew 3: 16-17 it states: "And Jesus, when he was baptized, went up straightway out of the water: and, lo, the heavens were opened unto him, and he saw the Spirit of God descending like a dove, and lighting upon him: And lo a voice from heaven, saying, This is my beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased." In that scenario, it seems to me, three seperate beings make their presence known: The "Father" (i.e. God) in heaven, The "Son" (i.e. Jesus) on Earth, and The Holy Spirit traveling from Heaven to Earth. If God, Christ, and the Holy Ghost are one in the same, than the fact that all three facets can exist at the same time in seperate forms seems to discredit Christ's sacrifice on the cross, since, after all, just as much as Christ is suffering, the Father and Spirit are not. Further evidence of this is when both abandon Christ while he suffers on the cross. Only one third of "God" suffers. That seems like a strange concept to me. Now, let's say we throw out the concept of the Trinity, like the Mormons have. In this way God, the Father, can be all seeing and all knowing. He can feel what mankind feels and he can percieve what has happened, is happening, and will happen. Christ, the son, is a human, albeit a super-human half god, who can be perfect in action and thought, like God, but is still physically frail enough to die as men do. The Holy Spirit... well, he's not so relevant to this arguement. Christ is able to die for our sins, as a human, by the request of God, who understands us but is not one of us. Christ, for his great sacrifice, is resurected and made equal to the Father, and thereby they become "one". Not in the sense that they are literally one "person", but that they are the same sort of thing, with the same goals. This is a Mormon sort of belief and it has always made a little more sense to me than the traditional interpretation of God. This, of course, does not adress the other problems, such as Gods abillity to save us without the mess that is crucifixion. Perhaps God just wanted man to learn a lesson, and although he could save us with ease himself, he had Jesus die so that we could appreciate it better. That seems plausible to me, and it keeps in line with the God shown elsewhere about the Bible. Also, to all who try to discredit the Bible: You have walked into an arena where it is the ultimate authority, and although it may be contradictory and even innacurate, it is the only source we have for the Christian God, and so all arguements against the Bible are a waiste of time and energy, as this topic is specifically about the deity of that book. An arguement can only exist within context, and the Bible is that context.

Fair enough point, my friend.:)

But what if we are perfect? Not, of course, in the sense that we act perfectly or do things perfectly by our own perception, but that God, who works on a plane which is entirely free of time and beyond our earthly morality, considers us perfect? God is an unfathomable thing, perhaps his perfection is very different from ours. Perhaps Jesus was meant to be more of a sign that God knew we were out there, and we just missed the point. Or perhaps a perfect, all powerful being is capable of creating, and would want to be the creator of, imperfect beings. Or, perhaps the Mormons are right. Perhaps God was once the imperfect creation of another God, who was another perfect God's imperfect creation, and so on, who over time became perfect, or complete. These thoughts all came into my head while reading your discussion. I don't know that I believe any of them, but they seemed like they sort of belonged in this topic. Anyway, go ahead and trash them. I'm not going to defend them.

My view of the Judeo-Christian Deity is influenced by the idea that it is the ruler of all things, including both good and evil. This is different from many Christian beliefs, I know, but it's not too far off from some Jewish beliefs, or so my Jewish friends tell me. And, since it was their God in the first place, I tend to be more open to their interpretations. I don't pretend to know all that much about Hebrew theology, but my friends, and one rather intelligent one in particular, have talked about this interpretation. Btw: The God of the old testament doesn't seem all that benevolent anyway. Jealousy, favoritism, and anger are all attributes it seems to possess.

I think the whole ruling being a good case is more to justify gay marriage as a whole. anyway, one could say that it is just another arguement anyway since this thing is hardly over.

To be honest with you, I think we may live in a society that puts too much emphasis on individual responsibility, but it seems to me that as individuals we tend to overcompensate for this. I, and everyone (yes, everyone) I know has trouble taking responsibility for their actions. Certainly external motivators are a key component to the way we act, but ultimately it comes down to our own choices, and we can choose the other way, even if it is difficult. Why else, throughout history, are the self-disciplined regarded as heroes or leaders? Theseus, Ulysses, Siddhartha Gotama, Jesus, King Arthur, Robin Hood, Cincinnatus, Solomon, Washington, etc. These people exemplify self control and responsibility. Ultimately, the ideal of our ability to determine our own actions is something not just societal, but primal. We can think, we can choose, and therefor we have a responsibility to choose wisely. However, only those who understand this should be held responsible for it. So I say eighteen+ also, but for dramatically different reasons.

I agree with Crystal. The judge makes an excellent case, and frankly it doesn't hurt that Olson and Boies are ready to defend it all the way to the supreme court. These men are two of the top legal minds in the country, in my opinion, and they know what they're doing far better than most of us. I sincerely hope that this leads to marriage being available to everyone.

I think a healthy understanding and respect for alcohol is something we americans don't really learn. I also fear that, as a general rule, the alcohol in the drinks is the reason for drinking far too often. Learn how it's made, why it tastes the way it does. Appreciate it as something other than the means to a fun night and a bad headache the next morning. On the matter of abortion, I'd hardly call it the easy way out. Certainly some people will regret it, perhaps for the rest of their lives. Anyone who calls it the easy way out does a great disservice to many people. Now, I have moral objections to abortion, but the same goes for imposing my beliefs on others. It should be an option, one which should be thought over (as it probably is, in most cases), but an option. Oh, and of course, use as much protection as possible, in the first place. EDIT: added "n" to learn.

Marriage in and of itself seems silly to me. Why should there be a legal agreement between two people who love eachother? Vows should be a private thing between one person and another. It seems to me the law has a tendency to get in the way in matters of relationships. Plus, no marriage=no messy divorce proceedings. But, since it's a well established tradition which has no forseeable decline, marriage should be allowed to everyone. If you want to potentially ruin your life with legal trouble, that's your perrogative. EDIT: changed or to and.

That's a difficult question. I think everyone needs unhappiness, it gives one perspective. Nevertheless, enough unhappiness begins to dull a person, and that should be avoided. So, I guess what I'm saying is yes, I would if I could.