BDSM and Religion

[Netzach]

[hijack]

This is one of those "I Netz" posts...

[/hijack]

My discomfort with Christian morality is that no one has ever sufficiently explained to me how it's not based on brownie points. A system I see around me only in the fantasies of the oppressed.

This even includes Kierkegaard, who's about the only one of the bunch I can tolerate, so please don't take this as an opportunity to convert me. The idea of - do things, go to heaven, fail to do things, go to hell - is so maddeningly simplistic to me that I can't relate. It's a philosophical non starter. I see incredible complexity and impossible and impenetrable mystery.

There is no place better than this place. There is no place worse than this place. I'd like to see people take some responsiblity for that.

I look around me and good people suffer all the time, bad people get off free, and "the irrational mind of an inscrutable and hard God" is the only acceptable explanation to me, other than "there isn't one."

Which of those positions wins out with me changes at times, depending on how attractive Zen is and how good or lousy my day is.

 

[bruisedangel]

My discomfort with Christian morality is that no one has ever sufficiently explained to me how it's not based on brownie points. A system I see around me only in the fantasies of the oppressed.

This even includes Kierkegaard, who's about the only one of the bunch I can tolerate, so please don't take this as an opportunity to convert me. The idea of - do things, go to heaven, fail to do things, go to hell - is so maddeningly simplistic to me that I can't relate. It's a philosophical non starter. I see incredible complexity and impossible and impenetrable mystery.

There is no place better than this place. There is no place worse than this place. I'd like to see people take some responsiblity for that.

I look around me and good people suffer all the time, bad people get off free, and "the irrational mind of an inscrutable and hard God" is the only acceptable explanation to me, other than "there isn't one."

Which of those positions wins out with me changes at times, depending on how attractive Zen is and how good or lousy my day is.

I'm going to play the devil's advocate for a moment.

Is it possible, that when good people suffer, and bad people get off free is our doing, not God's doing? If you believe in the Biblical God, when man was created in God's image, he was also given free will. Not "you're free to do whatever you wish, except I'll step in when you screw up", but actual free will, then, wouldn't God just be an observer? A force that not intervenes, but merely observes what His/Her/etc. creation chooses to do with itself and all that surrounds it.

 

[Homburg]

I'm going to play the devil's advocate for a moment.

Is it possible, that when good people suffer, and bad people get off free is our doing, not God's doing? If you believe in the Biblical God, when man was created in God's image, he was also given free will. Not "you're free to do whatever you wish, except I'll step in when you screw up", but actual free will, then, wouldn't God just be an observer? A force that not intervenes, but merely observes what His/Her/etc. creation chooses to do with itself and all that surrounds it.

I've never really gotten this. So many people use the old saw about "It's all part of God's Plan." And talk about how god pre-ordained all of this, and planned it all out. How does this sort of pre-destiny jibe with the idea of Free Will? If I am given Free Will, but my existence is mapped out, then I don't have Free Will at all. If my choices do not affect my outcomes, then they are not really choices at all, and will is not my own.

 

[arielsgoddess]

My view on Jesus/Christianity from poem (God &existence is more complex)

Teaching the world Jesus real messages:
That we come to God as ourselves
No matter where we are, stay who we are
Keepers who are always changing everything
Not allowed to become stagnant ourselves
We bring others to God by law of attraction
Intended to live as vividly as we can
Always being proactive for our fellows

How hard is that?
How many times have you been slapped by Life
The white lightning in your eyes
A reminder that you should pay attention

How hard was it for Jesus?
He practiced His belief that we should go
Into the world, be in the people, any people
Touching them in many ways, knowing
That this means they will also touch us
Changing each other forever

How did that turn-out for Him?
He stayed Himself--that's the greatest miracle
Before and after, He said the same:
Not that we should go out and be judges and martyrs
But that we should be witnesses
That we should pay attention

And be the Keepers of the good
Rememberers of what's important
Continue to help change the world

Summary to the point of Existence: Literally, what we get out of life, and how we change the world, is 100% made of what we pay attention to.

 

[JMohegan]

I'm going to play the devil's advocate for a moment.

Is it possible, that when good people suffer, and bad people get off free is our doing, not God's doing? If you believe in the Biblical God, when man was created in God's image, he was also given free will. Not "you're free to do whatever you wish, except I'll step in when you screw up", but actual free will, then, wouldn't God just be an observer? A force that not intervenes, but merely observes what His/Her/etc. creation chooses to do with itself and all that surrounds it.

If you believe in the Biblical God, don't you believe that God has done a whole heck of a lot of intervening? Genocide through flood, or individual acts of murder like the pillar of salt thing, when he's pissed. Giving land and slaves to Abraham. Helping Moses escape, sending angels to slaughter Egyptian babies, sending Jesus to spread The Word, and so on.

I'm not dismissing your non-interventionist theory. (It's as good as any other guess about God.) I'm just wondering how the non-interventionist model could possibly be reconciled with the Bible itself.

 

[StrayKat]

I've never really gotten this. So many people use the old saw about "It's all part of God's Plan." And talk about how god pre-ordained all of this, and planned it all out. How does this sort of pre-destiny jibe with the idea of Free Will? If I am given Free Will, but my existence is mapped out, then I don't have Free Will at all. If my choices do not affect my outcomes, then they are not really choices at all, and will is not my own.

Qft. I would like if someone would explain that to me too.

 

[DeepGreenEyes]

If you believe in the Biblical God, don't you believe that God has done a whole heck of a lot of intervening? Genocide through flood, or individual acts of murder like the pillar of salt thing, when he's pissed. Giving land and slaves to Abraham. Helping Moses escape, sending angels to slaughter Egyptian babies, sending Jesus to spread The Word, and so on.

I'm not dismissing your non-interventionist theory. (It's as good as any other guess about God.) I'm just wondering how the non-interventionist model could possibly be reconciled with the Bible itself.

Seems like it would depend on how you read the bible, either as highly metaphorical or literal. This would fit better with the "watchmaker god" of Deism: God made the watch, wound it up and let the gears go, but doesn't intervene after that.

Even to help receivers make TD catches.

 

[SimonBrooke]

I'm going to play the devil's advocate for a moment.

Is it possible, that when good people suffer, and bad people get off free is our doing, not God's doing? If you believe in the Biblical God, when man was created in God's image, he was also given free will. Not "you're free to do whatever you wish, except I'll step in when you screw up", but actual free will, then, wouldn't God just be an observer? A force that not intervenes, but merely observes what His/Her/etc. creation chooses to do with itself and all that surrounds it.

If a God is invisible, intangible, and has absolutely no effect on anything for either good or ill (and by implication never has done since being the Prime Mover), in what sense can (s)he be said to exist? 'I believe in God, but in a God that does nothing' is even more intellectually incoherent than saying 'I believe in a good, interventionist God who allows bad things to happen,' or 'I believe in an interventionist God who grants us free will.'

I'm not saying that there is necessarily not a God. I'm agnostic, not atheist. But any of the above three accounts of God are just nonsense.

 

[eastern sun]

Seems like it would depend on how you read the bible, either as highly metaphorical or literal. This would fit better with the "watchmaker god" of Deism: God made the watch, wound it up and let the gears go, but doesn't intervene after that.

Even to help receivers make TD catches.

I could swear collective will helps in some of those catches though.

 

[DeepGreenEyes]

I could swear collective will helps in some of those catches though.

If I have to give up that belief, I'll spiral into the abyss!

 

[JMohegan]

Seems like it would depend on how you read the bible, either as highly metaphorical or literal. This would fit better with the "watchmaker god" of Deism: God made the watch, wound it up and let the gears go, but doesn't intervene after that.

Even to help receivers make TD catches.

I have known people who describe parts of the Bible as metaphorical, but never the whole thing.

And how did the Biblical authors know what to write? Whatever instruction or inspiration allegedly transpired, through tablets or burning bushes or dreams or Son walking around spouting scripture - if that's not the result of divine intervention, then isn't the Bible just some combination of tribal history and fantasy text?

 

[Homburg]

Seems like it would depend on how you read the bible, either as highly metaphorical or literal. This would fit better with the "watchmaker god" of Deism: God made the watch, wound it up and let the gears go, but doesn't intervene after that.

Even to help receivers make TD catches.

Having read some deist stuff, I've long thought there was some elegant beauty to the "watchmaker god" concept.

 

[JMohegan]

Interesting system the "watchmaker" devised. If most species have to kill other creatures in order to survive, what does that say about the watchmaker's psyche?

And if God made the universe, who made God?

 

[Homburg]

That gets into the Unmoved Mover/Uncaused Cause line of reasoning.

Plato and Aristotle both posited some sort of unmoved mover, and that was essentially some sort of divine. In essence, all things that are in motion were set in motion. Something had to have originated that motion at some point. Their answer was some form of demiurge or deity. The major difference between the two was that Plato could accept that some form of Prime Mover demiurge could have created substance and thus produced something from nothing. Aristotle did not go for that, and felt the Prime Mover simply motivated extant creation into motion and thus setting up something akin to the watchmaker concept.

Thomas Aquinas came up with the First Cause line of reasoning. The universe must have been caused by something that did not in itself have an external cause. Or that was created, at some point, by some force that had no cause. Thus the Uncaused Cause concept. Whether whatever force created the universe was uncaused or not, at some point, there existed a force or entity or whatever that had no cause. That force, in his cosmology, was "God".

To quote wikipedia's rather tidy proof:

The cosmological argument could be stated as follows:

1) Every finite and contingent being has a cause.

2) Nothing finite and contingent can cause itself.

3) A causal chain cannot be of infinite length.

4) Therefore, a First Cause (or something that is not an effect) must exist.

According to the argument, the existence of the Universe requires an explanation, and the creation of the Universe by a First Cause, generally assumed to be God, is that explanation.

To be frank, this line of reasoning is largely the explanation for why I call myself an agnostic, and not simply an atheist. (Well, that and my problems with a certain demographic within atheism that treats it more like a faith than an absence thereof.) I can logically agree that, even per physics, motion does not simply happen. Some sort of outside force had to have acted on every mobile object that we perceive. Follow that chain back far enough and I do begin to wonder where the motion came from initially.

Still, the reason that I consider myself an agnostic and not a deist is, however compelling the First Cause argument is for my style of logic, the end conclusion, for me, is not "God". It is "Shit, I don't know. Interesting question."


(Note: I immediately thought of Plato and Aquinas here. Not trusting my fallible memory, I hit wikipedia, and found that proof, and that I was actually correct. Thanks for causing my brain to percolate up some seriously old info, and show that it isn't completely made of green cheese.)

 

[Ravenwind]

I'm curious, though, Ravenwind. Having identified the final condition that precedes mankind's fall, do you feel impelled to do whatever you can to keep Damascus standing, until the majority of mankind is saved? (which could in fact keep Damascus permanently upright) Or are you more curious about what will happen after, given your confidence in your own faith?

In other words, what is your responsibility as a Christian, towards the rest of mankind? and the earth?

The events to come will come regardless as to what we, both as individuals and as a whole, do or don't do... the events that initially set the end-times in motion have already happened a good 60-some-odd years ago. I kind of think of prophecy as an on-coming train. You can hear it coming from miles away, and no amount of man power (excepting that of the Engineer) will forcibly stop it. Instead of trying to stop the train, it is in our interests to get the by-standers out of the way instead.

...and there is a TON of lookie-loos to convince them to take a couple steps back or forward so they're not actually on the tracks. One of the things Jesus commanded us to do was to go out into the world and spread the gospel. Truth be told, Damascus is merely 'a litmus test' when it comes to prophecy, and while its events *could* be stopped, the stuff that comes after it would be as futile as trying to stop a solar eclipse, and are as equally eye-opening.

I mean, one of the prophecies in the Bible (Revelation 6) states that 'the sun will be as black as sackcloth, the moon will be blood red, stars will fall from the sky like figs from a tree, the sky will be rolled up like a scroll, and every mountain will be shaken from its place'. Now, this is *my* opinion. but consider the time from October to December of 2004... In Oct., there was a partial solar eclipse (sun was black) *and* a total lunar eclipse (moon was red) (mind you, a lunar and a solar eclipse in the same month is supposed to be impossible, but it happened); in Nov., the Leonid meteor shower was at above average levels (stars falling from the sky); and in Dec. was the Sumatran earthquake that tilted the axis of the earth (and therefore placing every landmass a little off from what it was), and the resultant tsunami (which, if you've ever seen large waves, they are scroll shaped, and the 'tube' waves roll upon themselves in the way a scroll would, and if you're unfortunate enough to be under a tidal wave, it overtakes your view of the sky). I mean, we as people could stop things like Damascus... but things like the above... no man can stop.

In the end, the grave awaits all of us, be it from hell-on-earth, or from more mundane causes. As a Christian, it's my job to save as many people as possible, both spiritually, and physically. And, failing that, to at least have people think for themselves, and do their own research into all things, instead of taking 'the government's', 'scientists', or 'their next door neighbor's' words at face value. 'Don't trust anybody' are sage words, especially when the time will eventually come when *everyone* will be lied to.

I mean, I'll be honest, for myself, I look forward to Rapture and can't wait for it to happen... but for everyone else's sake, I want it to take as long as possible to get here... 6 billion people on earth... so many people, not enough years in my life, and too many trolls.

As someone who thrives on stories of direct experience, I would love to hear them, when you feel so inclined.

The first 'proof' I got was with my own sons actually. When my mom-in-law learned that I was pregnant, she prayed it would be two boys, twins, blond hair, blue eyes, and born the last week of March. She prayed incessantly for it. My first doctor visit, he told me it was only one child, and I should expect the middle of April. She told me the doc was wrong, and insisted upon what she prayed would happen. (While I was a Christian at the time, I didn't take what she said seriously- after all, doc's knew best. While blue eyes were genetically bound to happen, my Husband has almost black hair, while I'm a dark blonde).

The next major visit, I learned there were two but I was told it was a boy and a girl, still due mid-April. She still prayed the same as she was before. The next visit was two boys, still mid-April... still the same prayer. Every month I was told by the docs 'mid-April', while she kept praying for last week of March. It wasn't until my last doctor visit (which, coincidentally, was in the last week of March) the doctor told me that I was very close to giving birth, and I should go to the hospital to be watched over. My twin boys were born that day... last week of March, with light blond hair like that of when I was young, and the brightest blue eyes. It was that day that I couldn't deny the power of prayer.

The one that's mind-boggling, though, happened about 3 months prior to that. We went out in the middle of the night for banana splits. As we pulled up to a stop sign, the car decided to die right there (we called it 'The Million Dollar Car' for good reason)... unfortunately, it was a slope, so the car rolled into the intersection some. My Husband got out to push it back up the street, so we could get it into the nearby parking lot, but it was to no avail.

Now, at this time, there generally wasn't *anybody* on the streets. However, a big, sparkling-new, white Dodge Ram (one of those massive dualie ones) pulled up along side us. A tall guy, kind of thin, with dark hair, and a *very* nice white suit got out and asked us if we needed help. About that time, we saw a semi-truck coming along the road, and I was concerned that if we couldn't get the car up the road, we might get hit. We said yes, and he helped push the car. Now my Husband is no wuss- he loved weightlifting back then, and I personally couldn't imagine how a guy who had maybe two or three inches on my Husband (and my Husband had a good 50+ lbs on him) could be of much help. With him helping, the car rolled up that slope as easily as if three people were pushing it. Just as the car was safely onto the road, that semi crossed right where we were. When we got into the parking lot, we were both briefly distracted on getting the parking brake set, and getting a handful of change out for the pay phone... when we turned to thank the guy, he and his truck were gone.

We looked down the streets, and the only car in sight was that semi. I mean, it didn't take us but a few seconds, and 'cuz of the layout of the roads, we still should have seen him. We didn't even hear his engine turn back on (not that we heard it when he pulled up either, but something *that* big, in the dead of night, you should've been able to hear it). We started talking about what just happened, and then it occurred to us that even though we both *knew* we looked right at the guy, neither of us could remember what his face looked like. I mean, I *know* he had facial features, but the only image left in our minds was something akin to The Blank from the Dick Tracy movie, or an artist's mannequin... there was just nothing mentally there. I couldn't tell you what color his eyes were, how big or little his nose was, the shape of his ears, the sound of his voice, nothing... not even five minutes after the whole ordeal was over.

Now, the uncanny part. When we got home and told his mom about it, she related a story of how her brother had the exact same experience several years back... same scenario (except he was on a freeway when his truck died), same guy, same clothes, same big-white-truck, same poof-into-thin-air, and same lack of memory about his face.

None taken. I recognise it as a faculty that I do not possess, for good or for ill.

^_^ I've come across so many who take that example offensively, like I'm equating them as handicapped and me as superior for 'having all my senses', or somesuch... when that's not what I mean at all. It is simply something you just know when you have it. Or something. lol I'm glad you see my point tho. ^_^

I don't know. I've more on religious than any ten average church-goers combined. I've looked, I've sought, and I've searched. I did not find faith.

Your example of hope = faith is an interesting one. At certain levels, I agree. Hope is a basic belief in a positive outcome with no particular empirical reason for that belief. I can subscribe to that. That said, I do tend to differentiate between belief and faith. Faith I usually use (in discussions like these) to denote a relationship with the divine. Belief is a simpler things, and can be ascribed to virtually anything.

Faith is a strange thing, I must admit. Have you ever seen Indiana Jones and the Last Crusade? There's this one part, where Indy is standing on a very narrow outcropping on a cliff, and must take 'a leap of faith'... he must get from one side of a sheer cliff to the other- there's no place for his whip to support him (let alone for it to reach). But, his journal tells him to walk across this empty space, and his faith will support him. But when he looks down, all he sees is empty space. He takes a deep breath, extends his foot, and takes that 'step' of faith, expecting to fall off the cliff, but hoping that the picture in the journal speaks true, that he can 'walk in mid air'. Instead his foot lands on solid ground. The camera pans out, and the audience sees that there is a bridge that was already there, invisible from the perspective from the outcropping, but visible from a side perspective. When he gets to the other side, he spreads sand on the bridge so that the others can see it and can cross as well.

Faith in God is much the same way. In many Christians' lives, especially those of us who were converts from other faiths (or lack thereof), there is that moment where we too must stop relying on what our senses and experiences tell us, and instead, put our full trust into God that He won't let us fall... it is an all-or-nothing exchange... and like Indy, even though our senses tell us 'there is nothing there' and our experiences say 'you should be falling'... we find our feet on solid ground.

Faith is, simply put, "I do not know enough, I am not strong enough, I am not brave enough, I do not have enough, I alone am not enough... I trust God to take care of it, and I will do what I can to make it happen". In that, miracles happen (of both the mundane and the OMG! types). Sometimes a single jar of oil can become enough to sell to feed your family, or a single box of spaghetti and a single jar of sauce is enough to feed 14 (and have them full) with leftovers for everyone.

Belief is the weak sister to faith in this case.

Excellently put.

 

[chy_girl]

*snip*
I see no difference between the authors of the Torah, the Koran, the New Testament, the Book of Mormon, etc., and J.R.R. Tolkien.
*snip*

Personally, I found The Hobbit far more readable with a more cohesive story line.

Okay, sarcasm aside, what drove me from the Christian church/religion was the inherent lack of personal responsibility being preached. There was no thought or logic involved, everything was very concrete, and total submission to god was demanded at all times. I can see how that could appeal to some people, but I cannot understand how otherwise intelligent adult could make the frequent jump from 'honor god in the way you live your life' to 'if god wishes you to obtain personal growth/enlightenment/happiness/etc. then pray for it and he'll give it to you.'

Perhaps somewhere in there lies the correlation between religion and BDSM? The desire to relinquish control to another, to trust another to bring you to higher planes of pleasure and enlightenment without the personal responsibility inherent in taking those steps on your own.

I don't know if I've managed to articulate this well enough and maybe I'm totally off base, but when I compare the desire to learn about submission and the years I spent in various churches, that's what occurs to me. And perhaps it's less the similarities of the two and more about the need being two sides of the same moon.

*shrugs*

Just a thought.

 

[bruisedangel]

Still, the reason that I consider myself an agnostic and not a deist is, however compelling the First Cause argument is for my style of logic, the end conclusion, for me, is not "God". It is "Shit, I don't know. Interesting question."

I could stomach religious debates and discussions far more if more people took with this train of thought. If there is one true and right answer, other than 42, there isn't a soul alive who can give the answer. The left will continue to refute the right, and vice versa, each giving the other argumentative 'proof' as to why each believes what it does. Each side will then argue with the other that the 'proof' isn't actual, it's all based on a belief system. (It's always loads of fun to listen to someone try and explain why there's no such thing as evolution). Of all places, one of the best lines I've heard to sum things up was in 'Dogma,' said by Chris Rock's character. I don't remember, off hand, the exact line (and I probably could look it up online, but I'm lazy), but it's along the lines of everything is a system of belief, based on personal faith, nothing more. Damn, I think I will have to find the quote.

 

[Ravenwind]

My discomfort with Christian morality is that no one has ever sufficiently explained to me how it's not based on brownie points. A system I see around me only in the fantasies of the oppressed.

This even includes Kierkegaard, who's about the only one of the bunch I can tolerate, so please don't take this as an opportunity to convert me. The idea of - do things, go to heaven, fail to do things, go to hell - is so maddeningly simplistic to me that I can't relate. It's a philosophical non starter. I see incredible complexity and impossible and impenetrable mystery.

'Tis the "media" version of Christianity- heavily simplified, and neglecting all the details... and not what the Bible teaches. It's not about doing good or bad deeds (or not doing good or bad deeds).

Think of a courtroom. You have broken the law, and therefore, you are expected to pay a fine ('the wages of sin is death')... however, you are penniless ('all of our deeds are as filthy rags in the sight of God'), and the court finds your pocket lint insufficient payment. As your sentence is pronounced to spend life in prison, a man steps up with payment ('Jesus' death paid the price in full for our sins'), but tells you that he will only pay your fine if you change your ways ('Repent, and sin no more') and start treating everyone respectably ('love God as much as possible; love everyone as yourself').

It is less about what you do or don't do, but the state of your heart... Mother Theresa was technically as much a sinner as Hitler was... and even Hitler had the opportunity of salvation just as Mother Theresa. Difference is, is Theresa would've given her left arm to stop people from starving, and Hitler would've done the same to ensure people's deaths. Whether they acted upon what was in their hearts is a moot point... the tongue and the hands naturally follow what is in a person's heart. Hitler could've done the same acts of kindness as Mother Theresa, and it wouldn't have made any difference because of the hatred in his heart; likewise, Theresa could've done just as much evil, but if it was against her good intentions, it would've been forgiven.

I look around me and good people suffer all the time, bad people get off free, and "the irrational mind of an inscrutable and hard God" is the only acceptable explanation to me, other than "there isn't one."

There is none good, no, not one. We're all full of fail in the eyes of God. Let me ask you something... if God acted *right now*, this very second, and judged everyone, and every sinner got insta-nuked, how many people would be left on this earth? No one- Even as a Christian, I am just as much a sinner as any atheist or pagan or petty thief or mass murderer. But if God judged mankind *right now*, I would physically die right along side those above- even though I've never killed, I have hated; even though I've never stolen millions of dollars, I have stolen pennies and paper clips; and so on... and the murderer who would have eventually come to his senses would never be given that opportunity to repent and change. No matter what God chooses preemptively, we would cry out "No fair", so it makes sense to wait until we've lived out our lives, and *then* judge on a more permanent basis, based upon our relationship with God and our status of being forgiven or not.

Yes, relatively good people have it hard, and bad have it easy. But if it were the other way around, where bad people had it hard, and the good had it easy, then few would be bad, wouldn't they? This is just my opinion, but I think the root of all evil isn't money (as most people who mangle the Bible verse say), it's selfishness. They put themselves above God, and above their neighbor. The act of being selfish manages to break all 10 commandments (either physically or in spirit). People wouldn't kill or hate if they didn't value their life so much higher than their neighbor's. People wouldn't steal or covet if they didn't put their needs and wants above others'. And so on. ...and if those selfish people repented (changed their ways, and put others first instead of themselves), and then acted upon it, the good people *would* have it easy here on earth... but... "wide is the gate and broad is the road that leads to destruction, and many enter through it. But small is the gate and narrow the road that leads to life, and only a few find it".

I've never really gotten this. So many people use the old saw about "It's all part of God's Plan." And talk about how god pre-ordained all of this, and planned it all out. How does this sort of pre-destiny jibe with the idea of Free Will? If I am given Free Will, but my existence is mapped out, then I don't have Free Will at all. If my choices do not affect my outcomes, then they are not really choices at all, and will is not my own.

I know you're going to make another post in this thread even before you read this message, and even as I type, I am anticipating your response to my previous post, and therefore planning my next response. Does that mean that my foreknowledge affects your decision to post?

We all have free will. But the fact that the decision itself and the outcome are already known about does not change the fact that it is our decisions to make. A little dimensional theory... we are 4-dimensional creatures, moving in 3 spatial directions, and in a 'single point' through time (seeing only the 'now'). Imagine a 1D creature- it only exists in an immovable point, knowing only 'I am here' and nothing else. A 2D creature would therefore be upon a line, knowing a flat plane, but never understanding up or down. A 3D creature understands much like that of most animals, all the potentials of up/down, left/right, forward/back and how to manipulate stuff in those dimensions, but not the concept of time. We are 4D, same as 3D in regards to space, but we see time much as a 1D creature would see space: "I am now" and nothing else (we can remember and record the past, as well as plan for and guess the future, but we are not capable of truly *knowing* either as we know the present). Therefore, a 5D creature would see the 3 spatial dimensions and also time upon a flat plane, knowing and moving through past, present, and future (Dr. Who, or any time-traveler, is an excellent example of this understanding). Finally, a 6D creature therefore would know all potentials for time and space: past, present, and future along the planes, and 'alternate actions' within the 'cube'.

God's understanding of time does not affect our decision-making abilities, it affects His and His alone, as He is capable of making His plans according to every decision we could possibly make.

Interesting system the "watchmaker" devised. If most species have to kill other creatures in order to survive, what does that say about the watchmaker's psyche?

And if God made the universe, who made God?

In the beginning, it wasn't like this. Back in Eden, even lions were herbivores. It wasn't until after the Flood that things killed one another for food. Man's act of rebelling against God broke the peace in the world for everybody and everything, and it only got worse from there.

Though it's already explained, simply put "Every thing that is created needs a creating force. God is not a created thing; He always existed, even before time itself existed. Therefore, God has no creator of His own". If you're scientifically minded, this concept shouldn't be too hard to grasp, as the concept of the Big Bang revolves around this theory as well.

 

[BiBunny]

If you think of time as cyclical or circular, rather than linear, it makes the "God has always been there" thing a little easier to understand.

 

[JMohegan]

In the beginning, it wasn't like this. Back in Eden, even lions were herbivores. It wasn't until after the Flood that things killed one another for food. Man's act of rebelling against God broke the peace in the world for everybody and everything, and it only got worse from there.

Though it's already explained, simply put "Every thing that is created needs a creating force. God is not a created thing; He always existed, even before time itself existed. Therefore, God has no creator of His own". If you're scientifically minded, this concept shouldn't be too hard to grasp, as the concept of the Big Bang revolves around this theory as well.

I am scientifically minded, yes.

The animal below is neither an omnivore nor an herbivore. I can tell by looking at its teeth.

Faith in the OT as something other than fantasy, plus ignorance of basic animal biology, is required in order to accept what you have written as true.


http://i201.photobucket.com/albums/aa78/johnmohegan/lionteeth.jpg

 

[JMohegan]

Personally, I found The Hobbit far more readable with a more cohesive story line.

Haha - so true!

Okay, sarcasm aside, what drove me from the Christian church/religion was the inherent lack of personal responsibility being preached. There was no thought or logic involved, everything was very concrete, and total submission to god was demanded at all times. I can see how that could appeal to some people, but I cannot understand how otherwise intelligent adult could make the frequent jump from 'honor god in the way you live your life' to 'if god wishes you to obtain personal growth/enlightenment/happiness/etc. then pray for it and he'll give it to you.'

Perhaps somewhere in there lies the correlation between religion and BDSM? The desire to relinquish control to another, to trust another to bring you to higher planes of pleasure and enlightenment without the personal responsibility inherent in taking those steps on your own.

I don't know if I've managed to articulate this well enough and maybe I'm totally off base, but when I compare the desire to learn about submission and the years I spent in various churches, that's what occurs to me. And perhaps it's less the similarities of the two and more about the need being two sides of the same moon.

*shrugs*

Just a thought.

It's difficult for me to comment on this, because the flavor of BDSM that I embrace does not involve abdication of personal responsibility on the part of the s.

Further, I don't see BDSM itself as a path to "higher planes of pleasure and enlightenment." It's more the fact that two people in an intimate relationship are well matched, so those "planes" are potentially attainable by people of all sexual orientations.

 

[Ravenwind]

If you think of time as cyclical or circular, rather than linear, it makes the "God has always been there" thing a little easier to understand.

*nods* For me, though, I see time as a glass cube... it starts in one spot, ends in another, has volume with all the 'what ifs' possible, and God holds it within his hand. (yes, I spent too much time in knick-knack shops as a kid).

I am scientifically minded, yes.

The animal below is neither an omnivore nor an herbivore. I can tell by looking at its teeth.

Faith in the OT as something other than fantasy, plus ignorance of basic animal biology, is required in order to accept what you have written as true.

A panda has the same type of teeth, yet is an herbivore... there are deer (I think it was up in Michigan... I can't remember where it was...) with the *wrong* type of teeth, yet are carnivorous... We have an intestinal tract designed for vegetarianism, yet physical needs that can only naturally come from meats... and certain plants don't have teeth or intestines at all, yet are carnivorous. Who is to say that it is impossible for an herbivore with teeth initially designed to eat tough plants, and then upon a relative 'moment' of corruption or devolution, went carnivorous and found its teeth were suited for the task of killing? You believe in evolution... I believe in devolution. *shrugs*

...and cats aren't omnivores or herbivores either, but my old cat loved to eat grass and weeds for some reason... probably ate it more than her cat food.

 

[DeepGreenEyes]

I have known people who describe parts of the Bible as metaphorical, but never the whole thing.

What interests me about the bible and other religious texts and ideas that gain a degree of acceptance is that they're metaphorical of some deep human need. They each offer a particular insight into an aspect or aspects of our humanity.

Whatever instruction or inspiration allegedly transpired, through tablets or burning bushes or dreams or Son walking around spouting scripture - if that's not the result of divine intervention, then isn't the Bible just some combination of tribal history and fantasy text?

Maybe. But a combination of tribal history and fantasy text that apparently offers us some insight.

 

[JMohegan]

A panda has the same type of teeth, yet is an herbivore... there are deer (I think it was up in Michigan... I can't remember where it was...) with the *wrong* type of teeth, yet are carnivorous... We have an intestinal tract designed for vegetarianism, yet physical needs that can only naturally come from meats... and certain plants don't have teeth or intestines at all, yet are carnivorous. Who is to say that it is impossible for an herbivore with teeth initially designed to eat tough plants, and then upon a relative 'moment' of corruption or devolution, went carnivorous and found its teeth were suited for the task of killing? You believe in evolution... I believe in devolution. *shrugs*

...and cats aren't omnivores or herbivores either, but my old cat loved to eat grass and weeds for some reason... probably ate it more than her cat food.

Who is to say that little green men in pink tutus didn't pop in one day, wave wands around while giggling madly, and change all the animals' dietary habits on a whim?

I am not saying that your guess as to the way in which carnivores developed is impossible. All I am saying is that I see no credible evidence to support your idea, and for this reason I consider your theory to be equally as likely as the one involving little green men.

I do not consider the OT to be credible evidence. That's the fundamental problem here. Everything you believe eventually comes back to: "Because it says so in the Bible." But for those of us who do not believe that the Bible was based on divine inspiration, instruction, or authorship, that statement falls totally flat.

On the other hand, I can read up on Darwin's scientific method and understand what he theorized and how he presented his evidence. He could be wrong. But until compelling evidence appears to the contrary, I consider Darwin's theory of natural selection to be mankind's best guess on the origin of species and their behavior.

As an aside - no, the lion and panda don't have the same teeth. The latter has much bigger molars.

 

[Netzach]

'Tis the "media" version of Christianity- heavily simplified, and neglecting all the details... and not what the Bible teaches. It's not about doing good or bad deeds (or not doing good or bad deeds).


It is less about what you do or don't do, but the state of your heart... Mother Theresa was technically as much a sinner as Hitler was... and even Hitler had the opportunity of salvation just as Mother Theresa.

Do not want.

That is part of the cornerstone of my rejection of Christianity.

This is why, if I had children, they would be schooled at home. The notion that the morality of the mainstream has this at its root scares the ever loving crap out of me. As follows:

No one- Even as a Christian, I am just as much a sinner as any atheist or pagan or petty thief or mass murderer. But if God judged mankind *right now*, I would physically die right along side those above- even though I've never killed, I have hated; even though I've never stolen millions of dollars, I have stolen pennies and paper clips; and so on... and the murderer who would have eventually come to his senses would never be given that opportunity to repent and change. No matter what God chooses preemptively, we would cry out "No fair", so it makes sense to wait until we've lived out our lives, and *then* judge on a more permanent basis, based upon our relationship with God and our status of being forgiven or not.

You are starting with the root assumption that God's notion of sin and wickedness jives with an NT one. In the world I live in, human judgements are not without any moral merit. Hitler isn't an unknown quantity when you stand him next to a paper clip thief. Pol Pot didn't steal candy from the store.

Now, as far as the wiping out of sinners- As far as I'm concerned, and being as literal as I can stomach being, God DID that act, and still kept a bunch of floating animals and people around. I have no idea who would get whacked in an act of Divine cleansing. Neither does anyone else. They think they do.

Yes, relatively good people have it hard, and bad have it easy. But if it were the other way around, where bad people had it hard, and the good had it easy, then few would be bad, wouldn't they?

I don't think so at all. I don't think that bad people necessarily have it easier. They have it easier on the surface. Check out the definitions of Netzach and Hod. God lets the wicked thrive, but it's transient. It's in his/her/its plans, not mine. Again, mysterious, harsh, and completely beyond my mere comprehension. This is exactly what I was talking about. You are trying to salve my discomfort with answers I can comprehend as a human with answers I can comprehend as a human.

Your relationship to prayer and belief is one of needing for and asking for things and getting them and finding proof in that. I'm not talking about a "media version" of Christianity, I'm talking about your own examples of blue eyed blond boys and cars.

This notion of "ask and ye shall receive" has run amok, and even drawn the objections of Lib Theo Christian thinkers, who at least make SOME form of sense to me.

I lack this in my life.

I don't ask for things. I asked for my health at one point, and I realized that if I'm breathing, and sentient - I have it. I'm more liable to thank the Universe for another day above ground and let it decide what it wants to do with me.

The simplest and possibly slightly unfair, but still overarchingly sound realization I've had is that a lot of Christian prayer revolves around "please" and most Jewish prayer revolves around "thank you."