BDSM and Religion

[Netzach]

If I'm wrong I hope hell is like Dante. I like to know I'll be with my peeps.

 

[Netzach]

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?

I think he's a 15 year old who raided Dad's beer and is watching Faces of Death or some Mondo film and laughing his ass off.


I could live with that, actually.

 

[JMohegan]

I think he's a 15 year old who raided Dad's beer and is watching Faces of Death or some Mondo film and laughing his ass off.


I could live with that, actually.

Ever watched ants, right after their nest gets flooded? They come swarming out by the thousands, most of the adults carrying larvae and sprinting for higher ground. Others head straight for the source of the water, and if they can reach it (a garden hose lying on the ground, for example), they'll frantically attack it - not stopping until all of the surviving ants have left the vicinity or the water's turned off. When the emergency's past, they all go back underground to rebuild the nest. In terms of organization and effort, they put New Orleans under Dubya to shame.

I have done this to ants (unintentionally.) Somewhere, there is surely a 15 year old dick who does this for fun. From the ant's perspective, does it really matter which is which?

I think our capacity for comprehending the purpose and cause of the universe is just as limited as the ants' capacity to understand why the nest sometimes floods, who's flooding it, or when it will flood again.

 

[RJMasters]

My take is that God is "like" a parent. In the beginning he created human kind both male and female based upon His own likeness.

The parent analogy is the only one that fits for me as it pertains to view of God past, present and future. Like all parents, the first objective is to teach their children right from wrong. Hence through the jewish nation, God revealed his precepts or ways through the law. Now the law's main focus was often more about what not to do. Don't murder, don't steal, don't covet. These laws were meant to set boundaries so that if they were followed, people could live peacable and coexist. And if anyone is honest about it, following the ten commandments is a good foundation for any society to base itself upon.

Just like a parent, you cannot live the life of your child for them. There are times when you must intervene as a parent, but there are other times when you shouldn't and let the school of hard knocks teach the lessons of life. In days of old, God did intervene at times, though I would not dare to presume to understand all of his reasons for doing so or the means by which he did. Did he really have to wipe the earth clean and start over with the flood? How can a God of love do something like that? Yet, if I knew that it was the only way to save the children whom I created, as a father would I not do it? Perhaps the question to ask is...if he had not stepped in and allowed the consequences to unfold, perhaps we would not even exist today because the coruptness of humankind at that time was so great that extinction was enevitible. Shrugs, I dunno.

Getting back to my train of thought...

Though the law was given in order to set a foundation of principles, its main focus was to set boundaries of what to avoid and what not to do. It didn't really address what to do. As a father with kids, loving my kids is to help them have a foundation by which they can live life and not suffer the consequences of doing wrong things like lying, stealing etc... however, the end goal is to hopefuly oneday see them get beyond the thou shall not stuff and get to the doing stuff. In my point of view this is the reason Jesus came as the son of God. His teaching and his sacrifice were meant to show us what was beyond the written letter of the law. To say this another way, he came to show that the spirit of the law was not just to obey the written letter and so become religious, but through love, learn how to help others, forgive others, and not be proud to sit in judgement upon one another. It is here we see the ultimate goal and hope of God for his children. Why is it so important? Because I believe when God created this universe and all that is in it, he set into motion certain laws such as sowing and reaping, affectionately known by many as cause and effect. All of God's precepts and principles rest upon two commands, which is to love God(which is another way to say to love God's ways of love and peace), and to show this love to one another by loving your neighbor as yourself.

Jesus' teaching and life are an example to all in living a life that helps, serves, and leads. But the power of Jesus' life is shown in his resurrection. His resurrecion is the proof that all he said and did was true. He and he alone has risen from the grave in order to show that the power of death it self is not all powerful or the final power. That there is a power that is stronger than death itself. It is in this aspect that Christanity is different than all other religions and philosophies. I admit and agree that many religions and philosophies share many of the Godly precepts which make life a better place to live for the individual and for those around them, however none of them claim to have one who has risen from the dead and has overcome the power of death itself. Only Jesus makes that claim, which is also the reason why he alone holds the secret and the power to eternal life.

My faith and belief is in Jesus. To me that means to try to live my life as he lived his. I am not to judge others, but to love them as best I can, help where I can, and live a life with the same strength of character as he showed.

I freely admit that at times my sadistic lusts and even my dominant nature is a great source of conflict within me and my faith. But I do not believe that it is accurate to blanketly say that God is opposed to BSDM. I think BDSM can be tailored to operate within the scope of his blessing especially when it is mutualy edifying for both people inside of a relationship. It may be a different kind of love that others may not understand, but the only ones that need to understand it are the ones in the relationship.

There is no soap box here, and no axe to grind, I am just sharing how I see things and understand them. For me, there are many great moments in being a dad, and there are some really low moments too. I think all in all, being a parent is the best analogy in which to view God. I can't live my children's life for them, and I can't force them to make the right decisions, I can provide for them when they let/want me to, I can protect them when they let/want me to, and even when we are at odds, I still love them...even if that means loving them enough to let them make their own mistakes.

 

[Netzach]

I actually think that Jesus is a superb metaphor, only being a non believer I see it in these terms, as metaphor.

I actually DO read the Bible entirely as literature and metaphor. The idea that these things are somehow less important than some Word or Truth makes no sense to me. We are homo bullshitus and NEED stories. Why else would people kill each other over them? Why else would everyone have them?

Everyone is a child of God. Everyone suffers and is betrayed. Every time some love one another and get over the superficial bullshit they are selling you hippie pisses off the Establishment fully enough, he gets whacked. And every time one gets whacked, another one comes along eventually - the idea rises within three days.

 

[Netzach]

Ever watched ants, right after their nest gets flooded? They come swarming out by the thousands, most of the adults carrying larvae and sprinting for higher ground. Others head straight for the source of the water, and if they can reach it (a garden hose lying on the ground, for example), they'll frantically attack it - not stopping until all of the surviving ants have left the vicinity or the water's turned off. When the emergency's past, they all go back underground to rebuild the nest. In terms of organization and effort, they put New Orleans under Dubya to shame.

I have done this to ants (unintentionally.) Somewhere, there is surely a 15 year old dick who does this for fun. From the ant's perspective, does it really matter which is which?

I think our capacity for comprehending the purpose and cause of the universe is just as limited as the ants' capacity to understand why the nest sometimes floods, who's flooding it, or when it will flood again.

The only major difference is that we feel the need to know.

Therefore we're ants with a literary tradition. We're ants with Plato. And iphones.

 

[Netzach]

And myriad religions and cultures have guys who have come back from the dead in them, I hate to be a prick and point it out. Look at the St. George of english Mummer's plays, every pagan story, half of Native American belief systems - I think the Jews took a major detour in keeping their dead heroes dead, actually - everyone else kept on keeping on with it.

 

[neci]

Faith

For me, faith is an action. As a human, made in the image of the Lord, it is about carrying the teachings of Christ within me, and sharing that through acts not words. Kindness toward those less fortunate. Sharing of blessings with those who go without. Just because a person has knowledge and wealth, does not mean they carry within them the riches of Heaven. It is through the struggle of life that God reveals Himself. Faith is not about politics or semantics. It is not about securing my spot in Heaven. That is not up to me. It is about taking actions in my life that Jesus taught and lived. There is a saying that there are many paths to the top of the mountain. The teachings of Buddha, Gandhi, Mohammad, the readings of the Tao Te Ching, the Native American's reverence for the earth, all carry similar underlying currents of pushing oneself past the struggles of everyday living and reaching for the divine. If i had been raised in another religion, I believe that God would still want me to seek the same way of living. I do not know what lies beyond this life. Perhaps there are shiny gates. Perhaps I will be reincarnated based upon my actions here and now. What I want, is for this world to reflect more of the beauty of the Divine today. To seek justice for those whose voices have been silenced by oppression. For victims to become survivors. For broken to be mended. As one person, completely human, with influences around me that easily steer my wandering mind from this way of life, I find refuge in the forgiveness and grace of God. There is relief in knowing that while I may stumble, it does not mean the end. An open heart and humble spirit, along with action, is what I believe in.

 

[Homburg]

^_^ 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. ^_^

Pfft, if I were insulted by that, I would likewise be insulted by my daughter who appears to be a super-taster when she provides an opinion on food that is nowhere near to in line with how I experience it.

Faith is a strange thing, I must admit. Have you ever seen Indiana Jones and the Last Crusade?

Ahem, I did say that I was a gamer, right? Of course I've seen that movie. The original Indiana Jones movies are pretty much required watching so far as I'm concerned.

'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.

Here is where my mind just goes sideways on this concept.

Hitler =/= Mother Theresa

And I cannot imagine that any evil act can be forgiven so long as good intentions at at the heart of it. "The road to hell..." and all that. I can get with the concept that all the good acts in the world are meaningless if evil hate is behind them, but not the obverse. Evil acts are still evil acts even when good intent is present. What about the abortionist doing his job to save a woman's life? I can point to a legion of true believers that would still scream at him for his sins and evil.

There is none good, no, not one. We're all full of fail in the eyes of God.

This is where my knee-jerk response delves into the "Well, fuck him then," territory. And, again, this idea of failure and sin is not really in line with the whole of the scripture. It is a cultural control mechanism introduced ex post facto.

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.

Um, uh, you lost me again. What is the worth of living a good life if said good life has no effect on the final scales? It's like masochism on a cosmological scale. This is why people can see parallels between religion and BDSM. "I am unworthy, a sinner. I am too low to suffer in the presence of the divine for I am full of fail." etc. I've know more than one submissive with that sort of attitude and here we see it on a grand scale.

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?

Not in the slightest. You lack omniscience, thus you cannot predict the content of my post. After all, I can do something like sparkly balls and relate the idea that the mind of man (or woman in this case) is always inscrutable to his fellows. Anyone can make predictions. The difference in this case is that a predestined universe is not making predictions. It is setting a path.

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.

I could not help but think of http://www.timecube.com/

Anyway, while I appreciate the idea of multi-dimensional thinking (and am familiar with the concept), I do not see this as remotely present in Christian theology. Yes, god is portrayed as omniscient, thus would be aware of multi-dimensional thought and able to access it, sure. But, and this is a big but, free will is meaningless without the randomness inherent to billions of beings choosing their own path. If god is described in the source as knowing all possible realities and having a Batman-esque ability to plan for every contingency, sure, but I don't recall that sort of concept present in the source text. It is extrapolation of assumed attributes, from what I recall.

--

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.

This is off-topic, but have you seen the herbivorous spider that was discovered in South America? It eats the leaf tips of whatever plant it lives on, and that comprises some 80%+ of its' diet. It might eat the occasional ant larvae that it comes across, but it is all but a strict herbivore.

Weird.

 

[Homburg]

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?

The phrase, "while giggling madly," really makes the image work. I laughed when I read it.

Good stuff, JM

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.

I'm interested in the Darwin biopic film. I'm hoping that the film is not trying to prove some random point, and just reflects his life.

--

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."

This is almost literally how MIS' dad explained prayer in Judaism to me. I thought it was a brilliant concept. Interestingly, there are a lot of religions that follow this mode, just not Christianity.

--

And myriad religions and cultures have guys who have come back from the dead in them, I hate to be a prick and point it out. Look at the St. George of english Mummer's plays, every pagan story, half of Native American belief systems - I think the Jews took a major detour in keeping their dead heroes dead, actually - everyone else kept on keeping on with it.

Osiris, Ishtar, Baldr, Tammuz, Odin, etc are all classed as resurrection deities. Dionysus, in some writings did as well, as he was torn apart by the maneids only to return later, hale and refreshed. There are some interesting parallels between Jesus and Dionysus as much as there are interesting similarities between Jesus and Mithras.

And then you get into the Hindu polyfaith, where it is impossible to even count the number of dieties that died and came back. It's central to the expression of faith there.

--

The teachings of Buddha, Gandhi, Mohammad, the readings of the Tao Te Ching, the Native American's reverence for the earth, all carry similar underlying currents of pushing oneself past the struggles of everyday living and reaching for the divine.

Life is struggle. Period. It is part of our psychology to wonder why it is all "so" hard, and how to carry on. Religion has long been the one to answer that question in every culture. If the struggle is universal to the human condition, and the need for perseverance likewise universal, it stands to reason that the answer would be, at its' core, universal as well.

 

[JMohegan]

The only major difference is that we feel the need to know.

Therefore we're ants with a literary tradition. We're ants with Plato. And iphones.

And nuclear weapons. And deadly conflicts lasting centuries or even millennia, predicated on ultimately pointless differences such as Protestant v. Catholic and Muslim v. Jew.

This is off-topic, but have you seen the herbivorous spider that was discovered in South America? It eats the leaf tips of whatever plant it lives on, and that comprises some 80%+ of its' diet. It might eat the occasional ant larvae that it comes across, but it is all but a strict herbivore.

Weird.

This one?

Yes! A VERY cool creature, with an outstanding name.

 

[eastern sun]

*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).

Have you read Stephen Hawking's "A Brief History of Time?"

I love the points where science, philosophy and religion intersect and support each other. I was in college when I read "The Tao of Physics" and I was instantly hooked. I figured if two traditions operating separately on two completely different premises reached the same conclusion after thousands of years of study, there had to be some truth in it somewhere.

 

[eastern sun]

I believe that in any moment, it is possible to return to the proverbial Garden of Eden, no matter where we are and what we've done. And it doesn't take a deity. It just takes a leap of faith. Faith that what seems impossible is possible. Faith that some kind of pure land is findable in the present moment.

Then, action that needs to be taken is crystal clear.

Skeptic that I am, I needed to see people do it before me in order to believe that it was possible. And I believe that's why we're all here. To show each other what we've done. Then, each witness can make up their own mind how to proceed.

 

[DeepGreenEyes]

I believe that in any moment, it is possible to return to the proverbial Garden of Eden, no matter where we are and what we've done. And it doesn't take a deity. It just takes a leap of faith. Faith that what seems impossible is possible. Faith that some kind of pure land is findable in the present moment.

Then, action that needs to be taken is crystal clear.

Skeptic that I am, I needed to see people do it before me in order to believe that it was possible. And I believe that's why we're all here. To show each other what we've done. Then, each witness can make up their own mind how to proceed.

Thank you for this post. It reminded me of this quote:

“The miracle is not to walk on water. The miracle is to walk on the green earth, dwelling deeply in the present moment and feeling truly alive.”

---Thich Nhat Hanh

 

[Homburg]

This one?

Yes! A VERY cool creature, with an outstanding name.

Yep, and, yeah, the name was just awesome. I love how it mimics the movements of ants when near them. What a bizarrely cool critter.

 

[Netzach]

I was inspired to have another theological discussion with an ex-seminary adulterer and fornicator of whom I have a particular fondness.

He pointed out that the word "sin" derives from a Greek word for arrows that fail to hit the target. And got me to grudgingly admit that I probably do have some kind of a soul, anima, nous, whatever you want to call it. I tend to break out in a rash when accused of this.

But I also think that souls are probably like brains, in some people they are unused, atrophied, and senile, in others they're vital and huge. At the moment mine is black and spiny.

 

[Homburg]

I was inspired to have another theological discussion with an ex-seminary adulterer and fornicator of whom I have a particular fondness.

He pointed out that the word "sin" derives from a Greek word for arrows that fail to hit the target. And got me to grudgingly admit that I probably do have some kind of a soul, anima, nous, whatever you want to call it. I tend to break out in a rash when accused of this.

But I also think that souls are probably like brains, in some people they are unused, atrophied, and senile, in others they're vital and huge. At the moment mine is black and spiny.

The soul is an interesting concept. It's tough to be purely mechanical when dealing with such questions as "What makes you, you? And where is it?"

 

[Netzach]

The soul is an interesting concept. It's tough to be purely mechanical when dealing with such questions as "What makes you, you? And where is it?"

Right. It's obviously overwhelmingly in the chemistry. FRIGHTENINGLY so. Prednisone taught me that. The chemistry can be changed, and with it the personality to a degree. But even with those changes, there's an essential being. There are unbendable things.

Now, if that stuff gets recycled, tossed out, goes off eternally or what I don't know, and it's not the neat part, to me.

 

[clock1]

How about the theory that man is genetically programed to believe in god. That in fact it may be a desirable evolutionary trait that has helped us survive. Richard Dawkins, Steven Pinker (the Blank Slate) and Michael Shermer (Science Skeptism and the search for God) among others have looked at the human brain and its need to embrace god.

Here is a link to Shermer, from there one can do all the research one desires.

http://books.google.com/books?id=g-...resnum=3&ved=0CBMQ6AEwAg#v=onepage&q=&f=false

 

[DeepGreenEyes]

For me, faith is an action. As a human, made in the image of the Lord, it is about carrying the teachings of Christ within me, and sharing that through acts not words. Kindness toward those less fortunate. Sharing of blessings with those who go without. Just because a person has knowledge and wealth, does not mean they carry within them the riches of Heaven. It is through the struggle of life that God reveals Himself. Faith is not about politics or semantics. It is not about securing my spot in Heaven. That is not up to me. It is about taking actions in my life that Jesus taught and lived. There is a saying that there are many paths to the top of the mountain. The teachings of Buddha, Gandhi, Mohammad, the readings of the Tao Te Ching, the Native American's reverence for the earth, all carry similar underlying currents of pushing oneself past the struggles of everyday living and reaching for the divine. If i had been raised in another religion, I believe that God would still want me to seek the same way of living. I do not know what lies beyond this life. Perhaps there are shiny gates. Perhaps I will be reincarnated based upon my actions here and now. What I want, is for this world to reflect more of the beauty of the Divine today. To seek justice for those whose voices have been silenced by oppression. For victims to become survivors. For broken to be mended. As one person, completely human, with influences around me that easily steer my wandering mind from this way of life, I find refuge in the forgiveness and grace of God. There is relief in knowing that while I may stumble, it does not mean the end. An open heart and humble spirit, along with action, is what I believe in.

I was going to say that there are elements here of Liberation Theology, but really, it's just a nice summation of the spirit of Jesus' teachings.

But twinkiegirl, if you were raised as a Buddhist in Thailand, you'd be posting on Li-thai-rotica, and we'd all be poorer for it.

 

[Ravenwind]

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.

We are both looking at the same evidence, but coming upon two different conclusions based upon our worldviews. Every hypothesis starts off with an assumption and works its way from there, and attempts to prove the assumption as either true or false. So, let's assume, for the moment, that everything started out as herbivores. In what ways could modern carnivorous teeth be used on plants? I could easily see them being used to tear the bark off tough plants, such as manzanita, ebony, and bamboo, where typical herbivorous teeth (such as that of a horse) couldn't make a dent, or would mash the edible parts with inedible. Likewise, I could see them being used as a sort of rake to feed small branches through, pulling leaves off a bush, while leaving the branch intact.

Then, upon our corruption of the world, animals had to adapt, and started using those scythe-like teeth for reaping other animals, instead of that of plants.

But, just because I believe "Because Moses said so", or "Because Jesus said so", and I can hypothesize upon the why, does it matter? Isn't that the basis of evolutionary theory as well? "Because Darwin said so", "Because Hawkins said so"? You have never seen a horse turn into a whale, same as I have never seen a global flood. Difference is, is I have seen an herbivore turn carnivorous because of what humans have done to the world, and so it lends credence, at least in my mind, to what I believe.

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.

Does that not boil down to "Because Darwin said so"? You can read up on his theories... Moses' job wasn't to explain the whys about animals- he was a leader, not a biologist. If it concerns me so much about why animals are the way they currently are, then it's my job to take the premise and conditions already given, and go from there. I have to quote Homburg here... "We do not know". According to your worldview, it is the best guess. According to mine, it is as unfeasible as those little green men you talked about.

Consider this, the theory of evolution revolves around the premise of "survival of the fittest"- a concept of starting off as utter fail and chaos, and working up to perfection and peace. Let's consider a second theory... the premise of "stability/entropy" as applied to evolution. Stability represents initial peace and perfection, while entropy is a decent into failure and chaos. Under this model, would it not make sense that animals (and respectively, people) would become more and more efficient killers as time moves on, as opposed to the stability of all life represented by herbivory and pacifism?

Consider the sloth vs. the cheetah and the rabbit... The sloth is slow, because it has no predators, nor has it any prey. The cheetah, on the other hand, is fast because it needs to catch and kill its prey, while the rabbit is fast so it can escape from being prey. Change the needs of any of those animals... bring in a jaguar to hunt the sloth, and you'll see it get off its ass. Take away the hawk and the wolf, and the rabbit will slow down. Change the diet of the cheetah, and it too will slow.

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

I was talking about the shape of the canines, but okay. Let's consider all of the teeth, then, not just size, but shape and function as determined by shape. Yes, the lion has much bigger teeth than a panda. However, the shape of all of the teeth, the molars, the canines, and the incisors, are very similar. There are enlarged canines to grip, small tapered incisors to cut, and pointed molars to shred fibrous material. Considering that a panda is an herbivore, there *should* be some sort of cupped molars to grind flat material, however there are none.

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.

We, as humans, see 'good and evil' on a scale- going from 'near perfect' to 'the devil wishes he was that evil'. God sees it as a boolean- a true or false statement. If I drop a ceramic figurine on the ground, and it breaks, it doesn't matter if it broke in half, or into a million little shards... it still means I'm gonna have to find the superglue and fix it- how much effort I have to put into fixing it is a non-issue, the issue is that "it is broken, it is not as it used to be". And that's not solely a NT concept, it has its origins in the OT- "Everyone has turned away, they have together become corrupt; there is no one who does good, not even one." Psalm 53:3.

Similarly, the Bible does not describe heaven and hell as Dante did, with each level becoming successively more pleasant/painful for those who were more/less righteous. Heaven and hell, in the Bible, likewise are also boolean. We pay for the intensity of our crimes here on earth (by guilty conscience or even lack thereof, spending time wasting away in prison, or even unto having our lives cut short), we pay for the *fact* that we did evil, no matter how horrid or insignificant we consider it to be, afterward.

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.

8 people and a handful of animals... that's not many if you think about it. Consider nowadays... would you consider anyone to be as righteous as Noah? In a world where theft is brushed off as irrelevant (up to the point where it is a relatively massive amount of *your* [generic] stuff), greed is good and necessary, and children are killing both other children and their parents, and we're all on a forum dedicated to lust (no offense to the owners of the site or any/all people within, just making a point here ^_^)... I can think of none who are upstanding enough to survive a holy nuking.

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.

Me, I don't see it as that hard to understand: "Shit happens, life sucks, and then you die". In the end, everyone will receive what is due them, for good or for ill. We just have to make the best of what we have to work with.

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.

I both ask and thank, as well as just chatting, in my prayers. The difference is, it's incredibly hard to show how God has acted in my life by "Today rocked, thank you, God!" or "God, you know what... wait. Of course you know what. Anyway..." type of prayers. They're not exactly things that one can get an answer, let alone a miracle, from. ...I mean, I suppose I could use one of those as an example if I heard God's voice booming out, "It's no problem, I'm glad you had a good day" or something. Buuut, I don't happen to have an example like that on hand. ^_~

Since God *is* our Father, I should feel free to ask Him to take care of me, or at least guide me on how to better care for myself. I know I can go to my dad if I need help, or advice, or just want to chat, or whatever, as he is the one who provided for me for the first couple decades of my life or so, so $20 here or the name of the song that's stuck in my head is no big deal- he helps me out because he loves me. God provides for me my whole life, and loves me far more than my dad ever could, so likewise, there is no harm in asking for that which He already provides.

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."

Probably, but is not a balance between all things best?

Ahem, I did say that I was a gamer, right? Of course I've seen that movie. The original Indiana Jones movies are pretty much required watching so far as I'm concerned.

ROFL!! So very true.

Here is where my mind just goes sideways on this concept.

Hitler =/= Mother Theresa

And I cannot imagine that any evil act can be forgiven so long as good intentions at at the heart of it. "The road to hell..." and all that. I can get with the concept that all the good acts in the world are meaningless if evil hate is behind them, but not the obverse. Evil acts are still evil acts even when good intent is present. What about the abortionist doing his job to save a woman's life? I can point to a legion of true believers that would still scream at him for his sins and evil.

True, however, everything has to be considered about a situation, in the latter case. Consider the OT, or Jesus' death... God Himself killed a ton of people, and caused people to kill others, even after He had the 10 commandments written, for the sake of sparing those who would 'behave'. Likewise, consider fatal accidents (I mean, the real sort of 'I didn't see him [because the landscaping hid the road, and he ran the light]' as opposed to 'I didn't see him [because I was on the phone and drunk]'), certainly, someone was killed, but responsibility has to be considered. And even the abortionist scenario... it is better for one innocent to die, than for two, but best for none to die at all.

...with abortion, it is far more complex... I mean, I have a cousin whose girlfriend at the time had more abortions than I can count because she wouldn't use protection. To me, that is an utter travesty. However, a situation where it is 'choose: the baby's life or the mother's life', I can understand. Worst case scenarios such as rape, but otherwise all things normal and healthy, there are other options than to kill an innocent because they are unwanted.

Many people, not just the masses of Christians, but others just as well, are prone into 'talking point' lines of thought, as opposed to considering everything. "If X is good, and Y applies X, then I am for Y", "If X is bad...". People tend not to prod and find out that "Y" tends to have "Z reason/method" attached. Unfortunately, we as Christians tend to be sheeple instead of sheep... going with the shepherd, even if he blindly walks off a cliff. Yes, murder is unconditionally wrong, but imho, it is less wrong to sacrifice one, than to allow two to die when you have the power to save one.

This is where my knee-jerk response delves into the "Well, fuck him then," territory. And, again, this idea of failure and sin is not really in line with the whole of the scripture. It is a cultural control mechanism introduced ex post facto.

Again Psalm 53 as mentioned above... James 2:10 - "Whosoever shall keep the whole Law, but offend in one point, is become guilty of all."...the Ten Commandments (the Law) themselves (Exodus 20) ...Seemingly every other chapter throughout the entire bible references sin and/or the effects thereof... Romans 8:20-23, in particular v21-22, "that the creation itself will be liberated from its bondage to decay and brought into the glorious freedom of the children of God. We know that the whole creation has been groaning as in the pains of childbirth right up to the present time."...and Romans 5:11 "But God demonstrates his own love for us in this: While we were still sinners, Christ died for us."

Truth be told, the entire Bible (except Numbers... ugh...) deals with what happens when people turn away from God, the misery that stems from it, and then how to 'make things right again'. I'm not sure how that can be after the fact. I mean, first few pages: Adam and Eve were created, they screw up, they were exiled from God's presence and began the ever-so-slow process of dying from age, then God promises that He'll make it right again some time down the road. Then the whole book of Jonah- "Jonah, go tell Ninevah 'Repent or die'", "I don't wanna. I'm gonna run away", "Jonah, *whale-smack*, do it", "Okay. Ninevah, Repent or die", "We repent", they don't die. ( I just nutshelled a 4 chapter story in 6 phrases... wow). Sounds to me like "you failed to do what I asked, you suffer the consequences for it now, but the potential to make it right again is there"... um, I don't know how the concept of a failed creation and sin is after the fact, when the entire Bible is loaded with it.

Um, uh, you lost me again. What is the worth of living a good life if said good life has no effect on the final scales? It's like masochism on a cosmological scale. This is why people can see parallels between religion and BDSM. "I am unworthy, a sinner. I am too low to suffer in the presence of the divine for I am full of fail." etc. I've know more than one submissive with that sort of attitude and here we see it on a grand scale.

*amused giggle* As above, doing a good deed is worthless in of itself, no different than choosing Pepsi or Coke, Nintendo vs. Sega. But rather, what you do and say are reflections of what lies in your heart. A couple examples... I can't stand my mom-in-law, almost unto the point of hatred of some of the things she does. But even so, I love her enough as family so that when she asks something of me, I comply for the sake of keeping the peace. I love my kids with all my heart, and when they ask something of me, I do it so they are happy. I see a poor man, I give of what I have, so that he needn't suffer, regardless of what he's suffering from. You get a guy who does good, but not of a selfless attitude, his words and actions reflect his heart... he'll do just to shut her up... he'll respond just so they stop whining... he'll give in the hopes the guy dies off an OD. Therefore, if a good deed can be done with both good and ill will, what good, then, is considering the act, when it is the state of mind that matters?

Lemme put it like this... it's like the hypothetical Nobel for the guy who wanted to kill Hitler and failed, or the guy whose gun accidentally went off and killed him. Neither truly cut the mustard for such a title... intent means nothing without action, action means nothing without intent.

Therefore, it is neither the deed nor the intent themselves that is considered, but intent and action together. The Pharisees were denounced for 'doing it right' but with the wrong intent, Peter was chewed out for 'doing it wrong' but with the right intent... and the Laodiceans got a tongue lashing for their apathy of having everything half-assed on both sides of the fence.

"By their fruit you will recognize them. Do people pick grapes from thornbushes, or figs from thistles?" - Matthew 7:16

Not in the slightest. You lack omniscience, thus you cannot predict the content of my post. After all, I can do something like sparkly balls and relate the idea that the mind of man (or woman in this case) is always inscrutable to his fellows. Anyone can make predictions. The difference in this case is that a predestined universe is not making predictions. It is setting a path.

My point is, He is not setting all paths, but just His own in relation to ours. His knowing everyone's paths does not determine our own individual path, no more than my knowing that you would respond does not affect the fact that you choose to.

Knowledge in of itself is understanding how 'initial scenario' will lead to 'end scenario(s)'. Putting 2 and 2 together, you get four every time; putting 2 apples in a blender makes either apple mush, or the potential for applesauce, depending on how sharp the blades are. By taking steps to eliminate one path (sharpening the blades), all other options from that path are gone (apple mush, the washing, the wasted paper towel, cutting myself on the dull blade, etc), and therefore we can know the potentials ahead of us (plain applesauce, cinnamon applesauce, or some degree of burnt applesauce). Omniscience, therefore, is knowledge of all available paths, as well as the one we will choose. Not simply by knowing the paths themselves, but also by knowing everything about us, and everything we surround ourselves with, and the application of that knowledge. His plan is set into motion by working what He wants around and through what we're already/going to be doing... not by micromanaging every aspect of our lives.

And trying to explain further is hurting my head. I'll come back to this one. lol

Anyway, while I appreciate the idea of multi-dimensional thinking (and am familiar with the concept), I do not see this as remotely present in Christian theology. Yes, god is portrayed as omniscient, thus would be aware of multi-dimensional thought and able to access it, sure. But, and this is a big but, free will is meaningless without the randomness inherent to billions of beings choosing their own path. If god is described in the source as knowing all possible realities and having a Batman-esque ability to plan for every contingency, sure, but I don't recall that sort of concept present in the source text. It is extrapolation of assumed attributes, from what I recall.

It is an extrapolation. But the concept of omniscience comes with so much weight it's hard to imagine it. Same with the other omni-statuses. Interesting thing about choice and decisions, though, is they aren't truly as random as one might think they are.

If you are hungry, you have two choices: eat, or don't. What to eat is limited by what you have access to... not eating results in eating later (and again, the result of that is the same as above), or starving (an endless cycle of 'eat or don't'). As such it is fair to assume you're going to eat- nobody will starve to death when food is available and they are not prevented by outside motivations. If I knew you better, 'now' or 'later' could be more easily determined, but the average American would choose 'now'. Seeing that people don't eat what they don't want to, what is unappealing, and what has gone bad, that green stuff growing in the back of the fridge is out, as is that box of cardboard-flavored cereal, and the gross leftovers from that cheap restaurant. After digging through the kitchen, you choose what sounds good right now... chips, a hamburger, or a salad. Your decision from there is therefore based on the needed minerals you are lacking, the weather, what commercial you just watched, when the last time you ate was, and/or other conditions...

Decisions are easy to map out if you understand the prerequisite conditions as well as know the person making the decision. Omniscience (in regards to free will) is merely Game Theory, and applying the concept of 'thinking ahead an infinite amount of steps' on a grandiose scale. Millions of permutations per decision, every decision opening and closing millions more... but not truly an infinite amount of possibilities (I can *choose* to put my foot behind my head, but chances of it actually happening are nil)... and in the end, every decision winds up being akin to "to be, or not to be".

Edit: And that timecube thing? *not* what I had in mind in the slightest. *winces* I've seen trolls with better English and made more sense than that... I can't make heads or tails of what he's trying to get across, other than 'EVIL ONE' and how he hasn't got even a penny of support.

Have you read Stephen Hawking's "A Brief History of Time?"

I love the points where science, philosophy and religion intersect and support each other. I was in college when I read "The Tao of Physics" and I was instantly hooked. I figured if two traditions operating separately on two completely different premises reached the same conclusion after thousands of years of study, there had to be some truth in it somewhere.

I've read bits of it... it's been too long though, and what little I did have the opportunity to read, I've forgotten. That's how I feel as well, though I've never read The Tao of Physics... my curiosity has been piqued, though... next chance I get, I'm gonna pick that up. ^_^

 

[JMohegan]

We are both looking at the same evidence, but coming upon two different conclusions based upon our worldviews. Every hypothesis starts off with an assumption and works its way from there, and attempts to prove the assumption as either true or false. So, let's assume, for the moment, that everything started out as herbivores. In what ways could modern carnivorous teeth be used on plants? I could easily see them being used to tear the bark off tough plants, such as manzanita, ebony, and bamboo, where typical herbivorous teeth (such as that of a horse) couldn't make a dent, or would mash the edible parts with inedible. Likewise, I could see them being used as a sort of rake to feed small branches through, pulling leaves off a bush, while leaving the branch intact.

Then, upon our corruption of the world, animals had to adapt, and started using those scythe-like teeth for reaping other animals, instead of that of plants.

But, just because I believe "Because Moses said so", or "Because Jesus said so", and I can hypothesize upon the why, does it matter? Isn't that the basis of evolutionary theory as well? "Because Darwin said so", "Because Hawkins said so"? You have never seen a horse turn into a whale, same as I have never seen a global flood. Difference is, is I have seen an herbivore turn carnivorous because of what humans have done to the world, and so it lends credence, at least in my mind, to what I believe.



Does that not boil down to "Because Darwin said so"? You can read up on his theories... Moses' job wasn't to explain the whys about animals- he was a leader, not a biologist. If it concerns me so much about why animals are the way they currently are, then it's my job to take the premise and conditions already given, and go from there. I have to quote Homburg here... "We do not know". According to your worldview, it is the best guess. According to mine, it is as unfeasible as those little green men you talked about.

Consider this, the theory of evolution revolves around the premise of "survival of the fittest"- a concept of starting off as utter fail and chaos, and working up to perfection and peace. Let's consider a second theory... the premise of "stability/entropy" as applied to evolution. Stability represents initial peace and perfection, while entropy is a decent into failure and chaos. Under this model, would it not make sense that animals (and respectively, people) would become more and more efficient killers as time moves on, as opposed to the stability of all life represented by herbivory and pacifism?

Consider the sloth vs. the cheetah and the rabbit... The sloth is slow, because it has no predators, nor has it any prey. The cheetah, on the other hand, is fast because it needs to catch and kill its prey, while the rabbit is fast so it can escape from being prey. Change the needs of any of those animals... bring in a jaguar to hunt the sloth, and you'll see it get off its ass. Take away the hawk and the wolf, and the rabbit will slow down. Change the diet of the cheetah, and it too will slow.

No. It does not boil down to "Darwin says so." His theory is supported by the work of paleontologists all over the world, and increasingly, geneticists as well.

And the theory of evolution does not say we are working toward "perfection and peace." And the sloth does have predators; it is physically unable to sprint away from a jaguar or anything else; its protection lies in very effective camouflage.

There is no credible historical evidence that Moses, author of the OT, ever existed - much less that his inspiration or instruction came from a divine source. I don't mean to belabor the point, but you seem to be missing it entirely so I'll say it once again. When you talk to me about Moses being a leader, you might as well talk about Aragorn rallying the troops to the Black Gate.

 

[Netzach]

Consider this, the theory of evolution revolves around the premise of "survival of the fittest"- a concept of starting off as utter fail and chaos, and working up to perfection and peace. Let's consider a second theory... the premise of "stability/entropy" as applied to evolution. Stability represents initial peace and perfection, while entropy is a decent into failure and chaos. Under this model, would it not make sense that animals (and respectively, people) would become more and more efficient killers as time moves on, as opposed to the stability of all life represented by herbivory and pacifism?

Consider the sloth vs. the cheetah and the rabbit... The sloth is slow, because it has no predators, nor has it any prey.

Sloths absolutely have predators. Jaguars and Harpy eagles, the top tier predators in their environment. And people, but that's a given. They rely on camoflauge and luck, but they're a favorite snack for the top tier. The main mystery about their behavior is that they bother to descend to the ground to crap and refuse to do it from a tree. No one has a good reason why they're neat freaks like that.

Evolution isn't just Darwin any more than the Bible remains written only on salty papyrus. I like Gould's ideas, that the "fittest" model is actually incorrect, (and kind of fascist) and evolution is actually a more random shifting away from things known NOT to work than a decided move towards any one direction. The giraffe didn't evolve the longest neck possible to reach the leaves so much as it evolved away from the short neck because that wasn't effective.

I was talking about the shape of the canines, but okay. Let's consider all of the teeth, then, not just size, but shape and function as determined by shape. Yes, the lion has much bigger teeth than a panda. However, the shape of all of the teeth, the molars, the canines, and the incisors, are very similar. There are enlarged canines to grip, small tapered incisors to cut, and pointed molars to shred fibrous material. Considering that a panda is an herbivore, there *should* be some sort of cupped molars to grind flat material, however there are none.

I may be off base, but I don't think there's anything else that grinds bamboo up wholesale for food. I can imagine that the teeth may deviate from everyone else's.

 

[Ravenwind]

Sloths absolutely have predators.

Noted; I learn something new every day. But I hope my point didn't escape notice in my faulty example.

Evolution isn't just Darwin any more than the Bible remains written only on salty papyrus. I like Gould's ideas, that the "fittest" model is actually incorrect, (and kind of fascist) and evolution is actually a more random shifting away from things known NOT to work than a decided move towards any one direction.

True, but Darwin is as much a figurehead for evolution as much as Jesus is for Christianity. There are indeed others to shape it along its course, but why list 'em off, when the most known figure will suffice. *shrug, smiles* ...and I'm glad someone on the other side of the fence agrees with me regarding the nature of Darwin's hypotheses... though I wouldn't exactly say 'kind of', buuut... *shrugs*.

As far as 'known not to work', that sort of begs the question in a way (though, admittedly, far less than 'intentionally trying to do the currently impossible'). If the first step is known not to work, how do we get the working final step from the failed first step?

It's an understandable concept, say, with Mexican cave fish and their lack of eyes- eyes don't work in pitch blackness, and are more likely to get injured, injured fish are more likely to die before reproducing ('start from perfection, and work downward')... doesn't explain scales-to-feathers though. Normal scales work fine for what they're meant to do, they mutate and go fuzzy, now the lizard is without protection from the elements and predators, leaving him more likely to be injured before reproduction. So we have millions of years to wait while the lizard (fine off as it was before, now weakened) gets enough feathers to give the potential for gliding. But because they're all in the wrong amounts, the lizard jumps, and goes splat. Again, the lizard is still in a weakened state without protection via scales, or the ability to fly (and is now at risk for easier infection with these long feathers getting pulled out). So now we must endure a few million more years of lizards acting like Lemmings until some bird-lizard gets it right. So, it's a downward slope from 'perfection' to 'extremely broken' until it jumps up and hits 'perfection' again. When scales work well enough (and still work well enough today), what would be the driving force for feathers?

I may be off base, but I don't think there's anything else that grinds bamboo up wholesale for food. I can imagine that the teeth may deviate from everyone else's.

Bamboo rats, red pandas, mountain gorillas, chimps, and elephants eat it as well, although only bamboo rats eat it almost exclusively as pandas do.

 

[neci]

I was going to say that there are elements here of Liberation Theology, but really, it's just a nice summation of the spirit of Jesus' teachings.

But twinkiegirl, if you were raised as a Buddhist in Thailand, you'd be posting on Li-thai-rotica, and we'd all be poorer for it.

oh my.
i was thinking about the walk of faith and BDSM. pain can be a complete bitch at times, especially during life's shit storms. There is a bliss that comes after the relief finally arrives. Similar to multiple clothespins placed in conspicuous spots around the body. the swelling and blood flow causing constriction and leaving marks. the relief and joy that follows with caresses. the state of energy that can occur after a long and stressful experience....
hmmmmm... not to mention the joys following confession and eucharistic wine.