What God Wants *Debate (Believers Welcome, But Be Warned)*

[Cail]

As long as it's between two or more consenting adults, I don't care what anyone does with their naughty bits.

What do you have against masturbation, Cail?

That's not sex, masturbation is recreation.

Kins, science has been refuted over and over again, from the flat Earth to global cooling, no wait, warming. We're constantly finding the oldest fossils. We're constantly rewriting astronomy and medical texts.

[Avatar]

Fundamental misunderstanding there I think, and perhaps this needs a new thread?

For a start, it is science itself that "refutes" theories like the flat earth, that finds fossils older than ones we've discovered before, (it's oldest to date BTW) and that updates and improves astronomical and medical information as well.

(And I'd love to see your evidence for the refutation of global warming as well, although for that, I'll invite you to the new thread in the 'Tank. C'mon, just a little evidence if you please.)

Your post is misleading at best I think. Science never claims (nowadays anyway) that this is the final answer. It's just a better answer than we've had before.

I don't see religion even attempting the same thing.

--Avatar

[ur-bane]

A lot happened in this thread overnight! There's a lot to catch up with, but I am going to start here, with caamora's post.

Absolutely correct, Fist.

But, I am going to get back to the original questions. I've read so many things I would like to address, yet I cannot remember them all!

One questions was the fruit in the Garden of Eden and why would God place temptation in front of man. In many Christian religions, the story of Adam and Eve is just that - a story that was acceptable to the people of the time it was written. Without the scientific breakthroughs we have made in the modern world, these ancient people would have no concept of evolution. These religions believe that God began it all but that science has begun to explain it.

But here is another explanation: Think of the story Lord Foul in the Creator's world.

The problem I have with that is that although I personally do not interpret the bible literally, a lot of people do. But the idea of temptation itslf to me seems ungodlike (to my limited human experience, anyway).

Another question was the difference between God of the Old Testament and Jesus of the New Testament. This was a question I also once had and someone answered that God the Father/Creator of the Old Testament was asserting his authority i.e., the world was new and needed to be made aware of his rules. Jesus, the Son of God of the New Testament was sent to add God's love for his creation. Urbane said

But it still makes me wonder why god suddenly changed his tune?

God did not change his tune, rather He wanted us to know that it was not all fire and brimstone.

But then I ask why? Why, in the infancy of humankind, was "fire and brimstone" necessary at all? Why was there a need for fear? Why not just start out with love right from the beginning?
That is a strong argument (in my mind) for the existence of god in the minds of men. Men who needed fear to rule. As I said earlier, once it was realized that fear was not the answer as it eventually breeds rebellion, then suddenly it became necessary for control by another means: love.

Another question was does God want us to be good or to worship HIm? He wants both. Some have pointed out that this is an arrogant position for God to take and that they would rather not worhip such a conceited god. Well, with all due respect, He IS the creator of the world. Any being who is powerful enough to create a universe and everything in it, I would think is deserving of a great deal of respect and homage - and, I might add, arrogance.

I think it was more along the lines of what does god want more.
I agree with you that if he exists, he/she/it would be worthy of homage. The respect would have to be earned, and is another question entirely. But the real question is: why would god want that at all? Shouldn't the act of creation be satisfaction enough without a need for recognition and worship? I would think so, but then again, I have not created a universe (that I'm aware of ).

Fist--those quotes are excellent. I can subscribe to Matthew's view.

[Fist and Faith]

There is no Justice. There is just us.

And since you've read Neverness, you no doubt remember this:

Why should man seek justice in a universe which is manifestly unjust? Are we so insignificant and vain that we cannot look upon the raw, naked face of randomness without praying it will smile upon us merely because we have been righteous and good?

Yes, ur-bane, Matthew is a very cool guy. I wish he kept in touch. I've tried to get him to come here, but no dice. Even a snippet of Stephen C's thread failed.

[Avatar]

The respect would have to be earned, and is another question entirely.

Well said Ur-Bane. Why should we expect less of god than we do of each other? Surely we should be expecting more.

Aah Fist, a beautiful quote. I can see already that I'm gonna have to reread Neverness at my earliest opportuntity.

--A

[Cail]

Av, I'd disagree. Science does claim to have the answers, and even when they don't, don't you believe that many people take science as gospel?

Now you've also got to realize that I'm a bit odd when it comes to religion. I will never waste a single breath trying to convince you or anyone else that my faith is the right faith. I hate to sound callous, but I really don't care if anyone else believes in God. I do, that's really all that matters to me.

I believe, you don't, who's buying the next round?

[SalotHSaR]

I give up. If you reject God because One church says you can't be saved unless you repent and stop sinning then you're limiting God by one group's viewpoint of God.

If you bother to read the news, listen to the radio, or watch the television then you know that there is a lot of give & take going on regarding this and that there are gay priests and gay pastors and obviously gay church members.

But you had a single church experience and did not seek out God. You just let some bullies who were narrow-minded and ignorant tell you over and over the same thing at the same place. It's like disliking hamburgers but continuing to eat at McDonald's. I just don't get it.

Then you call God a "she" and I got to just throw up my hands and say I give up. You don't want to know, you don't care to know, you aren't even interested. I'm sorry I wasted everyone's time. I'm sorry everyone thought I was picking on you. I have to realize that sometimes people just open their mouth to talk, even if it's just to disagree, and they aren't necessarily looking for answers at all. I know I do it. Devil's advocate. So I throw up my arms and turn around shaking my head as I head toward a less crowded part of the room. I give up.

[ur-bane]

I thought god was Alannis Morissette??

Cail, Amen. I'll buy the next round. What're you drinking?G&T?

[Avatar]

I'll have one too. Bombay Sapphire if you please.

--A

[ur-bane]

You got it Av. I, however, will have a Jack and Pepsi, and a six of Bud. Mmmmm Jack and Pepsi.

[caamora]

I'll have a cosmopolitain, please.

[ur-bane]

Certainly, caam. Anyone else?

[Cail]

I'm in a tequila mood. 100% Blue Agave, please.

[Kinslaughterer]

Flat Earth was never apart of hard science, global warming has reached a fair consenus among scientists despite your consistent stance otherwise and astronomy and medical science hasn't refuted anything of consequence, just altered expectations from the processes.

Let me clarify, hard science extablishes facts then attempts to falsify those points. Since science is a continuous process it appears that they have refuted previous science and they have refuted alot of psuedoscience of the previous age but I'm talking now about the science of the 20 and 21st centuries that has become a highly rigorous and scrutinizied field.

Big things aren't going to change; as I said before only the expectations are going to be altered as more testing completes earlier work.

One reason people take science seriously is that they can personally reproduce it or see it reproduced. Basically seeing is believeing.

I'm an archaeologist, so that makes me a social scientist. We use some forms of hard science like absolute dating techniques (potassium argon, argon/argon, etc) and trace element analysis, but our focus is one observation and interpretation. Social science is rife with differing opinions and interpretations because all results aren't always looked at the same way and more than likely can't be independently reproduced.
Conversely, hard or physical science is based on empirical testing but will following their factual results with more testing and deductivist expectation. Only at that point of expectation when something hasn't been tested will refutation or alteration likely occur.

long island iced tea please

[Cail]

Didn't realize you were primarily talking about current science. Fair enough.

[Warmark]

You got it Av. I, however, will have a Jack and Pepsi, and a six of Bud. Mmmmm Jack and Pepsi.

If your at the bar anyway get me one of those for me aswell!

[ur-bane]

Sure thing. Comin' atcha!
Exellent choices, all! I am getting really thirsty.

BTW--where is that thread where Edge offered Neverness? I need to request a copy from him. All this talk of it lately has sparked my interest.[/offtopic]

[Plissken]

I thought god was Alannis Morissette??

She is, but it's apparently SalotHSaR up on the cross. (Make mine with Saphire.)

[caamora]

But we have to pray before we imbibe.

[Cail]

But we have to pray before we imbibe.

But of course.

"Past the lips, over the gums, look out liver, here it comes".