|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
 Posted: Sun May 27, 2007 2:56 pm
Ultra Sarah Faey_of_the_Silver_Heart dboyzero Scientifically, we have no proof that they happened, and we've got plenty of proof that it didn't happen. But, to stay on topic, we can discuss this in the "Why do you believe what you believe thread." I don't see how the scenario is any different. We can only assume that the deity is perfect, much like we can only assume that our parents have our best intentions in mind. Most of the time they do, but go about things in the wrong way, and some of the times they don't, and we have bad things happen. "Perfect" is a subjective term, so there's not really a viable way to say what is or isn't. That said, we still have to consider the thoughts and feelings of those who have been created. Example: There's tons of people in the world who need organ transplants, limb replacements, blood transfusions, etc. Let's say we've got a completely safe and cost-effective way to create people from scratch so that way we can harvest what we need from them, then recycle what's leftover for further use. A little on the macabre side, but millions of lives are being saved and we don't have to kill or harvest anything from anyone else. It's all for the greater good in most opinions. But do we still have that right? What about the rights of those that we create? Do they even HAVE rights, being created from scratch for the sole purpose of yielding said organs? Now let's say that a group of them escapes or rebels, and reject us as their creators. They are going directly against the "perfect" plan we had orginally envisioned for them, do we have the right to kill or punish them? Further, do we set them all free, let them have their free will, and kill any of them that don't want to follow our plan? In this way we get only the ones that want to serve us, and any of the others (going against what we had planned for them) get the axe. I suppose it'd be much easier if we didn't tell them that their ultimate fate would be to get chopped up and used for organ harvest, and we'll just tell them that they're going to some paradise, some exotic Island, if you will (sound familiar? I have yet to see it, but I heard it wasn't that great). Would any of that make it more justified? If we're assuming there's still God ruling the universe while you're doing this, I would say no, it's wrong. If we're assuming there's not God, then I don't know...I can see the example, but it doesn't exactly apply to God's scenario. I might say yes. I'll have to think about it. ((Um...what Island?)) The Island is a movie. Oh! That movie! The one with Ewan Macgregor? Okay...I get it now... xp Carry on.
|
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Mon May 28, 2007 8:08 pm
Faey of the Silver Heart If we're assuming there's still God ruling the universe while you're doing this, I would say no, it's wrong. If we're assuming there's not God, then I don't know...I can see the example, but it doesn't exactly apply to God's scenario. I might say yes. I'll have to think about it. So, what do you think changes as it becomes god's scenario, or if he's present?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Tue May 29, 2007 6:30 pm
dboyzero Faey of the Silver Heart If we're assuming there's still God ruling the universe while you're doing this, I would say no, it's wrong. If we're assuming there's not God, then I don't know...I can see the example, but it doesn't exactly apply to God's scenario. I might say yes. I'll have to think about it. So, what do you think changes as it becomes god's scenario, or if he's present? It changes when He's present in the equation because only God is allowed the right of creating life and taking it. His scenario is different, like I said, because His goals, His reasoning, and His end result is different, and His plan are perfect, not just assumed perfect because He said so. If they weren't, He wouldn't be God. sweatdrop It's always hard to explain to someone who doesn't believe...Sorry if I don't do that good a job about it.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Wed May 30, 2007 2:44 pm
But that's exactly my point. What gives anyone that kind of right to power or infallibity, deity or otherwise? It seems your definition of a god implies that they are infallible in every way, but in the end, you're still just assuming that it is so and hoping for the best. Aside from him making everything, what gives him that right?
It's not that I don't believe in a god, I'm more agnostic than anything. I just have these sorts of talks for fun.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Wed May 30, 2007 7:28 pm
I really don't think he would have a right. These are living, thinking people, able to run their lives as they see fit.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Thu May 31, 2007 3:41 pm
dboyzero But that's exactly my point. What gives anyone that kind of right to power or infallibity, deity or otherwise? It seems your definition of a god implies that they are infallible in every way, but in the end, you're still just assuming that it is so and hoping for the best. Aside from him making everything, what gives him that right? It's not that I don't believe in a god, I'm more agnostic than anything. I just have these sorts of talks for fun. It's more like, what gives us the right to decide what's right? How can we, who were merely created and fallible in every way, tell people and decide how it should be? How is power or infallibility of a deity a right? It's a prerequisite. That's what makes God God, isn't it? You're right. I am just believing and having faith that He exists and saved me and is infallible. My definition of 'a god' doesn't imply they're infallible. It's my definition 'the God.' How is a fallible god worthy to be served? Gah...I'm never very good at describing what I believe and why. Am I making any sense at all?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Fri Jun 01, 2007 1:54 pm
No, you're making plenty of sense. I've had a bit of experience with religion, though you may not believe it. In the end, it's your choice of what to believe or not, so we can all respect each others' decisions.
With that, I think we've more or less come to the final line of this debate. People will either decide that they believe that the creator is infallible or not, or whether one exists or not, and that ultimately decides whether or not it should be considered right or wrong or good or evil.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Fri Jun 01, 2007 5:55 pm
dboyzero No, you're making plenty of sense. I've had a bit of experience with religion, though you may not believe it. In the end, it's your choice of what to believe or not, so we can all respect each others' decisions. With that, I think we've more or less come to the final line of this debate. People will either decide that they believe that the creator is infallible or not, or whether one exists or not, and that ultimately decides whether or not it should be considered right or wrong or good or evil. Agreed. People always have the choice in what they believe, be it right or wrong. Since we seem to have come to the end, I would like to thank you both for the lovely debate, and I hope I did it justice.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Mon Jun 04, 2007 7:43 pm
I do find that a bit ironic, my parents are so pro-catholic that it makes me want to not do anything involving religion even more.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Tue Jun 12, 2007 11:47 am
I'm nondenomination so I can answer this with no monkey on my back.
Nither is more evil. The killing is the evil part. It doesn't matter if you killed 1 or 1mil+ people. Your just as guilty either way.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Thu Jun 14, 2007 11:17 am
ok lets consider this senerio
what if hypotheticly god is truly evil and satan(lucifer or what every you call him) is good. its kinda like 2 groups of people who will try and convince you that the alternate group is vile and their group is truly good
what if that is the case and not what we think after all they are supposedly on a higher plane of thought and existance than us and their fore hypotheticly know more than every human on the planet
also to what dboyzero said you cant be omi-potent, omni sceint, and omny-present and still say we have free will its impossible because then your whole life is planed from start to finish not only that but the whole universe from creation to destruction every micro second has a plan, a purpose
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sat Jun 16, 2007 7:35 pm
I don't think Satan is good ... I just think that the whole religion is messed up.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Mon Jun 18, 2007 12:49 pm
m... I will have to agree with Ultra Sarah on that...yes I think there are parts of the religion that are mess up but I think it is mainly because people have 'changed' the real concept of it through the years especially in Europe (remember that back in the day if you weren’t Christian you will get killed? that's a good example on how people have messed up with it)
In my case I used to be Catholic/Christian. But I changed due to the fact that every time I tried to ask questions they will just simply answer with "That's how things are, if you don't believe in it, you will have to go to hell" or something around those lines...so I left that religion and began to basically study on my own and I noticed that some of the things that the churt 'teaches' are really messed up compared to what the Bible says...example: they say that there is a heaven and a hell and that when people die they will go to either of those...in the Bible though it says that there is none, and describes death as a 'sleep'. I still believe in God and I am more inclined into thinking that God is not necessary ‘evil, but yeah sometimes I do have my doubts.
Well that's my point of view on that matter.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Wed Jun 27, 2007 5:00 pm
I feel extraordinarily awkward jumping into a debate pretty much at the end but I just wish to clarify one thing.
Catholicism and Christianity are actually two different groups of a split religion. Catholicism was the original Church and was in place first. Some members of the Church didn't approve of the way that it was being run and decided to break away from the church. These Protestants, Christians, formed their own church away from the Catholic Church. The Protestants unable to unanimously agree on how to run their new church, split into denominational groups with different fundamental beliefs and views. Some take things literally and others metaphorically on certain key issues.
For this reason I feel it is unfair to group together the Catholic Church and the Protestant Churches as one unit. It's also unfair to group together all Protestant Churches because they all have different standpoints making them, in essence, different Churches. All Christians shouldn't be subjected to generalizations based on one persons experience with only a fraction of the entire population.
Thank you for letting me say that and if anyone has anything they would like to ask, please do. biggrin
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Wed Jun 27, 2007 7:00 pm
Luft Kreig I feel extraordinarily awkward jumping into a debate pretty much at the end but I just wish to clarify one thing. Catholicism and Christianity are actually two different groups of a split religion. Catholicism was the original Church and was in place first. Some members of the Church didn't approve of the way that it was being run and decided to break away from the church. These Protestants, Christians, formed their own church away from the Catholic Church. The Protestants unable to unanimously agree on how to run their new church, split into denominational groups with different fundamental beliefs and views. Some take things literally and others metaphorically on certain key issues. For this reason I feel it is unfair to group together the Catholic Church and the Protestant Churches as one unit. It's also unfair to group together all Protestant Churches because they all have different standpoints making them, in essence, different Churches. All Christians shouldn't be subjected to generalizations based on one persons experience with only a fraction of the entire population. Thank you for letting me say that and if anyone has anything they would like to ask, please do. biggrin Well ... I don't see how that changes what we're saying. Could you please explain?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
