Simtropolis Religion Thread

[LexusInfernus 908]

1 call it what you want. if I know A is a reasonn for B then I know it. Otherwhise I wouln't have found out.

2 I didn't say there only where religious conflicts, and I don't care which caused more deaths. Fact is: Religious stuff caused millions of deaths. Stop playing that down.

3A Why do we have to gender when writing textes? Why do video games and movies get age-ratings? Why shoudn't religious documents get such reviews too?

3B Yes, I had to visit churches sometimes and I've even been christened once (a long time ago). And as I told you in my last post: 1% is enough to give some idiots the "food" they need to go crazy. 1% is enough to ease legitimation for violent acts. But I actually think it's more than 1%.
Now you're starting with extremists - which are another expression of religious-motivated violence. Just interpretating theese 1% you mentioned. Why didn't they interpretate the other 99% if religion only preys for peace?

1. That is circular logic. I know A causes B because if I didn't know, I wouldn't have come up with. But since I did it must mean A causes B. 

2. I have never played it down, I have put it in historical context. History itself plays the role of religion down. Religion just isn't the historical villain. 

3a. Why should they? We don't rate books and we don't rate ideas, we only rate images. Religion is an idea written down in a book. You can't rate or review it. 

3b. 1% ripped completely out of context and willfully ignoring all the parts that contradict that 1% (essentially the rest of the bible) can legitimize some pretty bad stuff. But is that the standard you should hold religion, or anything else to? The standard of what it can do if you willfully abuse it to twist it for some very different and violent purpose? Because if thats the standard you go by, well I think you'll find you can even use My Little Pony to incite violence against other people. 

Also, while extremists may sometimes twist and abuse religion to get it to justify some of their beliefs, its important to note that very few extremists are actually extremists based solely on religion. Again we see an intersection of politics, economics, culture and religion. To blame extremism on religion alone, even if they use religion to window dress some of their views is again missing out on the other 90% of their views. 

Seriously? You're asking that in a world full of war?

I didn't say that religion does nothing but proclaiming war. I just said that it legitimates violence up to a specific point. Turning my words into your favor won't help you finish this argument.

I'm asking it in a world that has never been more peaceful than right now. Yes yes, I know, with the refugee crisis in Europe, the conflict in Syria along with a bunch of other small conflicts it may seem the world is on fire, but if we look at the statistics, the amount of actual conflicts in the world right now is pretty low. 

And same thing. If religion tells people its okay to murder other people up to a certain point, then why aren't more people doing it? Why are most people deeply uncomfortable with the idea of hurting other human beings, even when their religion supposedly justifies it? Could it be that perhaps their religion doesn't justify it because unlike you they don't actually focus solely on those few violent verses and instead focus on the ones that preach peace and tolerance? Could it be that people are not inclined towards senseless violence? 

And whenever it does get used to supposedly justify the violence, we can clearly see religion didn't cause the violence, other factors did and religion just gets used as window dressing. Tell me, if you were to hypothetically murder someone so you can steal their cash and then use religion to justify it, is religion at fault or responsible for your murder? Even when the reason you committed the crime was because you wanted the other persons cash? Even when you used religion as a justification after the fact? 

2 middle east examples:

Introduction of Israel > new state for the jews > religion motivated action. (+territorial motivation on palestine side)

Shiites and sunnites - both living  in rich lands, no obvious reason to fight each other, except for a religious problem: their endless argument who is allowed to be the religious leader. > religion motivated.

The 'new state for the Jews' was not a religiously motivated action. No one gave the Jews Israel because they though God wanted that. By that time in history, Jews were seen as a people in the same way gypsies are seen as a people. And given the historic experiences the Jews had to go through, along with some earlier made promises by the British as a result of zionist lobbying, they were given land. Ever since than, the conflict with the Palestinians has been about land and whether or not either the Palestinians deserve to have their own state or whether the Israeli's deserve to have their own state. Religion plays no role in this. 

And no, the reason Shiites and Sunnites are at each others throat all the time is because the Shia-Sunni divide is also a tribal divide. The Middle East is filled with tribes, and each tribe is either Shia or Sunni, broadly speaking. As a result, natural competition between two tribes gets turned into a 'Shia-Sunni' conflict because the tribes happen to be of a different religion. Not that this is actually the case, its just old tribal rivalry that lays at the heart of the conflict and nothing else. Another cause for conflict that may appear to be because religion in your eyes but in reality has absolutely nothing to do with it, is the current mess in Iraq and Syria. Both countries consist of various tribes each belong to a different group within Islam. When Saddam was in power, he gave all the power in Iraq to people of his own tribe, who all happened to be Sunni's. This pissed of the Shia's because the Sunni's in Iraq only were about 20% of the population while the Shia's were 60%. It meant that 20% ruled over 80% of the people and that is obviously unfair. Then when Saddam got removed, the US installed a Shia led government in Iraq, which promptly purged the government of all Sunni officials and gave all the good positions in the government to Shia's. Obviously, this pissed off the Sunni's because they were losing their privileged status. Hence them backing insurgent groups like IS, which is Sunni in nature. Are they fighting with the Shia's because of some difference in interpretation of Islam? No, absolutely not, they are fighting because they want access to power and wealth, access that was denied to them. Religion is only used as a way to identify members of both groups. The exact same thing is also happening in Syria, only there instead of having essentially three large groups like in Iraq, there are even more religious and ethnic groups in Syria, who all are fighting over access to power and wealth. 

To call the current conflict in the Middle East a religious conflict is both lazy and racist. Its not, religion has nothing to do with it, this conflict is purely about politics, about power and about wealth. 

 

Religion is there and it's often associated with a specific group of people. And you can't deny that assocoiations which are negative lead to conflicts. The religion might just be a link but it's there.

In some cases yes. But again, proper context. Race, social status, class, wealth, gender, education, all those things can and are being used on a much wider scale than religion. 

Nope. I got the feeling you don't carefully read what I write. I said that an attacker is associated with a religion. This gets followed by associating all members of a religion with something specific one group of members of that specific religion did. which causes hate against another religion.

If an attacker can be associated with a religion, its far from certain that people actually do that. Look at the United States. If its an Arab that kills someone, hes a Muslim terrorist. If its a white guy who shoots up a school, no matter what religion hes from the guy is deemed as mentally insane. If its a black guy that attacks someone, again no matter the religion the guy is deemed a thug. Three different people, all three killing one, all three getting a different negative association with them, and only in the case of the Arab is that a religious association. 

Not all it seems. See your lines about radicalist groups further up the page.

 No, not all, only a tiny minority has problems though. But again, its unreasonable to judge a group of people based on the worst elements of that group. I mean, you don't measure what the people of a certain country are like by only looking at the convicted criminals now do you? So why would you do the same for an essentially even larger group of people? 

It says "Someone had to create this" At point 1 you want to see a proof. Is there a proof over here? I see the assumption that a god or other creature created the universe up to a specific point. This assumption is - in my eyes - nothing but a easy explanation for the cause of the big bang. - for which the real explanation still has to be found. But mother earth once was flat as a discus, was it?. Time will give us true knowledge.

No it doesn't. It says that if its possible to create an actual simulation of the universe we are likely in one ourselves. Because when its possible to make such a simulation, there are probably more out there, and the more simulations there are, the lower the chance of us being the first who created the simulation. And if we are in a simulated universe, it logically means someone had to build our simulation, assemble the hardware, create the proper code, etc. Hence, our universe being created. 

[A Nonny Moose 8,261]

Ecclesiastes I, 10 [KJB] applies to all this discussion.  It has all been hashed out before.

Some biblical writings are worthy of note.

[Skimbo 304]

1. I stop that argument about logic because you simply will turn a fact (A caused B) into something elles because you don't want to see that a fact can proove itself. As we're discussing about two letters set into a relation, this won't lead to anything.

2 You did.

3a Why shouldn't they?

3b why should I rip 1% out of the context? How do you know it's 1%? I guess you can't proof that fact it's just 1%. And what the hell does this have to doo with MLP? (Which I guess also features evil characters??)

 

I'm asking it in a world that has never been more peaceful than right now.

I don't care if the world is more peaceful than ever. It's still full of war. Using the logic you just used, I can assume that it might be more peaceful because there are more atheists than ever before for a long time of history.

And same thing. If religion tells people its okay to murder other people up to a certain point, then why aren't more people doing it?

Ain't enough people doing it already?

The 'new state for the Jews' was not a religiously motivated action. No one gave the Jews Israel because they though God wanted that.

One last time: The nazis started their manslaughter on the jews because they where jews. Jews are members of the jewish religion. They where killed for their religion. The introduction of the state was caused by millions of people who have been killed because of their religion. The nazis initially decided to get rid of the jews because there already was a specific cind of hate against them in the german population. This hate can be rooted back towards their richdom which has been caused by a religious rule that forbids christians to borrow money and earn profits from it. This leads to the following conclusion: Religion caused their deaths even without activeley causing them. I don't need a wording in a holy script that says "KILL SOMEONE", all I need is a little difference between two religions. Without the jews, the Nazis might have found a different group of people victim or, something rather likeley,  would not even have made it that far, as their general "foe" would have been missing and would not have helped them to win elections. 

Religion is only used as a way to identify members of both groups.

So you basically agree with the words you attack next.

Religion is there and it's often associated with a specific group of people. And you can't deny that assocoiations which are negative lead to conflicts. The religion might just be a link but it's there.

About your attack: Other things might also play a role but you see? It's there! And maybe it's the very link that causes a percentage of the deaths caused by this links. So it already caused deaths.

Look at the United States. If its an Arab that kills someone, hes a Muslim terrorist.

And that's exactly what I meant. He's linked to muslims eventhrough he does not even have to be muslim, he just has to have an arab name. This produces hate agains muslims. Therefore it produces hate against a religion, therefore we got a religion as the link we've ust discovered a few lines aboth. And maybe some really mentally insane person now kills an innocent muslim simply because another muslim did a stupid thing. And another death caused by religion.

 No, not all, only a tiny minority has problems though. But again, its unreasonable to judge a group of people based on the worst elements of that group. I mean, you don't measure what the people of a certain country are like by only looking at the convicted criminals now do you? So why would you do the same for an essentially even larger group of people? 

A fanatic minority is enough! You don't need more to cause serious problems.

No it doesn't. It says that if its possible to create an actual simulation of the universe we are likely in one ourselves. Because when its possible to make such a simulation, there are probably more out there, and the more simulations there are, the lower the chance of us being the first who created the simulation. And if we are in a simulated universe, it logically means someone had to build our simulation, assemble the hardware, create the proper code, etc. Hence, our universe being created. 

+ or - Endless starts by zero. One cause has to be first. Even a system involved in itself needs to be created one day. Therefore we need something that creates this loop. Like an animator draws a simple cartoon loop animation. And there we got him: A god. So basically something without proof of existence.

 

[Fantozzi 4,067]

 

One last time: The nazis started their manslaughter on the jews because they where jews. Jews are members of the jewish religion. They where killed for their religion. The introduction of the state was caused by millions of people who have been killed because of their religion. The nazis initially decided to get rid of the jews because there already was a specific cind of hate against them in the german population. This hate can be rooted back towards their richdom which has been caused by a religious rule that forbids christians to borrow money and earn profits from it. This leads to the following conclusion: Religion caused their deaths even without activeley causing them. I don't need a wording in a holy script that says "KILL SOMEONE", all I need is a little difference between two religions. Without the jews, the Nazis might have found a different group of people victim or, something rather likeley,  would not even have made it that far, as their general "foe" would have been missing and would not have helped them to win elections. 

Sorry to interupt. This is wrong. Nazis regarded jews as a minor 'race'. There were other 'races' they regarded as minor. Nazis weren't interested in religion. They didn't care for christians too.

[Skimbo 304]

The next one, who didn't read properly.

. This hate can be rooted back towards their richdom which has been caused by a religious rule that forbids christians to borrow money and earn profits from it.

The nazis used this basic unhappyness of the christian majority which was caused by them seeing the  jewish minority being richer than them on average. This hate has been cuased by the religious rule. The nazis didn't express this as hate against religion but it indirectly it was as the initial part the Nazis used was caused by religion.

[NMUSpidey 3,956]

Let's take a week to step back away from the Religion Thread before we say something we might regret.  Temporary lock for us all to cool down.

 

EDIT:  unlocked.  Please be kind to each other.  Enjoy!

  Edited November 25, 2015 by NMUSpidey  

[Ocram's Razr 963]

There are a few things I'm unsure of. Could someone help me?

 

I'm a baptized and confirmed Catholic but I consider myself a progressive practicing Christian (not a practicing Catholic). What are the implications and labels?

 

Is it true that the main theological difference between Judaism, Christianity, and Islam is that Jews haven't recognized any Emmanuel yet, Christians recognize Jeshua of Nazareth (son of the Virgin Miriam, who descended from David and was betrothed to Josep at the time, they still underwent Holy Matrimony on time), and Muslims recognize Mohammed? The Episcopalian Church split from the Church of England in the 18th Century AD, which itself was founded so that Henry VIII could divorce, kill, and steal with impunity. The difference between Catholicism and Lutheranism is the reformation by Martin Luther. What are the difference between Lutheranism and other Protestant churches?  What's with the LDS/Mormon church?

[A Nonny Moose 8,261]

OK, as a non-practising Roman Catholic who is not only confirmed but a former member of a couple of lay orders, I'll try to take on these questions for you, Marco.

First, let's look at Martin Luther.  Luther didn't want a schism of any kind, he was a reformer.  At that time, the Church was decadent beyond belief.  It was a true practising monarchy with a fully corrupt administration that was interested only in acquiring wealth.  Unfortunately the response he got made him into a fugitive and resulted in the formation of the Lutheran sect.  You can read this in pretty much any history of the Lutheran Church.

Once Luther's movement appeared, the Church became vulnerable to others such as John Knox (Presbyterian) and others, notably some Swiss sects following the writings of Jacob Amun, (Amish) all of whom became more Judaic than the Jews, falling in love with the old testament.

Christianity is a Judaic sect (Christ was a devout Jew), and while preaching a new order had no intentions of upsetting the applecart for the Judaic faith, just some reforms, but there you are.  Because He claimed to be the Son of God (part of the Trinity), He believed he could reset things and certainly tried.  Unfortunately, He (knew) that the Sanhedrin would have him executed by the civil power (being God can be a terrible thing).

So the Jews continue with status quo ante.  The Muslims are an Arab (read Judaic) sect that started about 600 A.D. with the writings of the Prophet Muhammad, who was also a persecuted figure.  While the Jews don't acknowledge Christ, the Muslims see him as a great Prophet.  Unfortunately, much of modern Islam is stuck in the Middle Ages with the Sharia.  Tends to make life short, dark and ugly.

So things boiled along to the destruction of the Roman Empire by the usual decadence we can see in our time, but he Romans also poisoned themselves by putting sugar of lead (Lead Acetate) in their wine to sweeten it, resulting in many cases of heavy metal poisoning (insanity among other symptoms) especially among the ruling classes.  I think Tiberius, Nero and Caligula were prima facie cases.  If you want to try a Roman philosopher look at Marcus Aurelius.

Now things proceeded to the Dark (Middle) Ages with the Church in charge of everything, including the ruling classes who were convinced they were anointed by God.  This was ended by Henry VIII who merely wanted a legitimate heir, but the Vatican had its head where the sun don't shine, as usual.  What they had planned for the English monarchy is not known to me, but could well be buried in the Vatican Library.  Henry had only one male heir that lived, a boy named Henry fitz Henry who was never legitimized as he was a by-blow.  Too bad.  This caused the war of the Tudor Succession which was eventually won by Elizabeth I.  We could go on and on here since this is our history.

So now we come to the American colonization and the Church of Jesus Christ of the Latter Day Saints. (LDS or Mormon).  This is the result of some hallucinations by a man named Joseph Smith who claimed to have found the golden plates of Nephi or was given them by the angel Moroni.  These contained more old testament about the lost tribe of Israel which migrated to North America.  You can read all this in their literature (the Book of Mormon, A Pearl of Great Price).  Of course these golden plates were taken back and were gone without a trace and nobody else ever saw them.  (How convenient.)  So, in effect this is yet another Judaic sect.  There were a lot of rather toxic intestinal parasites around in those days.

Now, my personal faith consists of the Great Commandment of Jesus Christ:  "Thou shalt love the Lord, thy God, with they whole mind and thy whole soul; and they neighbour for the love of Him."  That's it.  Nice and simple.  I try to follow the principles of Jesus as far as I can, but I don't make an issue of it.  I do not proselytize.  At the same time, I am also a scientist.  I do believe in the steady state "Sicut erat in principio, et nunc, et sempre."  There is nothing wrong with the big bang, as long as you look at it as a steady state event.  I do question everything.  If this makes me look atheistic at times, well, so be it. 

I don't let my philosophy get in the way of science, and try to be as nexial about science as I can.  I've been around for a relatively long time, nearly four score now, and you can accumulate a lot of knowledge in that time if you learn something new every day.  For this reason I am interested in the goings on at the LHC, and with the new satellite that was just put up to detect gravity waves.  If we can detect gravity waves then this is kind of the final proof of general relativity which will then graduate from theory to physical law.  Gravitons could be very interesting.  I don't have a problem with Quantum Theory, but poor Einstein never came on board.  Of course, nobody has ever seen a wavicle, and probably never will.  Schrodinger's cat says 'Meoxh'.

[raynev1 1,886]

I learn something new everyday , if not I feel a day was wasted .

[A Nonny Moose 8,261]

I learn something new everyday , if not I feel a day was wasted .

Yep.  Today's event was the launch of the new satellite and the U.S. courts in Hawaii putting the brakes on the Thirty Meter Telescope.  They'll come around eventually or a new venue for the TMT will be found.  I think the best place for such a gadget might be the dark side of the Moon.  Better seeing, and it can be even bigger.

[Ocram's Razr 963]

Yep.  Today's event was the launch of the new satellite and the U.S. courts in Hawaii putting the brakes on the Thirty Meter Telescope.  They'll come around eventually or a new venue for the TMT will be found.  I think the best place for such a gadget might be the dark side of the Moon.  Better seeing, and it can be even bigger.

Thanks for the info in the previous post and thanks for reminding me to check the news! Your knowledge and wisdom are always appreciated.

[A Nonny Moose 8,261]

The first Koran?

Of course neither institution holding pages of this document will willingly give them up.  As with most antiquities from the middle east found in European collections these were taken (stolen) during periods of conquest.  Archaeology in those days was simply a form of rape¹ in the literal sense.  Material was seized and carried off.

And as the article states, Islam is a Johnny-come-lately as religions go.  The only ones later are the Church of Jesus Christ of the Latter Day Saints, and (ycch) Scientology.  Protestant cults are still offshoots of Christianity.

________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

1.  For those with no language nor classical training, the English word 'rape' comes directly from the Latin verb rapere ::- to seize and carry off.  It has no sexual connotations whatever.

[MintberryCrunch 83]

You learn something new about 'rape' every day. Just kidding--I knew that already

Interesting article, though.The fact that it dates from the 7th century is pretty fascinating. 

[A Nonny Moose 8,261]

^ Why, did you think Islam was as old as the other main religions?  Some of the eastern systems are older than Judaism and Mosaic law is the one that most of western civilization is built upon.

In a way, I really feel sorry of Akhenaton.  If he had made monotheism fly during the main sequence of the Egyptian empire, things would be totally different now.  I am sure that over time Aton (the sun god) would have become much more abstract, and the cult of Yahweh would not have flourished.  An interesting premise, perhaps, for a writer of historical novels in the Egyptian time frame.  The problem was that he failed to sell the idea to the established priesthood, especially of Amen (the previous and future sun god).  Pharaoh wasn't much of a systems man.

[MintberryCrunch 83]

No, it's because that would mean it's a very early copy for Islam. I know when Islam originated--I'm 'learnèd' for a 15-year-old.

But yeah, monotheism does seem to have a way of growing and sticking around; perhaps the Egyptian religion would have been one of the Top 3 in the world if they had been able to solidify more of a "cult" around one deity. 

[Ocram's Razr 963]

"Protestant cults are still offshoots of Christianity." Well, Christianity and Islam are offshoots of Judaism and you don't see Christians and Muslims identifying as Jews, do you? I categorize religions by codified belief system (Holy Books, and in rare *ahem* Vatican *cough* cases laws, traditions, and bureaucracy). As such, I can count 2 Islamic (Shia and Sunni) religions off the top of my head, 3.5 Jewish (Orthodox, Conservative, Reform, and maybe Zionism) religions and 4.5 Christian (Vatican-dominated, independent of the Vatican but conservative/faithful to source, Protestant, entertainment (televangelists and mega churches), and cults (LDS, Mars Hill, Ministry of Life, other infamous cults (the preceding 3 are the first that come to mind) in the news, as well as other, more esoteric cults) religions. The 1st 2 Christian categories (Roman Catholic and Orthodox+Coptic+Independent Catholics+Lutherans) are compatible. Protestants are compatible with entertainers or Orthodox but rarely both. Cults are usually incompatible with all forms of true Christianity but some have the audacity to call themselves the best Christians!

[A Nonny Moose 8,261]

And what if Mumbo Jumbo god of the Congo turns out to be the big cheese, after all?

If you think about it, why would any "supreme" being care about us ants on our little blue marble?  Most scripture is written to justify some pretty terrible things.

[Fantozzi 4,067]

5 minutes ago, A Nonny Moose said:

If you think about it, why would any "supreme" being care about us ants on our little blue marble?

 

Love?

[A Nonny Moose 8,261]

An anthropomorphism I'm afraid.  We can't assign emotions to beings we know nothing about.  One of the worst examples of this was the Greek pantheon with the Norse hard upon.

[Fantozzi 4,067]

Maybe. But this world ain't no supermarket to take the sense from the shelfs. It's up to us to give sense to the world -not vice versa.

So - if you talk about a supreme something  ... give it a sense. Or ... there's no worth in talking about it..

[Ocram's Razr 963]

1 hour ago, Fantozzi said:

 

Love?

I agree with this axiom the most.

 

Yahweh was a fearsome deity which fearsomely punished the wicked when he eventually angered. 'Slow to anger' makes sense when an immortal deity (which must perceive time differently from mortals) cannot do anything small alone; if bodybuilders accidentally break hands from firm handshakes, I doubt God could do anything less subtle than lightning! That is, however, until God decided to descend from Heaven and become man (I imagine this as God purposely putting as much of itself into a human vessel (Ancients in StarGate couldn't bring much accessible memory back with them, having to lock it away (which the replicators overloaded their entire data banks trying to extract the knowledge from Daniel Jackson) or become pre-teens with short lifespans) while using such a vessel (Jeshua) as an avatar to interact with the world (one-way recording "device" with occasional 2-way communication through prayer).

During the short (by geological standards) timespan that Jeshua walked among us as a human, Yahweh had to be extremely subtle in the region and only do miracles through Jeshua. This experiment taught the technically omniscient deity how to better interact with his subjects. I consider this an experiment within the greater experiment of free will (I'm completely Anti-Calvanist) for determining how to best change the experimental conditions in hopes of optimum results. Just because one knows what love is, how it works (biologically and emotionally), what it looks like, and what results from it, doesn't mean one can easily love others or prepare oneself for falling in love.

 

I will now summarize this post.

1. The almighty deity cannot act subtly alone so prophets (and an avatar) were required.

2. Humanity was created as an experiment, testing the potential benefits of free will.

3. Without experiencing humanity through the perspective of a human, emotion was incomprehensible to God.

4. God begot Jeshua for the purposes of helping humanity through leadership and most importantly, empathy and understanding.

5. Jeshua of Nazareth (born of the virgin Miriam, a descendent of David) changed things drastically.

6. Humanity (through [mostly] unguided free will has advanced the experiment to the critical test of the hypothesis. The 21st Century will answer the question of whether free will is good (idyllic peace, prosperity, and progress in the 22nd Century) or bad (termination of experiment).

[AkemiAzula 280]

Although I do not foresee myself ever giving up atheism, the concept of Jesus is an interesting one for theoretical consideration, and free will is certainly something to consider from both religious and scientific views.

If a God in a universe with only one Aten and not a pantheon of Thors and Isises etc (fun fact my username was originally going to be Atenius but I decided upon the greek atom for its similar indivisibility and the similarity to Antonius) decided to experiment with free will in animals...

Then certainly the Jesus or messiah system is as good as any. To put oneself in human form is certainly the best way to understand the sims.

For while the Mayor may love his pretty avenues and railways and mountains, life and feeling creatures are a pretty addition to a cityscape of automation.

We can all relate to Jesus, because we all live as humans as he did. Thus whatever one thinks of him and his father and the world he made, one can not but understand him and his father through our own experiences.

Our desires, fears, sentiments... our concept of beauty and of justice... through these things we can know our creator, as he would create us in his image. Just as we Mayors create cities in our personality.

It is interesting to consider that if God and Jesus were real and not just mythical conveniences for upholding social order and western culture, that God did not react to his experiment beyond the granting of absolution to sinners and promising future absolution to truly repentent sinners.

Was he so pleased with man's treatment of his son and soul (and I certainly wouldn't volunteer for his son's job!) that he felt man was worth carrying on?

If I was Jesus I would report to my father that humans were savage and a failed experiment and would reccomend Earth be given the Alderaan treatment, but possibly I am a perfectionist.

[A Nonny Moose 8,261]

According to the theological crowd the deity, if there is one, is totally unknowable to man and it is a grievous sin to pretend to know its mind.

The faith mongers apart, we have only ourselves to reply upon.  There is absolutely no 'scientific', that is repeatable, ;proof that any such being exists, and since such beings are unknowable, there never will be.

All religions ever do is attempt to answer the big question:  What happens when I die?

I give you Mr. Shakespeare on that one: "The undiscovered country from whose bourne no man returns" - Hamlet.

As for dying, you'll find out eventually.

[Skimbo 304]

On 31.12.2015 at 8:15 AM, Mark_Kochan said:

If I was Jesus I would report to my father that humans were savage and a failed experiment and would reccomend Earth be given the Alderaan treatment, but possibly I am a perfectionist.

Actually, that's one of the most interresting thoughts about that I ever read.

Now thinking through the way this "messias" lived as human - so he had to have human felelings. Thus would be anger and rage against thoose who gave him that nice ride on the cross. >> He would say his godfather that humans were savage and a failed experiment. Thus I assume he did never exist - otherwhise - if a god would exist and this would have happened, human cind in it's today form would no longer be there.

 

Cool. Got another argument about why the Bible is a lie.

[A Nonny Moose 8,261]

But that's not the way the myth goes.  Remember, all this was dreamed up by our own people.  Wouldn't really want to call  down destruction on us all, eh?

[Skimbo 304]

2 hours ago, A Nonny Moose said:

But that's not the way the myth goes.  Remember, all this was dreamed up by our own people.  Wouldn't really want to call  down destruction on us all, eh?

They do. More or less. Threaten everyone with a bad end in hell, say that the world will be destroyed on it's last day and only the ones crazy enough to believe their fairy tales will go to heaven. (Sorry if I get offensive, I think they call that "Last judgement")

 

 

By the way: Does something similar to the last judgement also appear in other world religions?

[citycowboy 183]

basically Islam, Christianity, Judaism, and whatever the pre-Islam Iranian religion is called have a specific last judgement, and considerably, the eastern religions that have reincarnation only have judgements again and again. 

[Sabretooth78 808]

34 minutes ago, citycowboy said:

...whatever the pre-Islam Iranian religion is called...

Zoroastrianism

[krbe 193]

1 hour ago, Skimbo said:

By the way: Does something similar to the last judgement also appear in other world religions?

Not necessarily, but with your view on religions that shouldn't stop you. Buddhism for example, have a fundamentally negative outlook on all of life.

[AkemiAzula 280]

Judgment is one of the main things I find problematic about religion.

Because it is finite in nature (in our western religions of a finite universe) it implies an absolute morality and absolute definition of good and evil.

Which is like an absolute definition of beauty and ugliness. It is all subjective and anthropomorphic. You wouldn't want to marry your dog.

If I was crucified, even if I admitted guilt, I would still hate the experience, and thus if I had any feelings regarding my tormentors they would most likely be those of hate and anger, possibly also sadness and pity.

The funny thing is that despite their being no absolute morality or beauty in this relative subjective realm we all seek such absolute definition and law. We all seek meaning and justification.

Hedonistic consumerism is little better than superstitious dogma. But I think freedom of speech and thought is a good development of our 'rational age'.

If I was a gambling man my money would be on:

Technology reaching a point of singularity.

Ourselves forming 'god'.

Our creation of worlds through technology.

Either we are unable to become god or we are able and will create a new world through science.

One major problem with my theory is alternate wotlds. What defines reality from fiction, and if worlds are not connected by any dimension of relativity how can they be said to all exist?

I am a believer in Bettianism, in pure normalities. But a parallax of worlds implies a connection and thus they lose their absolute state through this. How to make multiple Heavens, each a perfect circle?