Simtropolis Religion Thread

[krbe 193]

4 minutes ago, Mark_Kochan said:

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.

And how do you know that? Those feelings are just your expectations. Victims of all kinds of awful experiences have a wide ranging field of emotions.

It's all of us who are not the victims who have a certain set of feelings regarding something that we have yet to experience.

[A Nonny Moose 8,261]

"Judge not, lest ye be judged" is somewhere in most of the scriptures of most "western" religions.

My smattering of eastern cultures and thought have not brought up the idea of a final judgement, and I think they are all steady state. No beginning, no end.

If you are looking for a final judgement of utter destruction for the earth, it will occur when the sun becomes a red giant.  Best guess now is that the solar surface could go out as far as Mars.  I don't know about fires of hell, but how about a few thousand degrees Kelvin?

Even the Latin Vulgate denies the final judgement:  "Sicut erat in principio, et nunc, et semper"  (As it was in the beginning, is now and forever).  Sounds like steady state to me.  This does not preclude the big bang.  Just says that it wasn't "the" beginning.

[krbe 193]

2 hours ago, A Nonny Moose said:

My smattering of eastern cultures and thought have not brought up the idea of a final judgement, and I think they are all steady state. No beginning, no end.

In Buddhism -- admittedly the only Eastern religion I have any knowledge of -- time is a circular affair. It is as a turning wheel; each turn has a beginning, which is the end of the previous turn.

There is also a notion of hell, Naraka. Being confined to Naraka is a time-limited punishment (dependent on kamma of course); however this limited period of time, which lasts from anything from 1.62 trillion (10¹²) to 3.4 quintillion (10¹⁸) years will likely outlast our current universe many times over.

[Ocram's Razr 963]

The Bible says "Let he who is without sin cast the first stone" as the scripture that considers judgement most bad. If we take it literally, it means that no living/mortal human being should ever carry out cruel executions in public. Instead of condemning all justice and punishment by mankind, Jeshua was the first famous person in history to protest 'Cruel and Unusual Punishment.'

 

As for my personal beliefs, I believe that thoughts cannot be sin when they are not acted upon; I believe that deep, heartfelt, contrite prayer can put a soul into a state of grace adequate to guarantee Purgatory instead of Hell for most sins; I believe that once in Hell, souls cannot leave through "normal" means (if someone dies and soul goes to Hell but is later revived (after coming out of a coma), the soul might not come back fully, at all, or alone; I believe that mammals are the only vessels capable of holding souls and that some information in a soul can be accessed (remembering what your past life knew) with great difficulty and intelligence. In order words, apes, pigs, and dogs host souls just as a human does but the soul cannot teach much besides love if the vessel is unintelligent. As soon as a mammal is capable of feeling pain, it has a soul. I believe that late-term abortions of viable fetuses is equivalent to infanticide but infanticide is less severe than homicide. I believe that the slaughter of dogs & pigs is equivalent to infanticide and that the slaughter of apes is equivalent to homicide of a child (filicide?).

[Skimbo 304]

9 hours ago, OcramSeattle said:

 I believe that mammals are the only vessels capable of holding souls and that some information in a soul can be accessed (remembering what your past life knew) with great difficulty and intelligence. In order words, apes, pigs, and dogs host souls just as a human does but the soul cannot teach much besides love if the vessel is unintelligent. As soon as a mammal is capable of feeling pain, it has a soul.

 

I don't want to be offensive against the mammals-soul-therory, but: What about - for example - ravens/crows? Theese birds show remarkable intelligence, hence, some of them are said to be even able to count things, sometimes even use tools and are able to "talk" about things (even things that happened in the past). BTW: they also recognize themselves in a mirror (and sometimes use them as we do)

>>> Way more intelligent than pigs.

 

I could continue that problem: What if a alien race - which shourley exists somewhere - is as intelligent as we are but no mammals? :P.

 

 

 

[A Nonny Moose 8,261]

Life "as we know it" may not be the only example.  The only requirement for life is the ability to reproduce.  As for intelligence, creation of mythologies may be the crucial test.

[raynev1 1,886]

   I believe everything that has a heart has a soul . The reason I believe this is that , there is a spark of energy that drives the heart . That spark of energy , I feel goes somewhere else after death . Where ? I don't know . Maybe reincarnate into another creature or maybe exits into the cosmos . I'm not quite ready to find out yet . But I'm not afraid . The body is a vessel/vehicle for the purpose of doing who knows what in this plane of existence . Life is a great mystery .

[Ocram's Razr 963]

My definition of a soul is the ability to love, suffer, and be aware not only for oneself but also for others with souls (members of the same species and especially Human Being). An organism belonging to Homo sapiens that cannot feel pain or compassion for others is not a Human Being! Intelligence and the ability to feel pleasure and anger in the absence of love is pure evil.

However, a rational person lacking a soul would stick to the most pragmatic course of action, which would include following enough laws and social norms to gain a support network instead of enemy list.

I know a lot about the cardiovascular system, nervous system, and muscle tissue. The heart uses electrical potentials from ion channels to contract in perfect rhythm. This can all be explained with biophysics and biochemistry. However, the brain is a very complex organ and does some things that are rather difficult to explain with biophysics and biochemistry alone. Our thought patterns are our essence and all our experiences are saved in our souls even after our brain forgets or dies.

[A Nonny Moose 8,261]

@raynev1

What if this information quantum winds up at the edge of the universe where all the information absorbed by black holes go?  Does this mean that one joins the cosmic dance?  There is a rule that information cannot be destroyed.

[raynev1 1,886]

   Rules are meant to be broken , like records . If not , rule makers would not have anybody to punish . When I go , I'll send a message to ST somehow to let you know where I went .

[AkemiAzula 280]

11 hours ago, OcramSeattle said:

An organism belonging to Homo sapiens that cannot feel pain or compassion for others is not a Human Being! Intelligence and the ability to feel pleasure and anger in the absence of love is pure evil.

However, a rational person lacking a soul would stick to the most pragmatic course of action, which would include following enough laws and social norms to gain a support network instead of enemy list.

 

I am of the species Homo Sapiens, or control a member of that species. I am intelligent and can feel various things. However I have yet to feel love for any fellow human and feel plenty of hatred for most of mankind. So I guess I am pure evil. I always did like Hitler.

But your second point is important too. A truly intelligent man does not commit 'evil' or crime because it is irrational to take unecessary risk and obeying 'good' or the law is rational.

Thus how do you define evil? A person acts rationally according to their intelligence level. If society values x and hates y the man of reason values x and hates y. You don't wear a swastika design in a Jewish neighbourhood.

But then does not this imply that good and evil are just social norms, and good enforced not through some sense of 'goodness' but in the same way as the law is?

If judgment existed then nobody would sin. But if sin is possible and even rewarding, and holiness difficult and punished (Jesus) and there is no sign of the existence of a God or power to judge, then according to all we know humanity, being the greatest intelligence, becomes 'god' or the judge.

Yet punishment and justice are just as subjective as beauty. And a truly rational 'god' or man with godly power would not care about avenging past martyrs or punishing dead miscreants. What logic is there in that? 

If singularity and digital intelligence which is rational become greater than mankind, computers will not care about good or evil.

My religion is that of Lord Voldemort. There is no good and evil, just power.

[Skimbo 304]

On 15.1.2016 at 8:43 AM, Mark_Kochan said:

But your second point is important too. A truly intelligent man does not commit 'evil' or crime because it is irrational to take unecessary risk and obeying 'good' or the law is rational.

Crimes can be rational and "good" things can become irrational. For example: Creature A and creature B fight for food. The only food they know at that very point. Creature A could be "evil" by killing creature B in order to get the whle food for itself > Rational for Creature A, it won't starve. Creature A could share with creature B in order to also get help from creature B > Also rational, but not always. Creature A could leave all food to creature B > Is "good" but can be irrational.

[A Nonny Moose 8,261]

Define pure evil.  Can anyone?

[LexusInfernus 908]

3 hours ago, A Nonny Moose said:

Define pure evil.  Can anyone?

Sure, easily. The problem with that though, is that such a definition is inherently subjective and therefor pointless in a discussion. My definition of pure evil may not be similar to yours. Judging between good and evil is already enough of a subjective value judgement, adding the word 'pure' in front of it only increases the subjectivity and the value judgement aspect of good or evil. 

[Ocram's Razr 963]

4 hours ago, A Nonny Moose said:

Define pure evil.  Can anyone?

The complete absence of all that is good: hope, joy, peace, altruism, kindness, awareness, et cetera...

[Skimbo 304]

Two interresting points on "true evil".

And - believe it or not - I found a point to agree with @LexusInfernus

Althrough I go one step further. The definition of pure evil might be subjective but.... Does a creature which meets the definition of pure evil to some other creatures think that it's the pure evil? I say nope.

 

 

[A Nonny Moose 8,261]

14 hours ago, LexusInfernus said:

Sure, easily. The problem with that though, is that such a definition is inherently subjective and therefor pointless in a discussion. My definition of pure evil may not be similar to yours. Judging between good and evil is already enough of a subjective value judgement, adding the word 'pure' in front of it only increases the subjectivity and the value judgement aspect of good or evil. 

My point exactly.  The whole concept of good/evil is totally subjective.  "Sufficient unto the day be the evil thereof."

[MintberryCrunch 83]

I think in general, there are things humans cross-culturally consider "evil" by and large (i.e. murder, rape, theft, etc.) but when you get down to the more technical rules it becomes more and more subjective, and then it just becomes a contest between cultures. 

[A Nonny Moose 8,261]

Is killing people evil?  Explain wars in 10 words or less. 

The people who cause wars hardly ever get killed during them, and often escape afterwards.  Why should young people be tossed into the sausage machine?

Is the state allowed to kill people?  If the state cannot create a life, is it ethical for it to take it away?  Why should the "rule of law" include a rule for killing?

[AkemiAzula 280]

So the rapists in Cologne consider themselves evil? 

Possibly the vast majority of 'cultures' agree on certain moral law, but this is because cultures form from groups of successful survivors.

Laws are created by cultures and cultures by Darwin. Thus it is not surprising that they share many morals, as most morals are practical as well as, well, moral.

If everyone murdered raped and stole it would lead to anarchy, thus cultures suppress those urges which leads to moral codes.

Religion tries to explain and justify existence and thus tries to give a deeper meaning to morality.

But in an alternative universe in theory evil could be anything and good anything. 

[krbe 193]

On 1/17/2016 at 6:25 PM, MintberryCrunch said:

I think in general, there are things humans cross-culturally consider "evil" by and large (i.e. murder, rape, theft, etc.) but when you get down to the more technical rules it becomes more and more subjective, and then it just becomes a contest between cultures. 

Advanced cultures often pride themselves in adhering to the principle of nulla poena sine lege -- but by and large, all cultures, primitive or advanced, outlaw what in England would be called common law crimes.

However, while the crimes are similar, the conditions for when it is a crime, and the eventual punishment, differ vastly. This is evident e.g. in the evolution of the notion of marital rape as actual rape.

[A Nonny Moose 8,261]

6 hours ago, krbe said:

Advanced cultures often pride themselves in adhering to the principle of nulla poena sine lege -- but by and large, all cultures, primitive or advanced, outlaw what in England would be called common law crimes.

However, while the crimes are similar, the conditions for when it is a crime, and the eventual punishment, differ vastly. This is evident e.g. in the evolution of the notion of marital rape as actual rape.

For non-Latin scholars that's "There is no penalty without the law". 

One of the greatest problems with law in the U.K. is that it is almost entirely precedent with few statutes.  Maybe this is wise, because countries that pass many laws find them falling into disuse, but never clean up the mess leaving traps and pitfalls for the unwary.  In heavily legislated jurisdictions there needs to be strong use of sunset clauses where, if a statute is not renewed before it's "best before" date it simply falls off the books.

[Ocram's Razr 963]

On January 18, 2016 at 10:54 PM, Mark_Kochan said:

So the rapists in Cologne consider themselves evil? 

Possibly the vast majority of 'cultures' agree on certain moral law, but this is because cultures form from groups of successful survivors.

Laws are created by cultures and cultures by Darwin. Thus it is not surprising that they share many morals, as most morals are practical as well as, well, moral.

If everyone murdered raped and stole it would lead to anarchy, thus cultures suppress those urges which leads to moral codes.

Religion tries to explain and justify existence and thus tries to give a deeper meaning to morality.

But in an alternative universe in theory evil could be anything and good anything. 

There is no possible way for any sane human to believe a rapist is morally good.

 

Anyway, I learned that (according to Revelations) the world will NOT end during the 2nd coming!

Pestilence will afflict the wicked without killing them; Famine will further weaken them.

The commercial capital of the dominant empire will be the scene of an epic battle that ends with earthquakes. Merchants and traders will no longer be able to sell their wares, luxuries, drugs, or slaves.

The media of the dominant culture will spread sinful messages and work with The Beast before being devoured herself.

The final battle will be a great spiritual awakening with mighty and righteous horsemen striking down sin with the sword of Truth from their mouths, led by the Savior wearing a robe stained red with the blood he himself shed on the cross long ago.

The feast of the Bride and the Lamb will be for the birds, devouring the flesh of the fallen.

The end result is paradise on Earth for the good and redemption to the souls in Hell of good people never fully exposed to Christianity.

[A Nonny Moose 8,261]

Oh, Marco, you really shouldn't put much faith in the Book of the Apocalypse and any commentaries attached thereto.  Remember, all religions are myths made up by human beings.  There is absolutely no proof of divine revelation:  It is all hearsay.  The world will end when the sun becomes a red giant.

[Ocram's Razr 963]

1. Antibiotic resistance, HIV, crop failure from drought or incorrect farming methods

2. San Francisco + Silicon Valley make technology used by all cultures. Both are sinful. The region is also rather hilly, like Roma and the depictions in Revelations.

3. Hollywood is more of a gaudy prostitute than Roma ever was.

4. Education that reveals all propaganda/PR/advertising as false

5. There will be too many corpses than the civilization will have capacity to cremate.

6. After seeing the destruction of propaganda and war, the peoples of Earth (near) unanimously decide to end violence, propaganda, and oppression.

7. My previous prediction was more dire than Revelations.

[AkemiAzula 280]

I liked the story of Ragnarok but I think I should write my own bible.

I am too creative to follow any existing mythology. Yet my gods have names like Odin and Isis. 

I could cherry pick ideas from all mythologies and construct a pretty bible saga.

The problem is I would enjoy it for its own sake and possibly make my heroes and gods rather too human.

If we take religion at its word then that is one thing but if we consider mythology just a way to teach morality and cultural values then it might be wise not to put too much faith in stories written long ago by men with motivations.

For, if no bible existed, if no gods were spoken of, would not murder and rape and torture still be thought of as 'bad'? 

Morality requireth no magical dimension to justify it.

[A Nonny Moose 8,261]

Just keep hoping that Fenris remains restrained by his ties to Yggdrasil.  Ragnarok can't happen then.

3 hours ago, OcramSeattle said:

1. Antibiotic resistance, HIV, crop failure from drought or incorrect farming methods

2. San Francisco + Silicon Valley make technology used by all cultures. Both are sinful. The region is also rather hilly, like Roma and the depictions in Revelations.

3. Hollywood is more of a gaudy prostitute than Roma ever was.

4. Education that reveals all propaganda/PR/advertising as false

5. There will be too many corpses than the civilization will have capacity to cremate.

6. After seeing the destruction of propaganda and war, the peoples of Earth (near) unanimously decide to end violence, propaganda, and oppression.

7. My previous prediction was more dire than Revelations.

1.  A man made problem if there ever was one;  there is now an HIV vaccine;  crop failure from global warming I would buy.  People are too short sighted.

2 + 3  San Adreas + Cascadia subduction zone will take care of this eventually.  Geology is stronger than "sin".

4.  Depends on who is talking.  Watch out for that word "all".

5.  Rot, Scarlett, I won't give a match.  All good holocausts deserve a plague or two.

6.  Not a chance.  It is genetic and we are predators.

7.  You forgot to mention what happens when Yellowstone blows.

[Skimbo 304]

15 hours ago, OcramSeattle said:

There is no possible way for any sane human to believe a rapist is morally good.

 

Anyway, I learned that (according to Revelations) the world will NOT end during the 2nd coming!

Pestilence will afflict the wicked without killing them; Famine will further weaken them.

The commercial capital of the dominant empire will be the scene of an epic battle that ends with earthquakes. Merchants and traders will no longer be able to sell their wares, luxuries, drugs, or slaves.

The media of the dominant culture will spread sinful messages and work with The Beast before being devoured herself.

The final battle will be a great spiritual awakening with mighty and righteous horsemen striking down sin with the sword of Truth from their mouths, led by the Savior wearing a robe stained red with the blood he himself shed on the cross long ago.

The feast of the Bride and the Lamb will be for the birds, devouring the flesh of the fallen.

The end result is paradise on Earth for the good and redemption to the souls in Hell of good people never fully exposed to Christianity.

 

1 Technically the world will end when the planet gets destroyed which most likeley will happen when the sun expands during the final period of it's life.

2 Pestilence can be cured

3  Famine will most likeley affect the technologically less advanced areas as the dominant areas will have military means to get their food

4 Earthquakes on demand are not available yet and would need precise seismic measurements and something to cause a massive detonation on a weak spot.

5 "Sins" I consider things like porn TV as entertainment, not sins. Not my cind of entertainment, through. But hey! I guess porn is older than religion.

6 Horsemen against modern weapons: Poland prooved that a stupid idea in WW2. Would feel like standing there with a minigun in a zombie shooter. Bad gameplay.

7 I call that a perverted fantasy of whoever wrote this

8 Basically if the world ends and world is defined as planet earth, it's no longer existent so it can't be "heaven on earth" plus: Heaven isn't quite the best place to live, as the human body won't withstand a life aboth clouds either (starting at the lack of wings )

 

7 hours ago, OcramSeattle said:

1. Antibiotic resistance, HIV, crop failure from drought or incorrect farming methods

2. San Francisco + Silicon Valley make technology used by all cultures. Both are sinful. The region is also rather hilly, like Roma and the depictions in Revelations.

3. Hollywood is more of a gaudy prostitute than Roma ever was.

4. Education that reveals all propaganda/PR/advertising as false

5. There will be too many corpses than the civilization will have capacity to cremate.

6. After seeing the destruction of propaganda and war, the peoples of Earth (near) unanimously decide to end violence, propaganda, and oppression.

7. My previous prediction was more dire than Revelations.

 

1 man made 1B wil be possible to be cured sooner or later 1C good spatial planning will solve this - if a country is able to do that!

2 So is basically every country in the world excep for a few under-developed 3rd world states. 2B technology isn't sinful. Sins are evil, but the definition of evil varies. Entertainment isn't evil. 3 Not every part of the world is pretty hilly.

3 And hollywood isn't the only one

4 Education against propaganda - old but true. Problem?

5 For too many corpses, your heaven on earth world would have to be cleaned up too. With even less personnel and without useful "sinful" technology. > have fun

6 So they did after WW1, formed something called "League of Nations" to prevent that happening again. A few years later, they started WW2, after that they founded something called "United Nations" to prevent that in the future. And today? ... It just takes a few decades to forget that. Have fun" throwing atomic baseballs", to quote a journalist who watched the tests near Bikini.

7 What if I predict that I will buy chewing gum tomorrow but won't do it in the end?

 

 

@ all others: Sorry, I had to bite.

 

[Ocram's Razr 963]

Really an allegory for a decadent capital city of an oppressive empire. Rome was built atop 7 hills.

Rev17:18 “The woman whom you saw is the great city, which reigns over the kings of the earth.”

I apologize for the misunderstanding. Technology is good; my definition of a good deed is an innovation (technological, philosophical, economic, etc) that sustainably increases the sum of human happiness. San Francisco and Silicon Valley are sinful (see: Sex, Drugs, and Silicon Valley by CNN).

Everything makes sense once the confusion is cleared up. The good people--remaining after truth and love vanquish all evil--will avoid areas of death (and live off the land or in virtuous cities) and let nature clear up biodegradable waste. After the birds eat, the worms will eat, and it would only take a couple years (a blink of the eye in the grand scheme of things) before the corpses biodegrade. Once humanity sheds off evil, learns to live sustainably, and begins to recover, the vast majority of scientific progress will be accessible (once they return to the desolate cities to rebuild better than before) and all moral scientific progress will pick up the pace (faster than now, when it has to compete for resources with less ethical experiments in this greedy world).

The scenario of nuclear war has been the predominant story in the media since WWII. I believed it the likeliest scenario for this century. I still believe that our civilization will destroy itself but now I have hope that a new and better one will replace it. I also believe that WMD warfare will be limited to chemical and biological because carcinogenic pollution spills can be worse than infectious plagues. 

 

FYI: Revelations 16 & 17 is the source material. NASB is the best translation.

  Edited January 21, 2016 by OcramSeattle  
Edit 3

[philforhockey51 4,211]

How are geographical regions sinful?

The true blockage of progress is religion.

So according to you there are bad people and good people and somehow the bad people will go bye bye and the good people will not be affected, like only good people live in one area. Apparently in the Seattle area where the development of a $7 coffee is a good thing? The bad people live where the sports rivals live in the San Fran area and meanwhile we on the east coast couldn't give two licks about either so... you're evil and are holding back our society, please stop thanks