RSS 2.0 Feed

» Welcome Guest Log In :: Register

Pages: (4) < [1] 2 3 4 >   
  Topic: Brownie points, This should win some good will< Next Oldest | Next Newest >  
skeptic



Posts: 1163
Joined: May 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Mar. 11 2008,00:05   

Southern Baptists vow to fight Global Warming!

and no, I'm not referring to the fire and brimstone variety.

  
Nomad



Posts: 311
Joined: July 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Mar. 11 2008,04:23   

Color me a bit suspicious of statements like this for the moment.  I mean if in two years' time you can show me news clippings about the baptists mobilizing significant voter turnout to get legislation passed to help curb global warming that'll be something.  Show me photos of churches nationwide covered in solar panels and you'll impress me.

But a church group making a statement that they're concerned about something fails to thrill me to the core, however.  This sounds more like a PR move than a call for change to me.

But then I'm a cynic.

  
Kristine



Posts: 3061
Joined: Sep. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Mar. 11 2008,11:24   

Frankly, I’ll take what I can get. What can I say but, “Welcome,” while understanding full well that they’ll eventually take credit for alerting the world and even blame the people who have been of the forefront of this for “doing nothing.” Who knows.
But sooner or later it has to come down to population control, and I don’t suppose they’ll ever take ownership of that.
Quote
His professor had compared destroying God's creation to "tearing a page out of the Bible."
"That struck me. It broke me," the younger Merritt said in an interview, "and that was the impetus that began a life change, a shift of perspective for me."

This kind of thing makes me aware of the gulf that has always existed between me and others, because despite my love of books I always cared more about nature than any book, and never steered myself by it (no, not even The God Delusion). I wish I could understand this gulf but I don’t think I will.

--------------
Which came first: the shimmy, or the hip?

AtBC Poet Laureate

"I happen to think that this prerequisite criterion of empirical evidence is itself not empirical." - Clive

"Damn you. This means a trip to the library. Again." -- fnxtr

  
podzolboy



Posts: 8
Joined: Dec. 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Mar. 12 2008,00:11   

Despite my misgivings and the religious right's well documented history of abusing science I to welcome any kind of statement that recognizes the reality of global warming and the science behind it.  It will be interesting to see how the congregations represented by these people react.  I can only hope they will walk the walk.  But it begs the question of why they can provisionally accept the science behind global warming yet remain woefully ignorant of 150 years of progress in evolutionary science.

  
philbert



Posts: 20
Joined: Feb. 2008

(Permalink) Posted: Mar. 12 2008,05:02   

My first reaction is similar to Kristine's; it's better that they're on board than not, so fair enough, fine, whatever.

But this sort of thing never ceases to baffle me with the sheer weirdness of the religious (especially monotheist, especially Christian) mind. So you wake up one day to the fact that we might need to do something about the environment. Or, similarly, about poverty, disease and general misery. Okay.

How on earth does that (quite right) impulse not then destroy your faith?

Because, clearly, your God isn't doing much about the problem. Certainly not as much as your religion stipulates he could. So he doesn't care as much as you do, in which case you're now in fundamental disagreement, so why keep worshipping? Or maybe he does care about the problem, but cares more that we fix it ourselves than it be fixed - which is just plain weird, so why keep worshipping?

It seems to me that any slight charitable impulse in a religious person should bring a minor version of the Problem of Evil (the Problem of Things Being Messed Up, perhaps) crashing down around them. But it just never seems to.

The wonders of cognitive dissonance, I guess. Just baffling.

  
dheddle



Posts: 540
Joined: Sep. 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Mar. 12 2008,06:50   

philbert,

       
Quote
How on earth does that (quite right) impulse [environmental concern]not then destroy your faith?

The wonders of cognitive dissonance, I guess. Just baffling.


It's not cognitive dissonance. Cognitive dissonance is when a person holds two views that they know are in tension or conflict--not when they hold two views that you think are in tension or conflict. (If that were the case, that others thinking your opinions are not self-consistent was the criterion, then everyone would be in a state of cognitive dissonance.) That fact that you think that that the slightest charitable impulse is a problem for Christianity (a position which in my opinion comes as close to being manifestly absurd as any I've heard in a while) does not make charitable work a thorny theological issue for me. I do not see one iota of theological problem when I have a charitable impulse. (The very thought makes the mind reel.) Ergo, no cognitive dissonance.

--------------
Mysticism is a rational enterprise. Religion is not. The mystic has recognized something about the nature of consciousness prior to thought, and this recognition is susceptible to rational discussion. The mystic has reason for what he believes, and these reasons are empirical. --Sam Harris

   
skeptic



Posts: 1163
Joined: May 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Mar. 12 2008,07:37   

philbert, read the Bible.  It's quite obvious throughout that God does what he does and we have no clue as to why in most cases.  In fact there's an entire Book to the point that you're not going to know why because you're incapable of understanding it.  Human hubris is an amazing thing to me and a very poor foundation for the questioning of faith.

  
philbert



Posts: 20
Joined: Feb. 2008

(Permalink) Posted: Mar. 12 2008,13:44   

Heddle: Fair enough, I was using the popular sense of cognitive dissonance, rather than the technical one. But you know what I mean, and you don't really bother to address the actual tension I mentioned, instead opting to just poke at a piece of terminology in my last line. How is it "manifestly absurd" to wonder why charitably-minded Christians don't themselves wonder why God isn't obviously chipping in with the projects they apparently believe in?

Skeptic: (I do love how you blithely assume I haven't read the Bible, by the way.) Doesn't it strike you that a God about whom you could say "we have no clue" why he does what he does "in most cases" was a rather poor object for "faith" Why would you continue to worship a thing you could say that about?

  
dheddle



Posts: 540
Joined: Sep. 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Mar. 12 2008,13:54   

Philbert,

Because the question “why do bad things happen” has long been understood by theologians as adequately answered by a convolution of man’s free will, man’s corrupted nature, and God’s permissive (as opposed to decretive) will. (And, at rare times—say for the Egyptians of Moses’ time, as a result of God’s decretive will.)  That’s one answer. The other is: given that Jesus calls us to charity, and that the second greatest commandment is to love our neighbor, it simply boggles the mind that our positively responding to that charge would somehow be viewed as a theological problem.

--------------
Mysticism is a rational enterprise. Religion is not. The mystic has recognized something about the nature of consciousness prior to thought, and this recognition is susceptible to rational discussion. The mystic has reason for what he believes, and these reasons are empirical. --Sam Harris

   
philbert



Posts: 20
Joined: Feb. 2008

(Permalink) Posted: Mar. 12 2008,13:57   

Maybe an analogy will help.

I believe in certain "charitable" things very strongly. And when I see the government here -- one which I voted for, and one which generally shares my politics -- not following through on them, distracting itself with pointless issues, or outright undermining the things I believe we as a society should be doing, it's downright depressing.

Now, if I believed there was a morally-perfect and ludicrously-powerful Chairman of the Universe, and he seemed to be acting just like that, I'd have thought it'd be faith-shakingly alarming. But apparently not, for most Christians.

The only reason I can think of for them not being wracked with that cognitive dissonance -- in the proper sense of the word -- is that they're just not thinking things through.

  
skeptic



Posts: 1163
Joined: May 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Mar. 12 2008,14:20   

There's your problem.  Government is answerable to you whereas God is not.  In fact, it is completely the other way around.  You are answerable to God.

Most Christians accept that God requires certain things of them and not the other way around for a multitude of reasons, chief of which is just who do you think you are?  As God said to Job, where were you when I created the heaven and the earth?  Does that make any sense?

  
philbert



Posts: 20
Joined: Feb. 2008

(Permalink) Posted: Mar. 12 2008,21:31   

For a certain value of "sense", yes. It's coherent, sure. But it's pretty obviously immoral and barbaric and generally an attitude unworthy of worship.

It's not that I don't understand the usual theological defenses. It's that they're clearly pretty freaking awful. You seem to be saying that your God could make things a lot better, but just doesn't want to, but still claims to be morally perfect, but acts for morally obtuse reasons, and when questioned (e.g., by Job) just resorts to a very playground response of "well, I'm bigger than you, what are you going to do about it?".

The fact that you are okay with this is what baffles me.

(I'm glad you're not so quick to invoke the Free Will defense as Heddle, though. That one seems even less of a starter, and is even more obviously a late-in-the-game invention by the theologians. You wouldn't say, for example, that it crops up a lot in the actual, you know, Bible. Certainly not in the treatment of people during the Flood, or in Egypt, or in any tribe God felt like helping to wipe out -- and so on, and so on, on and on.)

  
hereoisreal



Posts: 745
Joined: Feb. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Mar. 12 2008,22:32   

One doesn't have to be a mind reader to know that God has plans.
God sometimes kills those who try to get in his way, and sometimes kills those who offer to help.
IMO, global warming or cooling are not on  his list of priorities,
which, by the way, are posted on page 16 of my thread.

Zero

--------------
360  miracles and more at:
http://www.hereoisreal.com/....eal.com

Great news. God’s wife is pregnant! (Rev. 12:5)

It's not over till the fat lady sings! (Isa. 54:1 & Zec 9:9)

   
skeptic



Posts: 1163
Joined: May 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Mar. 12 2008,23:20   

no God doesn't tell Job that I'm bigger than you, he says I can't tell you because you just wouldn't understand.  it is beyond human capacity.  As is apparent by your oversimplification.  Who are you to say what is and isn't God's plan when you see such a tiny part of it?

  
Dr.GH



Posts: 2113
Joined: May 2002

(Permalink) Posted: Mar. 12 2008,23:42   

It is really too bad that the HIV denialists won't die first.  I wish that the global warming denialists would drown first, and that the ozone loss denialists would all die tonight of skin cancer.  "Libertarian" opponents of species protection should starve first.  "Libertarian" and "religious conservative" opponents of public education should have their cars and toilets repaired by homeschoolers.  They should remove their own appendix and invent their home remedy chemotherapy.  They would die and the rest of us would benefit.

But they won't.

These are further evidences to me that there is no just god.

--------------
"Science is the horse that pulls the cart of philosophy."

L. Susskind, 2004 "SMOLIN VS. SUSSKIND: THE ANTHROPIC PRINCIPLE"

   
hereoisreal



Posts: 745
Joined: Feb. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Mar. 13 2008,06:25   

Quote (philbert @ Mar. 12 2008,13:57)
I believe in certain "charitable" things very strongly. And when I see the government here -- one which I voted for, and one which generally shares my politics -- not following through on them, distracting itself with pointless issues, or outright undermining the things I believe we as a society should be doing, it's downright depressing.

Phil, do you think we  do a better job ruling ourselves than God could?
I said to my housekeeper one day, " Heaven is hell without law and order.  
When hell meets the law, the shit will hit the fan."

The next morning I opened my newspaper to the front page. The top headline read, "Helmet Law Inforcement Begins".

Rev 12:5 And she brought forth a man child, who was to rule all nations
with a rod of iron: and her child was caught up unto God, and [to] his throne.

OOPS, there goes seperation of church and state.

--------------
360  miracles and more at:
http://www.hereoisreal.com/....eal.com

Great news. God’s wife is pregnant! (Rev. 12:5)

It's not over till the fat lady sings! (Isa. 54:1 & Zec 9:9)

   
philbert



Posts: 20
Joined: Feb. 2008

(Permalink) Posted: Mar. 13 2008,06:44   

Quote (skeptic @ Mar. 12 2008,23:20)
no God doesn't tell Job that I'm bigger than you, he says I can't tell you because you just wouldn't understand.  it is beyond human capacity.  As is apparent by your oversimplification.  Who are you to say what is and isn't God's plan when you see such a tiny part of it?

Well, no. God browbeats Job for verse after verse with expressions of his power, not just his mysteriousness. And even then, what the hell sort of answer is that?

The gigantic irony with the usual apologetic Christian reading of the Book of Job is that we (the reader) know exactly why Job is suffering as he is; it was a wager, between God and Satan*, which they made for no apparent stakes, after a rather jovial catching-up.

The idea that God would bellow out of his whirlwind that he doesn't have to answer Job because Job just wouldn't understand is vicious and hilarious, in a horrific sort of way. We know exactly why he did what he did. It was a wager. There's no mysterious morality behind the whole thing.

*(Even if you read this "Satan" as not "the" Satan of the usual Christian mythology, but some sort of weird angelic helper-bastard, it's still just a wager. And, apparently just for good measure, there's the bonus oddness of God apparently having to ask -- similar to how he does in Eden, at one point -- where someone's been.)

But the fundamental point here is even more basic than that. If the God you believe exists is this morally opaque (to the point where he doesn't appear to make an effort, even when asked), and so apparently ambivalent to the issues that spark your own charitable urges -- why on earth would you still worship him? If you can't get an answer to such basic questions about his priorities and motivations, how could you possibly conclude he was a thing worthy of worship?

  
Assassinator



Posts: 479
Joined: Nov. 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Mar. 13 2008,07:23   

Quote
Most Christians accept that God requires certain things of them and not the other way around for a multitude of reasons, chief of which is just who do you think you are?

Who does God think he is then? Saying me what to do, if I don't I'll get punished and if we ask why the excuse comes that we wouldn't understand anyway. Wich would also mean that God isn't all-powerfull: he can't even explain his own morality to us. Why would his morality be superior anyway? He apperantly destroys someone's life just to prove a point.
Like philbert says, why on earth do I want to worship such a sadistic being?
 
Quote
Who are you to say what is and isn't God's plan when you see such a tiny part of it?

Who is God to be so arrogant to not explain it? So we should just let murderers go when they say "Yea, I got a plan wich you don't understand anyway.", I wonder what we would do to the judges then.
What kind of lame excuse is that?


Anyway, about the topic starts. It's so funny to see people like that, a couple of days ago I've seen an advertisment from the WWF simply saying "Help us stop global warming!". It's so arrogant, so ignorant, I couldn't stop giggling. Stop global warming...hilarious. Must be a new symptome from the Bambi Syndrome.

  
hereoisreal



Posts: 745
Joined: Feb. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Mar. 13 2008,08:22   

[quote=philbert,Mar. 13 2008,06:44]
Quote (skeptic @ Mar. 12 2008,23:20)
If you can't get an answer to such basic questions about his priorities and motivations, how could you possibly conclude he was a thing worthy of worship?

Phil, God does have a goal, direction, time frame, purpose:

Dan 9:24  Seventy weeks are determined upon thy people and upon thy holy city, to finish
the transgression, and to make an end of sins, and to make reconciliation for iniquity, and to
bring in everlasting righteousness, and to seal up the vision and prophecy, and to anoint the most Holy.

In seventy weeks:
1. finish the transgression
2. make an end of sins
3. make reconciliation for iniquity
4.bring in everlasting righteousness
5.seal up the vision and prophecy
6.anoint the most Holy

Zero

--------------
360  miracles and more at:
http://www.hereoisreal.com/....eal.com

Great news. God’s wife is pregnant! (Rev. 12:5)

It's not over till the fat lady sings! (Isa. 54:1 & Zec 9:9)

   
IanBrown_101



Posts: 927
Joined: April 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Mar. 13 2008,12:30   

Quote (hereoisreal @ Mar. 13 2008,14:22)
[quote=philbert,Mar. 13 2008,06:44]
Quote (skeptic @ Mar. 12 2008,23:20)
If you can't get an answer to such basic questions about his priorities and motivations, how could you possibly conclude he was a thing worthy of worship?

Phil, God does have a goal, direction, time frame, purpose:

Clearly it's to kill us all. I mean lets face it, any being who absolutely loves us unconditionally (forget the saving thing, I mean just the love god is supposed to have for us all) and who could do something about the problems we face would. Even if he only helped those who believed in every instance then those people should be totally immune to all the crap the universe throws at us.

I simply cannot believe that god is omnibenevolent if he exists at all. Assuming that the great dictator exists, then everything in the world, including the fall of man is HIS fault, the rest of this post will assume god is real. He created us knowing we would screw up like we did. I fail to understand how a being that loves us would knowingly condemn us to eternal punnishment.

For god to be all powerful and all knowing, he would know that man would be a colossal failure before he even made us as a species. This also provides a problem for free will, as if such a being as god existed, his prior knowledge of all events would mean that all of history and the future were forgone conclusions, meaning that no choices we make are real in any sense, as the outcome has already been written.

--------------
I'm not the fastest or the baddest or the fatest.

You NEVER seem to address the fact that the grand majority of people supporting Darwinism in these on line forums and blogs are atheists. That doesn't seem to bother you guys in the least. - FtK

Roddenberry is my God.

   
J-Dog



Posts: 4402
Joined: Dec. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Mar. 13 2008,15:17   

Quote (IanBrown_101 @ Mar. 13 2008,12:30)
[quote=hereoisreal,Mar. 13 2008,14:22]
Quote (philbert @ Mar. 13 2008,06:44)
 
Quote (skeptic @ Mar. 12 2008,23:20)
If you can't get an answer to such basic questions about his priorities and motivations, how could you possibly conclude he was a thing worthy of worship?

Phil, God does have a goal, direction, time frame, purpose:

Clearly it's to kill us all. I mean lets face it, any being who absolutely loves us unconditionally (forget the saving thing, I mean just the love god is supposed to have for us all) and who could do something about the problems we face would. Even if he only helped those who believed in every instance then those people should be totally immune to all the crap the universe throws at us.

I simply cannot believe that god is omnibenevolent if he exists at all. Assuming that the great dictator exists, then everything in the world, including the fall of man is HIS fault, the rest of this post will assume god is real. He created us knowing we would screw up like we did. I fail to understand how a being that loves us would knowingly condemn us to eternal punnishment.

For god to be all powerful and all knowing, he would know that man would be a colossal failure before he even made us as a species. This also provides a problem for free will, as if such a being as god existed, his prior knowledge of all events would mean that all of history and the future were forgone conclusions, meaning that no choices we make are real in any sense, as the outcome has already been written.

Yeah.  I have long thought that God should be bitched-slapped up one side and down the other. Face it - god is a Big Dick.

The people that worship "Him" for the most part have NOT read their Holy BooK - if they did, and understood what the hell the goat-herders wrote about him, they'd be pissed too.

--------------
Come on Tough Guy, do the little dance of ID impotence you do so well. - Louis to Joe G 2/10

Gullibility is not a virtue - Quidam on Dembski's belief in the Bible Code Faith Healers & ID 7/08

UD is an Unnatural Douchemagnet. - richardthughes 7/11

  
Arden Chatfield



Posts: 6657
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Mar. 13 2008,15:25   

Quote

But the fundamental point here is even more basic than that. If the God you believe exists is this morally opaque (to the point where he doesn't appear to make an effort, even when asked), and so apparently ambivalent to the issues that spark your own charitable urges -- why on earth would you still worship him?


Well, the crude answer is, of course, to avoid even worse torture if you don't worship him!

It's never been a very appealing idea to me, either. Smells like a bunch of half-baked after-the-fact rationalizations all slapped together, but then again, virtually all Christian apologetics strike me that way.

Uh oh. Am I now on FTK's 'Fry List'?  :O

--------------
"Rich is just mad because he thought all titties had fur on them until last week when a shorn transvestite ruined his childhood dreams by jumping out of a spider man cake and man boobing him in the face lips." - Erasmus

  
skeptic



Posts: 1163
Joined: May 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Mar. 13 2008,16:40   

Quote (philbert @ Mar. 13 2008,06:44)
Quote (skeptic @ Mar. 12 2008,23:20)
no God doesn't tell Job that I'm bigger than you, he says I can't tell you because you just wouldn't understand.  it is beyond human capacity.  As is apparent by your oversimplification.  Who are you to say what is and isn't God's plan when you see such a tiny part of it?

Well, no. God browbeats Job for verse after verse with expressions of his power, not just his mysteriousness. And even then, what the hell sort of answer is that?

The gigantic irony with the usual apologetic Christian reading of the Book of Job is that we (the reader) know exactly why Job is suffering as he is; it was a wager, between God and Satan*, which they made for no apparent stakes, after a rather jovial catching-up.

The idea that God would bellow out of his whirlwind that he doesn't have to answer Job because Job just wouldn't understand is vicious and hilarious, in a horrific sort of way. We know exactly why he did what he did. It was a wager. There's no mysterious morality behind the whole thing.

*(Even if you read this "Satan" as not "the" Satan of the usual Christian mythology, but some sort of weird angelic helper-bastard, it's still just a wager. And, apparently just for good measure, there's the bonus oddness of God apparently having to ask -- similar to how he does in Eden, at one point -- where someone's been.)

But the fundamental point here is even more basic than that. If the God you believe exists is this morally opaque (to the point where he doesn't appear to make an effort, even when asked), and so apparently ambivalent to the issues that spark your own charitable urges -- why on earth would you still worship him? If you can't get an answer to such basic questions about his priorities and motivations, how could you possibly conclude he was a thing worthy of worship?

again, it's because I don't demand anything of God.  He is not required to answer my questions and you know why?  Because I am not the center of the Universe.  God does not need to clear things through me.  That is the height of arrogance.  In fact the root of all sin is pride and that seems to be the fundamental lesson of the Bible.  In short, get over yourself.

  
skeptic



Posts: 1163
Joined: May 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Mar. 13 2008,16:42   

Quote (Assassinator @ Mar. 13 2008,07:23)
Quote
Most Christians accept that God requires certain things of them and not the other way around for a multitude of reasons, chief of which is just who do you think you are?

Who does God think he is then? Saying me what to do, if I don't I'll get punished and if we ask why the excuse comes that we wouldn't understand anyway. Wich would also mean that God isn't all-powerfull: he can't even explain his own morality to us. Why would his morality be superior anyway? He apperantly destroys someone's life just to prove a point.
Like philbert says, why on earth do I want to worship such a sadistic being?
   
Quote
Who are you to say what is and isn't God's plan when you see such a tiny part of it?

Who is God to be so arrogant to not explain it? So we should just let murderers go when they say "Yea, I got a plan wich you don't understand anyway.", I wonder what we would do to the judges then.
What kind of lame excuse is that?


Anyway, about the topic starts. It's so funny to see people like that, a couple of days ago I've seen an advertisment from the WWF simply saying "Help us stop global warming!". It's so arrogant, so ignorant, I couldn't stop giggling. Stop global warming...hilarious. Must be a new symptome from the Bambi Syndrome.

this is like listening to a child reason, in fact I think I heard my six year old say nearly the same thing when I told him not to touch the hot stove.

  
Kristine



Posts: 3061
Joined: Sep. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Mar. 13 2008,16:51   

Well, this sure spread a lot of good will! :)

Quote (skeptic @ Mar. 13 2008,15:42)
 
Quote (Assassinator @ Mar. 13 2008,07:23)
   
Quote
Most Christians accept that God requires certain things of them and not the other way around for a multitude of reasons, chief of which is just who do you think you are?

Who does God think he is then? Saying me what to do, if I don't I'll get punished and if we ask why the excuse comes that we wouldn't understand anyway. Wich would also mean that God isn't all-powerfull: he can't even explain his own morality to us. Why would his morality be superior anyway? He apperantly destroys someone's life just to prove a point.
Like philbert says, why on earth do I want to worship such a sadistic being?
       
Quote
Who are you to say what is and isn't God's plan when you see such a tiny part of it?

Who is God to be so arrogant to not explain it? So we should just let murderers go when they say "Yea, I got a plan wich you don't understand anyway.", I wonder what we would do to the judges then.
What kind of lame excuse is that?


Anyway, about the topic starts. It's so funny to see people like that, a couple of days ago I've seen an advertisment from the WWF simply saying "Help us stop global warming!". It's so arrogant, so ignorant, I couldn't stop giggling. Stop global warming...hilarious. Must be a new symptome from the Bambi Syndrome.

this is like listening to a child reason, in fact I think I heard my six year old say nearly the same thing when I told him not to touch the hot stove.

*Hhhsssttt!* "Ouch! I touched a hot planet! I burned my ass!

Maybe I shouldn't screw up the ecosystem again!"

Do I have it right? :D

--------------
Which came first: the shimmy, or the hip?

AtBC Poet Laureate

"I happen to think that this prerequisite criterion of empirical evidence is itself not empirical." - Clive

"Damn you. This means a trip to the library. Again." -- fnxtr

  
skeptic



Posts: 1163
Joined: May 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Mar. 13 2008,17:02   

Ian, that's actually a much more serious topic.  I prefer to think of the analogy of God's foreknowledge as knowledge of all possible outcomes.  From our perspective it would naturally be assumed that God had to know we'd screw up but maybe we had the chance not to screw up and we missed it.  And maybe there are multiple chances for us not to screw up and God keeps presenting us with these chances.  Again, we're placing assumptions on God's knowledge and his intentions which is problematic from the start.

So that begs the question, do we actually have free will?  If God can see all possible outcomes does that mean the future is pre-determined?  Using this analogy, we still have free will even if all our possible actions can be know or anticipated by God.  Think of it as a game of chess.  It's theoretically possible, while not currently technically possible, to predict all possible moves from any position.  Just the knowing doesn't restrict you from making those moves especially when it's not you who knows.  So I as an observer can see your moves and see where you going even if you don't know but you are still perfectly free to make any move you want.  At least that's how I see it, does that address your point?  Not convince you, mind you, but address it.

  
hereoisreal



Posts: 745
Joined: Feb. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Mar. 13 2008,18:23   

Ian said:
"Clearly it's to kill us all."

Ian, clearly that is not one of God's priorities.

In seventy weeks:
1. finish the transgression
2. make an end of sins
3. make reconciliation for iniquity
4.bring in everlasting righteousness
5.seal up the vision and prophecy
6.anoint the most Holy

Zero

--------------
360  miracles and more at:
http://www.hereoisreal.com/....eal.com

Great news. God’s wife is pregnant! (Rev. 12:5)

It's not over till the fat lady sings! (Isa. 54:1 & Zec 9:9)

   
Assassinator



Posts: 479
Joined: Nov. 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Mar. 13 2008,19:17   

Quote
this is like listening to a child reason, in fact I think I heard my six year old say nearly the same thing when I told him not to touch the hot stove.

What's wrong with asking certain things? Why can't we question God, what in God's name is wrong with that? Does it make us inferior? Does it make us burn and suffer forever? Why wouldn't God say those things?
Or am I interpreting what you sad totally wrong and did you mean this against what I sad about global warming? (those things happen ofcourse, better clear them up)
   
Quote
That is the height of arrogance.  In fact the root of all sin is pride and that seems to be the fundamental lesson of the Bible.  In short, get over yourself.

Can you please tell that to God then? I'm just asking for some explanation from His side, nothing more. If God thinks that's wrong, He can say that to me.
I still don't understand something, why on earth worship such a being? Why worship a being who apperantly does nothing for you even if you ask it from the deepest bottom of your heart (ask my grandma about that)? Not doing those things is 1 thing, but apperantly He won't even explain anything! How on earth is that not cruel? Why can't we demand certain things, have you ever heard about the principle of equal trade?

  
Reed



Posts: 274
Joined: Feb. 2008

(Permalink) Posted: Mar. 13 2008,21:36   

Quote (skeptic @ Mar. 12 2008,21:20)
no God doesn't tell Job that I'm bigger than you, he says I can't tell you because you just wouldn't understand.  it is beyond human capacity.  As is apparent by your oversimplification.  Who are you to say what is and isn't God's plan when you see such a tiny part of it?

If Gods plan is incomprehensible, how is that different (for us) from a universe that is just incomprehensible without God ? If anything at all can happen and still be part of Gods plan, what would make you believe there is a God, never mind one with the specific attributes given in a particular book* ?

If he is really incomprehensible, why would you believe the bible was really his word ? Maybe it's a test to sort out the gullible from those capable of rational observation ?

What objective criteria allows you to decide God is the God of the bible and not the daemon sultan Azathoth Or Zeus ? Or Loki ? Or Shiva or FSM ?

         
Quote (skeptic @ Mar. 13 2008,14:42)
this is like listening to a child reason, in fact I think I heard my six year old say nearly the same thing when I told him not to touch the hot stove.

Except that if your son touched the stove, he would have burned himself, and learned something about the accuracy of your advice. OTOH, following or not following alleged word of God has, by and large, no significant observable relationship to getting burned or not.

* Which by objective observation appears to be collected myths of some middle eastern tribesmen as heard through a multi-millennia game of telephone, and has about the accuracy and information content you'd expect to result from this exercise.

  
qetzal



Posts: 311
Joined: Feb. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Mar. 13 2008,21:48   

Quote (Assassinator @ Mar. 13 2008,19:17)
What's wrong with asking certain things? Why can't we question God, what in God's name is wrong with that?

We can. The problem is that he never answers. At least, not in any objectively discernable way.

The question is why doesn't answer? A simple and obvious explanation is that there is no omniscient, omnipowerful, omnipresent personal god. But of course, that answer is not acceptable to a believer, so believers need a different answer.

Hence, "We're not capable of understanding; God answers in his own way; God's plan is incomprehensible to mortal man; etc."

  
hereoisreal



Posts: 745
Joined: Feb. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Mar. 13 2008,22:01   

Assassinator said:

"Why can't we demand certain things, have you ever heard about the principle of equal trade?"



The third time's a charm:

2Ki 1:10  And Elijah answered and said to the captain of fifty,
If I [be] a man of God, then let fire come down from heaven,
and consume thee and thy fifty. And there came down fire
from heaven, and consumed him and his fifty.


2Ki 1:11  Again also he sent unto him another captain of fifty
with his fifty. And he answered and said unto him, O man of
God, thus hath the king said, Come down quickly.


2Ki 1:12  And Elijah answered and said unto them, If I [be]
a man of God, let fire come down from heaven, and consume
thee and thy fifty. And the fire of God came down from heaven,
and consumed him and his fifty.

2Ki 1:13 ¶ And he sent again a captain of the third fifty with his fifty.
And the third captain of fifty went up, and came and fell on his knees
before Elijah, and besought him, and said unto him, O man of God,
I pray thee, let my life, and the life of these fifty thy servants, be precious in thy sight.

Edit/add:

More global warming:

Rev 20:9  And they went up on the breadth of the earth, and compassed the camp of the saints about, and the beloved city: and fire came down from God out of heaven, and devoured them.

--------------
360  miracles and more at:
http://www.hereoisreal.com/....eal.com

Great news. God’s wife is pregnant! (Rev. 12:5)

It's not over till the fat lady sings! (Isa. 54:1 & Zec 9:9)

   
IanBrown_101



Posts: 927
Joined: April 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Mar. 13 2008,23:14   

Quote (skeptic @ Mar. 13 2008,23:02)
Ian, that's actually a much more serious topic.  I prefer to think of the analogy of God's foreknowledge as knowledge of all possible outcomes.  From our perspective it would naturally be assumed that God had to know we'd screw up but maybe we had the chance not to screw up and we missed it.  And maybe there are multiple chances for us not to screw up and God keeps presenting us with these chances.  Again, we're placing assumptions on God's knowledge and his intentions which is problematic from the start.

So that begs the question, do we actually have free will?  If God can see all possible outcomes does that mean the future is pre-determined?  Using this analogy, we still have free will even if all our possible actions can be know or anticipated by God.  Think of it as a game of chess.  It's theoretically possible, while not currently technically possible, to predict all possible moves from any position.  Just the knowing doesn't restrict you from making those moves especially when it's not you who knows.  So I as an observer can see your moves and see where you going even if you don't know but you are still perfectly free to make any move you want.  At least that's how I see it, does that address your point?  Not convince you, mind you, but address it.

Sure, god could well have knowledge of all possible outcomes. However that is not omniscience, because he doesn't know the right answer.

You cannot have your cake and eat it too, it just doesn't work that way. I'd be happy to concede that a god who would know all possible outcomes, but was not omniscient would allow for free will, and could also (maybe, if I'm in a good mood) not be a huge douchebag at the same time. But that is not the god of the bible, who knows everything, which in itself is an aspect of being perfect.

Therefore I'm willing to accept that an imperfect god is an answer to those issues.

--------------
I'm not the fastest or the baddest or the fatest.

You NEVER seem to address the fact that the grand majority of people supporting Darwinism in these on line forums and blogs are atheists. That doesn't seem to bother you guys in the least. - FtK

Roddenberry is my God.

   
IanBrown_101



Posts: 927
Joined: April 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Mar. 13 2008,23:17   

Quote (hereoisreal @ Mar. 14 2008,00:23)
Ian said:
"Clearly it's to kill us all."

Ian, clearly that is not one of God's priorities.

In seventy weeks:
1. finish the transgression
2. make an end of sins
3. make reconciliation for iniquity
4.bring in everlasting righteousness
5.seal up the vision and prophecy
6.anoint the most Holy

Zero

How is that clear? He obviously likes suffering, death, plauge, torture, genocide and famine, and wants them to happen to us or he would stop them.

Either god is imperfect and wants to help us, but can't, or he could help us, and just doesn't want to, therefore displaying contempt for us. Or he doesn't exist, of course, which is what I believe.

--------------
I'm not the fastest or the baddest or the fatest.

You NEVER seem to address the fact that the grand majority of people supporting Darwinism in these on line forums and blogs are atheists. That doesn't seem to bother you guys in the least. - FtK

Roddenberry is my God.

   
skeptic



Posts: 1163
Joined: May 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Mar. 14 2008,07:53   

Ian, I'm not sure that I would reach the same conclusion but it may be a technicality.  If God knows all possible answers including the right answer how is that different?  Additionally, as in the chess analogy, if God knows which move we're going to make how does that infringe upon our free will to make that move?  We still make a move based upon the moment and we have no foreknowledge of the move we "have" to make so from our perspective we have free will.

I would say that the "perfect" label is very soft.  How can we say that God is perfect when we have no other God to compare him to.  Also, we're evaluating God from a strictly human perspective and that is skewed by our desires and priorities and not objective.  BTW, this is just my reasoning and not theologically based.

Assassinator, you can certainly ask anything you want but you have no reason to assume or except an answer.  You've just placed expectations on God that are unreasonable or at the least unresolved.  If it comes down to a matter of equality then the answer is simple, we are not on equal footing with God.

Reed, I read the Bible in exactly the same way.  IMO, it's a blueprint for a suggested life to lead.  In many ways if you detour from this blueprint you will get burned in the real sense and not just the spiritual sense.

No, getzal, it's simpler to say that we don't know why he doesn't answer and not make any assumptions beyond that.

  
dheddle



Posts: 540
Joined: Sep. 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Mar. 14 2008,09:14   

Ian, you have, in my opinion, created a false dilemma rooted, again in my opinion,in  an incorrect assumption about the nature God. If by “omnibenevolent” you mean that God loves everyone--well the scripture is not there to support such a pleasant idea. “Jacob I loved,” we are told, “but Esau I hated.” Furthermore, God was manifestly unbenevolent  to the Egyptians and to the various races upon whom he instructed Joshua’s army to commit genocide. God, according to scripture in toto, does not love the people he sends to eternal damnation, he hates them.  You can argue if “hate” means what we mean by hate—but you cannot argue that it is a feeling attributed to God that is in contrast to love—even if it just the absence thereof.  In other words, when you wrote:
   
Quote
I fail to understand how a being that loves us would knowingly condemn us to eternal punnishment.

I would say—that’s good, because he does no such thing. The very concept is, in fact, unthinkable and would render the notion of love meaningless.

As for free will—the only problem that exists for Christian theology is the same one as exists for secular philosophy:  what the hell is it? No surprise, I like, at least to first order, the free will model proposed by the reformed theologians—that our will is free (no external forces, no puppet master) and yet self-determined—every single choice is determined by our desires—we choose to do exactly what we want to do most at any given instance. Thus God does not force us into decisions, but he can change our desires (a so-called new heart) which then will affect our decisions.

--------------
Mysticism is a rational enterprise. Religion is not. The mystic has recognized something about the nature of consciousness prior to thought, and this recognition is susceptible to rational discussion. The mystic has reason for what he believes, and these reasons are empirical. --Sam Harris

   
Assassinator



Posts: 479
Joined: Nov. 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Mar. 14 2008,10:22   

Quote
I would say that the "perfect" label is very soft.  How can we say that God is perfect when we have no other God to compare him to.  Also, we're evaluating God from a strictly human perspective and that is skewed by our desires and priorities and not objective.

Oooo we got a whóle lot of God's to compare with your God, craploads actually! Even compared to humans He's completly awfull, at least WE are trying to do something about shit.
(note: not necceseraly meaning global warming with that)
Quote
Assassinator, you can certainly ask anything you want but you have no reason to assume or except an answer.  You've just placed expectations on God that are unreasonable or at the least unresolved.  If it comes down to a matter of equality then the answer is simple, we are not on equal footing with God.

Why not? Apperantly he has a WHOLE lot of power, what's unreasonable about asking some kind of refference? Now if I would've asked something completly rubbish, something wich is really bullcrap, but no I'm asking basic and fundamental questions. Not even an explanation about why they would be too much to answer, now how's that not arrogant?
Besides, why would God be better and more worth then me? Who does God think he is?

  
skeptic



Posts: 1163
Joined: May 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Mar. 14 2008,14:49   

umm, just the Creator of the Universe, Reality and all of  Existence.  Not that much when you look at it from your self-important position, huh?

please, Google pride.

  
Assassinator



Posts: 479
Joined: Nov. 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Mar. 14 2008,15:07   

Quote
umm, just the Creator of the Universe, Reality and all of  Existence.

O really? Says who? Haven't seen anything wich points in that direction, and we all know that the Bible isn't a biology/physics/chemistry book.

  
skeptic



Posts: 1163
Joined: May 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Mar. 14 2008,15:57   

Well then how can you possibly demand answers from something that you don't believe exists.  Can't have it both ways.

  
Assassinator



Posts: 479
Joined: Nov. 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Mar. 14 2008,16:41   

That's not what I sad, you bind certain properties to the word "God" wich I doubt about, since there is nothing that points that way. Remember that the word "God" is kind of hollow by itself, different people give different meaning's (millions of them).
Besides, if that being indeed created everything, we don't have to beleive in it. Such a being either exists, or it doesn't exist and it does not matter what your personal opinion is about it. If it created the universe, it did that for all of us, it's the same for all of us. We live in the same universe, on the same earth, it didn't get into existance on a different way for you then for me. Now that would be silly, wouldn't it?

  
qetzal



Posts: 311
Joined: Feb. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Mar. 14 2008,17:28   

Quote (skeptic @ Mar. 14 2008,07:53)
No, getzal, it's simpler to say that we don't know why he doesn't answer and not make any assumptions beyond that.

That's not what you said earlier.
     
Quote (skeptic @ Mar. 12 2008,07:37)
In fact there's an entire Book to the point that you're not going to know why because you're incapable of understanding it.

     
Quote (skeptic @ Mar. 12 2008,23:20)
no God doesn't tell Job that I'm bigger than you, he says I can't tell you because you just wouldn't understand.  it is beyond human capacity.


"God doesn't answer because we aren't capable of understanding" is not equivalent to "We don't know why God doesn't answer." (Begging the question of God's existence to begin with.)

P.S. It's "qetzal" - with a "q" not a "g." As in "qetzalcoatl" (or "quetzalcoatl" if you prefer).

  
IanBrown_101



Posts: 927
Joined: April 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Mar. 14 2008,17:52   

Quote (skeptic @ Mar. 14 2008,20:49)
umm, just the Creator of the Universe, Reality and all of  Existence.  Not that much when you look at it from your self-important position, huh?

please, Google pride.

Assuming that's true, then he isn't worthy of our praise because of how much he hates us. Sure, it's impressive that he made everything, but why did he have to make it suck for his supposed "favoured" race? I mean, if we're the ones he supposedly loves the most, why do we die on a regular basis?

In fact, why the hell are we even alive? Assuming god is real and loves us  all (aside from the concept of sin, god supposedly loves all of us until we sin at the very least, unless Heddle has some weird kind of theology that I've never seen before) why do we get the chance to fail?

I fail to grasp why he forces us to live, most likely in poverty and famine, or at least with little in the way of amenities unless you're lucky enough to be born into a developed country. Why not just, put us in heaven? Why go through a process whereby a great deal will suffer in this life, and then a large section of the world will also suffer in hell afterwards.

--------------
I'm not the fastest or the baddest or the fatest.

You NEVER seem to address the fact that the grand majority of people supporting Darwinism in these on line forums and blogs are atheists. That doesn't seem to bother you guys in the least. - FtK

Roddenberry is my God.

   
skeptic



Posts: 1163
Joined: May 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Mar. 14 2008,18:36   

Quote (Assassinator @ Mar. 14 2008,16:41)
That's not what I sad, you bind certain properties to the word "God" wich I doubt about, since there is nothing that points that way. Remember that the word "God" is kind of hollow by itself, different people give different meaning's (millions of them).
Besides, if that being indeed created everything, we don't have to beleive in it. Such a being either exists, or it doesn't exist and it does not matter what your personal opinion is about it. If it created the universe, it did that for all of us, it's the same for all of us. We live in the same universe, on the same earth, it didn't get into existance on a different way for you then for me. Now that would be silly, wouldn't it?

so you believe in something just not what I believe in?

  
skeptic



Posts: 1163
Joined: May 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Mar. 14 2008,18:39   

Quote (IanBrown_101 @ Mar. 14 2008,17:52)
Quote (skeptic @ Mar. 14 2008,20:49)
umm, just the Creator of the Universe, Reality and all of  Existence.  Not that much when you look at it from your self-important position, huh?

please, Google pride.

Assuming that's true, then he isn't worthy of our praise because of how much he hates us. Sure, it's impressive that he made everything, but why did he have to make it suck for his supposed "favoured" race? I mean, if we're the ones he supposedly loves the most, why do we die on a regular basis?

In fact, why the hell are we even alive? Assuming god is real and loves us  all (aside from the concept of sin, god supposedly loves all of us until we sin at the very least, unless Heddle has some weird kind of theology that I've never seen before) why do we get the chance to fail?

I fail to grasp why he forces us to live, most likely in poverty and famine, or at least with little in the way of amenities unless you're lucky enough to be born into a developed country. Why not just, put us in heaven? Why go through a process whereby a great deal will suffer in this life, and then a large section of the world will also suffer in hell afterwards.

who says it sucks? I certainly don't.  Opinion.

  
Reed



Posts: 274
Joined: Feb. 2008

(Permalink) Posted: Mar. 14 2008,18:45   

Quote (skeptic @ Mar. 14 2008,05:53)
Reed, I read the Bible in exactly the same way.  IMO, it's a blueprint for a suggested life to lead.  In many ways if you detour from this blueprint you will get burned in the real sense and not just the spiritual sense.

Funny that you "agree" but completely ignore the content of the post, and fail to answer any of the interesting questions:
1) If Gods plan is incomprehensible, how is that different (for us) from a universe that is just incomprehensible without God ? How do you distinguish between these two options ?

2) If he is really incomprehensible, why would you believe the bible was really his word ?

3) What objective criteria allows you to decide God is the God of the bible and not the daemon sultan Azathoth ?

And since the bible is apparently a "blueprint for a suggested life to lead" here's a bonus question:
4) Must adulterers, homosexuals and witches be put to death ? If you don't agree with this, how is the bible a blueprint for a suggested life to lead ?  If only some parts are a blueprint, what are the other parts ? How do you decide which parts are the blueprint, and which aren't ?

  
IanBrown_101



Posts: 927
Joined: April 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Mar. 14 2008,19:55   

Quote (skeptic @ Mar. 15 2008,00:39)
Quote (IanBrown_101 @ Mar. 14 2008,17:52)
Quote (skeptic @ Mar. 14 2008,20:49)
umm, just the Creator of the Universe, Reality and all of  Existence.  Not that much when you look at it from your self-important position, huh?

please, Google pride.

Assuming that's true, then he isn't worthy of our praise because of how much he hates us. Sure, it's impressive that he made everything, but why did he have to make it suck for his supposed "favoured" race? I mean, if we're the ones he supposedly loves the most, why do we die on a regular basis?

In fact, why the hell are we even alive? Assuming god is real and loves us  all (aside from the concept of sin, god supposedly loves all of us until we sin at the very least, unless Heddle has some weird kind of theology that I've never seen before) why do we get the chance to fail?

I fail to grasp why he forces us to live, most likely in poverty and famine, or at least with little in the way of amenities unless you're lucky enough to be born into a developed country. Why not just, put us in heaven? Why go through a process whereby a great deal will suffer in this life, and then a large section of the world will also suffer in hell afterwards.

who says it sucks? I certainly don't.  Opinion.

Yes, YOUR life is good. Well done, you were lucky. Now answer what I actually wrote. If you need help, which you seem to, what I WROTE was that life on the whole sucks for the human race, with the poverty, famine, disease etc. I wasn't saying that everyone's life sucked, indeed, I pointed out that some people have good lives.

Therefore it is OT opinion, you're either building a strawman, or being stupid. Take your pick.

--------------
I'm not the fastest or the baddest or the fatest.

You NEVER seem to address the fact that the grand majority of people supporting Darwinism in these on line forums and blogs are atheists. That doesn't seem to bother you guys in the least. - FtK

Roddenberry is my God.

   
Assassinator



Posts: 479
Joined: Nov. 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Mar. 14 2008,20:09   

Quote
so you believe in something just not what I believe in?

It does not matter what you beleive in, the earth came into existance the same way for you as it did for me. That has nothing to do with opinions, either a 'supreme' being (wich you call "God") did create this planet or it did not. Also, there are WAY more creation-myths then just yours, hundreds, maybe thousands of local myths exist all around the globe. Science however isn't based on age-old stories.
Quote
who says it sucks? I certainly don't.  Opinion.

Like Ian already sad, your life (and mine, partially) are good. But what about those couple of billion people who live below the poverty line? The people who need to drink the water there neighboors took a dump in, the people who still die from something as diarrhea.
People like this skepic:

Can you féél the love flowing here?

Why the héll do I want to worship a being who allowes (read: I'm not saying the being caused it) those things??

  
hereoisreal



Posts: 745
Joined: Feb. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Mar. 15 2008,10:09   

Quote (IanBrown_101 @ Mar. 13 2008,23:17)
Quote (hereoisreal @ Mar. 14 2008,00:23)
Ian said:
"Clearly it's to kill us all."

Ian, clearly that is not one of God's priorities.

In seventy weeks:
1. finish the transgression
2. make an end of sins
3. make reconciliation for iniquity
4.bring in everlasting righteousness
5.seal up the vision and prophecy
6.anoint the most Holy

Zero

How is that clear? He obviously likes suffering, death, plauge, torture, genocide and famine, and wants them to happen to us or he would stop them.

Either god is imperfect and wants to help us, but can't, or he could help us, and just doesn't want to, therefore displaying contempt for us. Or he doesn't exist, of course, which is what I believe.

How is that clear?

You can not find "suffering, death, plauge, torture, genocide and famine" in the six
priorities above.  Actually, the list is a little misleading. The top priority is number six
so the last should be placed first and the first last.
He could have explained this to Job but even he wouldn't have understood.

Zero

--------------
360  miracles and more at:
http://www.hereoisreal.com/....eal.com

Great news. God’s wife is pregnant! (Rev. 12:5)

It's not over till the fat lady sings! (Isa. 54:1 & Zec 9:9)

   
hereoisreal



Posts: 745
Joined: Feb. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Mar. 15 2008,10:09   

Delete/double post

--------------
360  miracles and more at:
http://www.hereoisreal.com/....eal.com

Great news. God’s wife is pregnant! (Rev. 12:5)

It's not over till the fat lady sings! (Isa. 54:1 & Zec 9:9)

   
hereoisreal



Posts: 745
Joined: Feb. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Mar. 15 2008,10:10   

Delete/double post

--------------
360  miracles and more at:
http://www.hereoisreal.com/....eal.com

Great news. God’s wife is pregnant! (Rev. 12:5)

It's not over till the fat lady sings! (Isa. 54:1 & Zec 9:9)

   
IanBrown_101



Posts: 927
Joined: April 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Mar. 15 2008,11:31   

Quote (hereoisreal @ Mar. 15 2008,16:09)
Quote (IanBrown_101 @ Mar. 13 2008,23:17)
 
Quote (hereoisreal @ Mar. 14 2008,00:23)
Ian said:
"Clearly it's to kill us all."

Ian, clearly that is not one of God's priorities.

In seventy weeks:
1. finish the transgression
2. make an end of sins
3. make reconciliation for iniquity
4.bring in everlasting righteousness
5.seal up the vision and prophecy
6.anoint the most Holy

Zero

How is that clear? He obviously likes suffering, death, plauge, torture, genocide and famine, and wants them to happen to us or he would stop them.

Either god is imperfect and wants to help us, but can't, or he could help us, and just doesn't want to, therefore displaying contempt for us. Or he doesn't exist, of course, which is what I believe.

How is that clear?

You can not find "suffering, death, plauge, torture, genocide and famine" in the six
priorities above.  Actually, the list is a little misleading. The top priority is number six
so the last should be placed first and the first last.
He could have explained this to Job but even he wouldn't have understood.

Zero

I don't care if it's one of the list, he still created a world wherein there would be great suffering, widespread famine and pestilence and a generally high number of things that kill us. Irrespective of whether he himself actually crafted things like AIDS or tsunamis, he knew they would happen and he carried on regardless and has done nothing to help.

--------------
I'm not the fastest or the baddest or the fatest.

You NEVER seem to address the fact that the grand majority of people supporting Darwinism in these on line forums and blogs are atheists. That doesn't seem to bother you guys in the least. - FtK

Roddenberry is my God.

   
mitschlag



Posts: 236
Joined: Sep. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Mar. 15 2008,16:51   

Quote (dheddle @ Mar. 14 2008,09:14)
Ian, you have, in my opinion, created a false dilemma rooted, again in my opinion,in  an incorrect assumption about the nature God. If by “omnibenevolent” you mean that God loves everyone--well the scripture is not there to support such a pleasant idea. “Jacob I loved,” we are told, “but Esau I hated.” Furthermore, God was manifestly unbenevolent  to the Egyptians and to the various races upon whom he instructed Joshua’s army to commit genocide. God, according to scripture in toto, does not love the people he sends to eternal damnation, he hates them.  You can argue if “hate” means what we mean by hate—but you cannot argue that it is a feeling attributed to God that is in contrast to love—even if it just the absence thereof.  In other words, when you wrote:
         
Quote
I fail to understand how a being that loves us would knowingly condemn us to eternal punnishment.

I would say—that’s good, because he does no such thing. The very concept is, in fact, unthinkable and would render the notion of love meaningless.

That's a wonderful god you have there.  An omnipotent being that creates sentient beings that it hates and condemns to eternal torment.

I admire you for being so intelligent, yet believing such juvenile sadistic claptrap.

--------------
"You can establish any “rule” you like if you start with the rule and then interpret the evidence accordingly." - George Gaylord Simpson (1902-1984)

  
dheddle



Posts: 540
Joined: Sep. 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Mar. 15 2008,17:03   

mitschlag

 
Quote
That's a wonderful god you have there.  An omnipotent being that creates sentient beings that it hates and condemns to eternal torment.

I admire you for being so intelligent, yet believing such juvenile sadistic claptrap.


So, if God sends beings he loves to hell, that is evil. And if he sends beings he hates to hell, that is also evil. A peculiar case, if you will, of damned if you do, damned if you don't.

--------------
Mysticism is a rational enterprise. Religion is not. The mystic has recognized something about the nature of consciousness prior to thought, and this recognition is susceptible to rational discussion. The mystic has reason for what he believes, and these reasons are empirical. --Sam Harris

   
IanBrown_101



Posts: 927
Joined: April 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Mar. 15 2008,17:39   

Quote (dheddle @ Mar. 15 2008,23:03)
mitschlag

 
Quote
That's a wonderful god you have there.  An omnipotent being that creates sentient beings that it hates and condemns to eternal torment.

I admire you for being so intelligent, yet believing such juvenile sadistic claptrap.


So, if God sends beings he loves to hell, that is evil. And if he sends beings he hates to hell, that is also evil. A peculiar case, if you will, of damned if you do, damned if you don't.

It's pretty accurate though, since he created us with the express purpose of condemning us to hell. That's pretty evil, as far as one can say anything is evil, of course.

on the other hand, condemning people you love to eternal torment is also pretty darn evil.

So yeah, damned either way, but then, he is a sociopathic egotistical bully.

--------------
I'm not the fastest or the baddest or the fatest.

You NEVER seem to address the fact that the grand majority of people supporting Darwinism in these on line forums and blogs are atheists. That doesn't seem to bother you guys in the least. - FtK

Roddenberry is my God.

   
skeptic



Posts: 1163
Joined: May 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Mar. 15 2008,18:24   

I am not lucky Ian, I live the life I live because of the choices I have made.  The same can be said for mankind.  The world is the way it is because of the actions that man has committed.

  
GCT



Posts: 1001
Joined: Aug. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Mar. 15 2008,18:50   

Quote (dheddle @ Mar. 15 2008,18:03)
mitschlag

 
Quote
That's a wonderful god you have there.  An omnipotent being that creates sentient beings that it hates and condemns to eternal torment.

I admire you for being so intelligent, yet believing such juvenile sadistic claptrap.


So, if God sends beings he loves to hell, that is evil. And if he sends beings he hates to hell, that is also evil. A peculiar case, if you will, of damned if you do, damned if you don't.

god created hell, so if he's in a situation where he can't win, it's his own doing.

  
GCT



Posts: 1001
Joined: Aug. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Mar. 15 2008,18:51   

Quote (skeptic @ Mar. 15 2008,19:24)
I am not lucky Ian, I live the life I live because of the choices I have made.  The same can be said for mankind.  The world is the way it is because of the actions that man has committed.

You're lucky that you happened to be born in a situation where you were able to make those choices at all.  Not all people get to be so lucky and have those choices.

  
IanBrown_101



Posts: 927
Joined: April 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Mar. 15 2008,18:59   

Quote (skeptic @ Mar. 16 2008,00:24)
I am not lucky Ian, I live the life I live because of the choices I have made.  The same can be said for mankind.  The world is the way it is because of the actions that man has committed.

Bollocks.

You are living in a nation where thepoverty level is around the level of the rich in some nations. You live in a world where you have a chance to do things others can't even conceive of. While it is true that the majority of the issues faced in the world are to do with politics, it is NOT the be all and end all of the world's situation.

Unless you were born in Sierra Leone and escaped the crippling poverty to build a new life in the west, or something of a similar nature, then yes, you were lucky.

If you don't think so, you're an egotistical, egocentric dickhead.

--------------
I'm not the fastest or the baddest or the fatest.

You NEVER seem to address the fact that the grand majority of people supporting Darwinism in these on line forums and blogs are atheists. That doesn't seem to bother you guys in the least. - FtK

Roddenberry is my God.

   
IanBrown_101



Posts: 927
Joined: April 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Mar. 15 2008,18:59   

Quote (GCT @ Mar. 16 2008,00:51)
Quote (skeptic @ Mar. 15 2008,19:24)
I am not lucky Ian, I live the life I live because of the choices I have made.  The same can be said for mankind.  The world is the way it is because of the actions that man has committed.

You're lucky that you happened to be born in a situation where you were able to make those choices at all.  Not all people get to be so lucky and have those choices.

Damn, you beat me to it.

--------------
I'm not the fastest or the baddest or the fatest.

You NEVER seem to address the fact that the grand majority of people supporting Darwinism in these on line forums and blogs are atheists. That doesn't seem to bother you guys in the least. - FtK

Roddenberry is my God.

   
Assassinator



Posts: 479
Joined: Nov. 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Mar. 15 2008,20:32   

dheddle
Quote
So, if God sends beings he loves to hell, that is evil. And if he sends beings he hates to hell, that is also evil. A peculiar case, if you will, of damned if you do, damned if you don't.

Simply sad: sending people to hell is evil. But that's not what it's about. It's about the fact that we're getting told that God loves us all, but A apperantly he condemns craploads of people to eternal doom and B he apperantly does not care about the majority of his creation suffering horribly. It's not about the fact that God would do such a thing, it's about the fact that those things aren't really making Him a good subject for worship. Ofcourse there is another option, he does care about those things but he simply can't do anything about it. That would mean however he isn't all-powerfull, and it would also be a problem for all-knowing. Afterall, then he would know that the majority of his creation would suffer that much, that he would know he would care about that and that he would know he couldn't do anything about it. But despite all that knowledge, he created us. Wierd isn't it?

skeptic
Quote
I am not lucky Ian, I live the life I live because of the choices I have made.  The same can be said for mankind.  The world is the way it is because of the actions that man has committed.

Would you mind telling that to this kid,

That picture speaks for itself, doesn't it skeptic?

  
Arden Chatfield



Posts: 6657
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Mar. 15 2008,21:03   

Quote (Assassinator @ Mar. 15 2008,20:32)
skeptic
   
Quote
I am not lucky Ian, I live the life I live because of the choices I have made.  The same can be said for mankind.  The world is the way it is because of the actions that man has committed.

Would you mind telling that to this kid,

That picture speaks for itself, doesn't it skeptic?

Perhaps Skeptic would maintain that that child's horrible situation was a result of 'bad lifestyle choices' on his parents' part.

--------------
"Rich is just mad because he thought all titties had fur on them until last week when a shorn transvestite ruined his childhood dreams by jumping out of a spider man cake and man boobing him in the face lips." - Erasmus

  
skeptic



Posts: 1163
Joined: May 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Mar. 16 2008,01:15   

again I reiterate, I'm not lucky and you don't know the first thing about me or where I've been.  The hard truth is no matter where you are you're living with the choices that others have made both past and present.  The only way to eliminate this evil, as you call it, is to eliminate free will.  Are you willing to accept that?  And no matter how many pictures you throw up there Assassinator, starvation is not evil, it's a fact of life.  I don't know understand how you can embrace this ideal of the whole world at peace with everyone prosperous and happy and at the same time view faith in God as untenable.  I could easily say that your fantasy is farther removed from reality than mine is.

oh, and back on the original topic:

Global Cooling

Climate Panel hotseat

  
IanBrown_101



Posts: 927
Joined: April 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Mar. 16 2008,02:15   

Quote (skeptic @ Mar. 16 2008,07:15)
again I reiterate, I'm not lucky and you don't know the first thing about me or where I've been.  The hard truth is no matter where you are you're living with the choices that others have made both past and present.  The only way to eliminate this evil, as you call it, is to eliminate free will.  Are you willing to accept that?  And no matter how many pictures you throw up there Assassinator, starvation is not evil, it's a fact of life.  I don't know understand how you can embrace this ideal of the whole world at peace with everyone prosperous and happy and at the same time view faith in God as untenable.  I could easily say that your fantasy is farther removed from reality than mine is.

oh, and back on the original topic:

Global Cooling

Climate Panel hotseat

You know what, you're an evil sod skep, you really are.
Unless you have escaped this kid of crippling poverty or overcome some equal (or somehow worse, although I can't see how it could be worse) issue, not only do I not know anything about you, but I don't CARE. Know why? Because you're a selfish douchebag who thinks that just because everyoe has problems on some level, he isn't lucky. You know what? I've almost certainly (I've never goe to get myself checked out to confirm because I'm terrified that it might turn out positive) got depression. I've also got no money right now, and I've got some other mental issues (inability to accept praise, anger issues, some rather minor social issues, and a rather severe case of paranoia. My life, for the most part is fine, but sometimes these things come and bite me in the arse and when they do you can bet I think my life sucks. Heck, even when I'm happy I bemoan life to the point where my friends get annoyed by me now, but I still think I'm lucky. Why? Because I'm NOT starving, disease ridden and destitute. I have friends who care for me, hot and cold running water, a house and clothing, real food (although recently I've been down to just rice with spices to flavour it, which kinda sucks) and actual prospects, including a current position on a uni course.

I AM lucky, because I'm not in Sudan right now, being massacred. I'm lucky because I DON'T live in rural India, starving and unlikely to ever escape. I'm lucky because I DON'T live in constant fear of being raped or murdered by hired thugs employed by my own government.

But you? You are't lucky, o no. You CAN'T be lucky. People like you, who take their life for granted even when SHOWN how they are lucky, make me sick. I don't know you, you could be the greatest man who ever lived, and you know what? I still think you're vile.

God is ridiculous because there is no need to believe in him, but people do. My "fantasy" as you lovingly call it may not be real now, and it may not be attainable, but at least it gives me something to work for that MIGHT work out. Hell, even if life is still unfair, which I have no doubt it will be, I might add, I could still make things a bit better. Trying to do somethig to help doesn't mean we think we're going to wave a wand and sort out all the worlds problems, heck, it does't even mean we think they will ever be solved, but it means we are willing to try, and through this effort we might make some difference.
I consider living my life as if I can help to be far greater than YOU my twisted friend. You who thinks you are the universe, and who won't hear about how lucky he is from us plebs because we don't know how you SUFFERED. Christ man, you're the worst kind of pond scum.

--------------
I'm not the fastest or the baddest or the fatest.

You NEVER seem to address the fact that the grand majority of people supporting Darwinism in these on line forums and blogs are atheists. That doesn't seem to bother you guys in the least. - FtK

Roddenberry is my God.

   
Louis



Posts: 6436
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Mar. 16 2008,04:12   

{Reads thread}

{Falls over laughing}

{Realises how common belief in this utter drivel is}

{Cries}

A) I believe X, therefore X is true.

B) X is logically inconsistent and unsupported by any evidence.

A)  Human reason is imperfect, X is still true because I bloody well say so.

B) Ah, I see. Quick, Nurse! The screens!

{Leaves}

Louis

P.S. Free will? What is that? Do I have free will to perform any act I can conceive of? Or is "free" will actually not as free as some might like us to believe?

P.P.S. Actually, please don't answer the above. I've heard/read the asinine answers of the terminally credulous and deluded before, and I have no wish to be patronised again about a subject I am more familiar with than most believers.

P.P.P.S. So the news is "Even Southern Baptists are capable of doing something sensible and influenced by evidence"? Well done. Next you'll be telling us that they get their cars fixed by mechanics instead of voodoo witch doctors and act as if the real world exists on occasion. Wow! Well done them. I welcome our brethren and sistren from the Southern Bapist flock to the evidence based community on this issue. Why would this get Brownie points? No one with an ounce of sense cares THAT people agree or disagree about a topic, they care HOW and WHY that agreement or disagreement exists. It's something to do with evidence, not opinion. Gee I wonder if I've said something about that before. I'll leave others to chase the morons around the identical Mulberry bush (Hat Tip R Bill) this time.

--------------
Bye.

  
Reed



Posts: 274
Joined: Feb. 2008

(Permalink) Posted: Mar. 16 2008,04:19   

Quote (skeptic @ Mar. 15 2008,23:15)
Global Cooling

Climate Panel hotseat

The first link shows a breathtaking misunderstanding of science worthy of cdesign proponentis.

The second is a litany of well refuted, yet still oft-repeated denailist canards. This is the familiar habitat of the cdesign proponentis.

Finally, I notice you never did answer any of my questions.

  
skeptic



Posts: 1163
Joined: May 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Mar. 16 2008,09:29   

Sorry, Reed, there's so much on here to respond to at the moment your's might have just gotten lost in the shuffle.  Repeat them please and I'll try to get to them.  Also, in regards to the oft-refuted article, I find it funny that it was published again just 3 days ago.

Louis, I would make one observation.  In this country right now the political force behind GW really doesn't care how you came to the light only that you did and you have now fallen in lock-step with the Truth.  Change you lightbulbs, buy a hybrid car, install solar panels and prepare for oblivion all the while blaming capitalism and accepting the only true resolution to the impending disaster: POPULATION CONTROL.

Ian, I'm not sure where to begin so I won't.  Baby steps might help before we could have a serious conversation about this.  Just a couple of starters for you to work.  1) I am not the Devil.  2) Take responsibility for you actions and recognize that others are responsible for theirs.  3) Smell the roses.  4)  Realize that you can not simultaneously hate and blame God for the state of the world and deny his existence.

  
Assassinator



Posts: 479
Joined: Nov. 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Mar. 16 2008,09:34   

Skeptis, you totally miss my point. I never sad that starvation is evil, or talked about some Utopia. I ment that against your bullshit about choices, YOU have choices. Was it that little boy's choice to starve to death? Was it his choice to get born there? You ARE lucky, lucky you cán choose. They can't.
If your God exists, with those properties it's simple: he wants those children to starve, he lets them starve, he lets them suffer.
Skeptic, do yourself a favor and stop bullshitting about choices. You're damned lucky you're not born in Kenia or Ethiopia. You're damned lucky you cán choose and they cán't, and you know that.
Edit: I see you posted slightly faster, so it's that kid own fault he starved to death?? Was that his own responsibility??
In light in all of your logic skeptic, why would I worship your God? Why shouldn't I worship another God, because there are countless numbers of Gods.

  
Richard Simons



Posts: 425
Joined: Oct. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Mar. 16 2008,09:46   

Quote (skeptic @ Mar. 16 2008,01:15)
And no matter how many pictures you throw up there Assassinator, starvation is not evil, it's a fact of life.

Then what would you consider to be evil? For too many people starvation is both evil and a fact of life.

 
Quote
I don't know understand how you can embrace this ideal of the whole world at peace with everyone prosperous and happy and at the same time view faith in God as untenable.

What a strange comment. It is the fact that the ideal of peace and prosperity for all of creation is unattainable that convinces many that belief in an omniscient, benevolent, all-powerful god is untenable.

Reed's comments on the links you gave are spot on.

Quote (skeptic @ Mar. 16 2008,09:29)
2) Take responsibility for you actions and recognize that others are responsible for theirs.

This comes across as pompous and self-satisfied. Only someone who has never been in an inescapable situation in which they are suffering through no fault of their own could imply that taking responsibility is sufficient to avoid suffering from all forms of evil. How, exactly, could the starving child in the photo have avoided the suffering by taking personal responsibility? What should they (or their parents) have done differently? Assume, for the sake of argument, that they were caught up in a massive crop failure resulting from a changing climate.

--------------
All sweeping statements are wrong.

  
Nerull



Posts: 317
Joined: June 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Mar. 16 2008,10:27   

Quote (skeptic @ Mar. 16 2008,10:29)
Louis, I would make one observation.  In this country right now the political force behind GW really doesn't care how you came to the light only that you did and you have now fallen in lock-step with the Truth.  Change you lightbulbs, buy a hybrid car, install solar panels and prepare for oblivion all the while blaming capitalism and accepting the only true resolution to the impending disaster: POPULATION CONTROL.

Yikes, Skeptic.

Your not just an annoying twit. Your a loon.

The only place you hear people screaming "Global warming is population control!!!" is fringe AM radio stations where nutcases rant about the Illuminati.

That tells me quite a bit about you.

--------------
To rebut creationism you pretty much have to be a biologist, chemist, geologist, philosopher, lawyer and historian all rolled into one. While to advocate creationism, you just have to be an idiot. -- tommorris

   
GCT



Posts: 1001
Joined: Aug. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Mar. 16 2008,10:37   

Quote (skeptic @ Mar. 16 2008,10:29)
Also, in regards to the oft-refuted article, I find it funny that it was published again just 3 days ago.

In a shamelessly right wing hack publication.
Quote
In this country right now the political force behind GW really doesn't care how you came to the light only that you did and you have now fallen in lock-step with the Truth.  Change you lightbulbs, buy a hybrid car, install solar panels and prepare for oblivion all the while blaming capitalism and accepting the only true resolution to the impending disaster: POPULATION CONTROL.

No, the Truth they care about him accepting is their right wing propaganda.  The whole entire second sentence in your "observation" is the antithesis of GW and his political force.  Are you living in some alternate universe where this isn't the case?

(ETA:  I misread this the first time around.  I saw GW and automatically connected Skeptic and the Washington Times with GW meaning George W Bush.  That's why the above makes no sense.)
Quote
4)  Realize that you can not simultaneously hate and blame God for the state of the world and deny his existence.

Are you really that dense?  He's saying that IF god exists, then god is not omni-max, else all of this evil would not happen.  IF god exists, then he is not worthy of worship, but of revulsion instead.  He (and everyone else) can however argue these things without actually believing in god or hating god (it's impossible to hate something that doesn't exist, right Heddle?)  Are you really unable to grasp this rather simple concept?

  
GCT



Posts: 1001
Joined: Aug. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Mar. 16 2008,10:45   

Quote (skeptic @ Mar. 16 2008,02:15)
The only way to eliminate this evil, as you call it, is to eliminate free will.

What a load of carp.  We could make strides to eliminate this sort of evil by giving a damn and helping people in need, which does nothing to disrupt anyone's free will.

Of course, this begs the question of why god can't eliminate this evil without giving up our free will.  Why can't he?  Why did god create this evil in the first place?  You either have to jettison god's omni-benevolence or some other attribute that is normally associated with god in order to make up for this.  Appeals to "free-will" - which I should note is untenable with an omni-max god anyway - simply don't cut it.
Quote
And no matter how many pictures you throw up there Assassinator, starvation is not evil, it's a fact of life.

By your definition, nothing is evil.  Too bad for you, your god has created that condition where starving occurs, murder occurs, rape occurs, genocide occurs, etc. etc. etc.  You can try to explain away the human condition by simply tossing out the idea of "evil" but that doesn't make your god any less of an a-hole.
Quote
I don't know understand how you can embrace this ideal of the whole world at peace with everyone prosperous and happy and at the same time view faith in God as untenable.  I could easily say that your fantasy is farther removed from reality than mine is.

I'm sorry, but who embraces an ideal of the whole world at peace...?  No one is saying that.  What we are saying is that if god exists, and god is omni-max, then god has a lot of explaining to do about this condition that definitely does exist.  Further, I can say that faith in god is untenable because the first part of your statement doesn't hold and for the simple fact that there is no evidence for any god or gods.  If it is not untenable to believe in god, then it's not untenable to believe in the floating teapot, FSM, Allah, Thor, Zeus, invisible pink unicorns, or anything else that anyone can conceivably think of.  And, no, you can't say that a fantasy that I don't hold is farther removed from your fantasy that doesn't have a lick of evidence for it.

  
skeptic



Posts: 1163
Joined: May 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Mar. 16 2008,10:56   

Quote (Nerull @ Mar. 16 2008,10:27)
Quote (skeptic @ Mar. 16 2008,10:29)
Louis, I would make one observation.  In this country right now the political force behind GW really doesn't care how you came to the light only that you did and you have now fallen in lock-step with the Truth.  Change you lightbulbs, buy a hybrid car, install solar panels and prepare for oblivion all the while blaming capitalism and accepting the only true resolution to the impending disaster: POPULATION CONTROL.

Yikes, Skeptic.

Your not just an annoying twit. Your a loon.

The only place you hear people screaming "Global warming is population control!!!" is fringe AM radio stations where nutcases rant about the Illuminati.

That tells me quite a bit about you.

Actually, I seem to recall Kristine say just this within the last month.  I'm hearing this more and more and I find this truly scary.

As for the rest, you guys are unable to think beyond your emotions to even get to what I'm saying.  Ironic.

  
GCT



Posts: 1001
Joined: Aug. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Mar. 16 2008,11:16   

Quote (skeptic @ Mar. 16 2008,11:56)
As for the rest, you guys are unable to think beyond your emotions to even get to what I'm saying.  Ironic.

No, we understand what you are saying perfectly well, you just - as usual - are saying stupid things.  Of course, it's easy for you to lash out and call us emotional, childish, etc. than for you to actually think about what you are saying and actually read our rebuttals and comments isn't it?

  
Arden Chatfield



Posts: 6657
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Mar. 16 2008,12:06   

All Skeptic is doing is rather childishly expressing an extremely common view seen among upper middle class American Christians, especially Protestants. They believe that all good fortune or bad fortune is due to how good a person you are, whether you practice the right religion, or whether you come from a 'good culture'. In this mindset, anyone who is horribly poor is poor because they deserve to be poor. Their freewill led them to make choices that made them poor. If Skeptic is well off, well fed, and safe, that's ONLY because he's made the right choices -- and he REALLY doesn't want to hear that it's the result of being born in the right place, at the right time, and with the right parents. I'm sure he's never thought about it, but that he thinks that if he was born in, say, Cambodia, Bangladesh, Zimbabwe, Haiti, or wherever, he'd still be just as well off and well fed as he is now, because, of course, he would make the right decisions because of his free will.

This is why so many American conservatives hated Guns, Germs, and Steel -- they really hated the idea that White Westerners are as wealthy and powerful as they are ultimately due to geographical accident. Goddamn it, they want to be told they're wealthy and powerful because they're religiously and culturally superior, and so they DESERVE it!

It seems to be the logical extension of the Protestant idea that faith is the ultimate virtue and that good works are irrelevant. It's pretty obviously a religious rationalization for selfishness.

--------------
"Rich is just mad because he thought all titties had fur on them until last week when a shorn transvestite ruined his childhood dreams by jumping out of a spider man cake and man boobing him in the face lips." - Erasmus

  
Erasmus, FCD



Posts: 6349
Joined: June 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Mar. 16 2008,12:39   

All of Arden's germy guns are made of rubber and the only steel is where the battery goes.

Skeptic you are back to being an insufferable wanker.  The suggestion to 'get over it, take responsibility for yourself, pull yourself up by the bootstraps ect ect' is the fucking voice of privilege.  That doesn't mean you are wrong.  It means that your simplistic analysis is rather incomplete.

anyway louis you're gay.

--------------
You're obviously illiterate as hell. Peach, bro.-FtK

Finding something hard to believe based on the evidence, is science.-JoeG

the odds of getting some loathsome taint are low-- Gordon E Mullings Manjack Heights Montserrat

I work on molecular systems with pathway charts and such.-Giggles

  
Arden Chatfield



Posts: 6657
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Mar. 16 2008,13:28   

Quote (Erasmus @ FCD,Mar. 16 2008,12:39)
anyway louis you're gay.

Yeah, and not even in a cool way. A proper gay man would dress better. :angry:

PS: People need to watch this.

--------------
"Rich is just mad because he thought all titties had fur on them until last week when a shorn transvestite ruined his childhood dreams by jumping out of a spider man cake and man boobing him in the face lips." - Erasmus

  
GCT



Posts: 1001
Joined: Aug. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Mar. 16 2008,13:45   

Another thing Skeptic is doing is the odious Xian ideal of the sins of the parents pass to the sins of the children.  Starving children in Africa are there perhaps not because of their bad choices, but the bad choices of their ancestors, so it's all their fault, and the kids fault by extension.  It's just like how we are all guilty of the sin of Adam, and are therefore guilty and lowly scum in the eyes of god.  Apparently, god has found the "sin" gene and knows who inherits it and who doesn't?

  
Lou FCD



Posts: 5402
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Mar. 16 2008,13:55   

Is there an actual point to this thread?

Was there ever?

--------------
Lou FCD is still in school, so we should only count him as a baby biologist. -carlsonjok -deprecated
I think I might love you. Don't tell Deadman -Wolfhound

Work-friendly photography
NSFW photography

   
Arden Chatfield



Posts: 6657
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Mar. 16 2008,14:04   

Quote (Lou FCD @ Mar. 16 2008,13:55)
Is there an actual point to this thread?

Was there ever?

Something about how Skeptic thought we should have warm fuzzies for Southern Baptists because a couple of them don't deny global warming. I don't remember that well anymore.

--------------
"Rich is just mad because he thought all titties had fur on them until last week when a shorn transvestite ruined his childhood dreams by jumping out of a spider man cake and man boobing him in the face lips." - Erasmus

  
Louis



Posts: 6436
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Mar. 16 2008,14:10   

Quote (Arden Chatfield @ Mar. 16 2008,19:28)
Quote (Erasmus @ FCD,Mar. 16 2008,12:39)
anyway louis you're gay.

Yeah, and not even in a cool way. A proper gay man would dress better. :angry:

PS: People need to watch this.

Whilst I am (perhaps sadly) not a member of the homosexual fraternity (or indeed sorority) I have to say that I *DO* need to dress better. Arden is at least right about that.

The sun, it would appear, shines on every dog's arse one day.

Louis

P.S. Lou, a "point"? The only "point" Skeptic has here is a) taking up space that could be better used and b) claiming (falsely) to "introduce" us to concepts he thinks we're unaware of whilst whining about how mean we all are. It's concern trolling and wankery of the most contemptible kind. The point of this thread, if it can be even called that is "Oh Gosh! Look! Some people I think you hate (because I lack the imagination, honesty or intellect to understand/deal with what you *actually* think and feel about religion and religious people) said something that the woefully inaccurate caricature of what I think you are might agree with". Wow. Consider the earth shattered.

--------------
Bye.

  
Lou FCD



Posts: 5402
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Mar. 16 2008,14:22   

Quote (Arden Chatfield @ Mar. 16 2008,15:04)
 
Quote (Lou FCD @ Mar. 16 2008,13:55)
Is there an actual point to this thread?

Was there ever?

Something about how Skeptic thought we should have warm fuzzies for Southern Baptists because a couple of them don't deny global warming. I don't remember that well anymore.

Yes well, the Catholic Church finally got around to acknowledging that the earth goes around the sun, so I guess they deserve a cookie as well.

If someone could get the discussion back around to the Baptists beginning to join the current century on one particular scientific question and why that's worthy of comment, I'll consider leaving the thread open.

Perhaps a discussion of what makes global warming less threatening than evolution to particular cults?  What makes this part of science and reality OK to accept (after years of hemming, hawing, and general tap-dancing and denial), while that part of science and reality remains anathema would be an interesting discourse.

Is it just the special place in a particular god's heart thing, or is there something else at work as well?  After all, there's not really any part of science or reality that doesn't impact on the theology in what a literalist would see as a negative way.  I don't hear much insistence that rabbits chew their cud or that the earth has corners and supporting pillars, for example.  Why not?

--------------
Lou FCD is still in school, so we should only count him as a baby biologist. -carlsonjok -deprecated
I think I might love you. Don't tell Deadman -Wolfhound

Work-friendly photography
NSFW photography

   
Lou FCD



Posts: 5402
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Mar. 16 2008,14:30   

Quote (Louis @ Mar. 16 2008,15:10)
The point of this thread, if it can be even called that is "Oh Gosh! Look! Some people I think you hate (because I lack the imagination, honesty or intellect to understand/deal with what you *actually* think and feel about religion and religious people) said something that the woefully inaccurate caricature of what I think you are might agree with". Wow. Consider the earth shattered.

That's what I've gotten from it as well.

As such, let's get it around to something worthwhile or put it out of its misery.

--------------
Lou FCD is still in school, so we should only count him as a baby biologist. -carlsonjok -deprecated
I think I might love you. Don't tell Deadman -Wolfhound

Work-friendly photography
NSFW photography

   
skeptic



Posts: 1163
Joined: May 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Mar. 16 2008,14:44   

When you guys come back to reality and start to think again in lieu of these boorish generalizations you might try thinking about the condition of humanity as a whole and the causes for that conditions.  Is it God's fault that man has chosen to act the way it has, to squander it's resources the way it has, to kill one another the way it has?  As much as you wish it to be so, this has nothing to do with me and where I was born or what I've been exposed to.  This has to do with free will and humanity's exercise thereof.

Also, to shed some light on my motivation for starting the thread, much to the contrary of proposed theories, I posted that story as sarcasm.  Personally, I find it pathetic that the SBC or any other organization feel so pressured that they must jump on a brain-dead bandwagon to curry favor.  Just a hint, the SBC doesn't really embrace GW, this is PR, nothing more.  If you follow SB theology, outside of the commandment to tend the Garden, baptists and most fundamentalists believe that God is directly in control and nothing mankind can do or say will change that.  The world will end at God's command and not a moment before and if God chooses to use GW or a rain of fire then incandescent light bulbs and hybrid cars aren't going to change that.  It's PR and that's why it's easier to embrace than evolution because they don't really believe it either.

  
GCT



Posts: 1001
Joined: Aug. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Mar. 16 2008,15:11   

Quote (skeptic @ Mar. 16 2008,15:44)
When you guys come back to reality and start to think again in lieu of these boorish generalizations you might try thinking about the condition of humanity as a whole and the causes for that conditions.

That's rich coming from you.
Quote
Is it God's fault that man has chosen to act the way it has, to squander it's resources the way it has, to kill one another the way it has?

Yes, if god is omni-max.
Quote
As much as you wish it to be so, this has nothing to do with me and where I was born or what I've been exposed to.

No one said it did.  What we said was that you have choices that others don't because of where you were born, etc. and that you are an insensitive jerk for not recognizing that.
Quote
This has to do with free will and humanity's exercise thereof.

Not only are you incapable of showing the free will is possible with an omni-max god - it isn't due to the inherent contradiction of a god that knows all at the time of creation - to blame a newborn child in Africa who is starving for his lot because of his free will is not only ludicrous, but insane.
Quote
Also, to shed some light on my motivation for starting the thread, much to the contrary of proposed theories, I posted that story as sarcasm.  Personally, I find it pathetic that the SBC or any other organization feel so pressured that they must jump on a brain-dead bandwagon to curry favor.

IOW, not only are you an evolution denier, but also a denier of global warming and you are willing to cite propagandistic sources like the Washington Times as evidence.  Further, you will heap scorn on those that do understand the science because that's your way of dealing with people who disagree with you and are right, much like you heap scorn on all of us for pointing out your deficient understanding of evolution and your pathetic arguments in regards to your religion.

Lou, this horse is dead.  You may as well shoot it.

  
Erasmus, FCD



Posts: 6349
Joined: June 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Mar. 16 2008,15:41   

well it depends on which baptists you are talking about then i reckon that does make a difference.  these first baptist types that go to church downtown where they work ain't exactly the kinda baptists I like to pick on.

I'm talking bout missionary baptists and three wheel baptists, i'm talking about churches being about 100 meters from each other going down the road because they had some sort of doctrinal split a while back and some of em ain't spoke since.  I'm talking the kinda baptist where you could still get the spirit in the middle of preachin and just holler as loud as you could right there with your hand held up high and just holler about it.

That's a lot more fun to talk about than our boorish generalizations or some people's argumentum ad mere assertionismus incessantum.  Has anyone here ever went to a snake handling?  Cause they probly weren't baptists there.

--------------
You're obviously illiterate as hell. Peach, bro.-FtK

Finding something hard to believe based on the evidence, is science.-JoeG

the odds of getting some loathsome taint are low-- Gordon E Mullings Manjack Heights Montserrat

I work on molecular systems with pathway charts and such.-Giggles

  
GCT



Posts: 1001
Joined: Aug. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Mar. 16 2008,15:45   

BTW, I think Steve Story's theory of the multiple denial has once again been confirmed through another test.  All science denialists have at least 2 pieces of science they deny.  For Skeptic, it seems to be global warming and evolution.

  
Louis



Posts: 6436
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Mar. 16 2008,16:24   

Wait so Skeptic thinks that IF global warming is happening and IF it's god's will that it's happening (which it pretty much has to be according to fundy "theology") then there's nowt we can do so therefore all the people trying to "save the planet" are doing is either wasting their time or sinister population control/red agenda etc?

Whoa. Dude. Ease back on the ketamine.

I've said it before and I've said it again, Obliviot's grip on reality is exceedingly tenuous. Very demonstrably so. I've also said before that "we" (if such an entity exists) need to do very little to combat fundy fuck knuckles like Skeptic. All we need to do is let them open their mouths. Thanks again Skeptic for making our point that you are a dangerously clueless idiot.

Louis

P.S. GCT, I can never remember if Obliviot is actually an antievolutionist or not. Sometimes I seem to remember he is, sometimes I seem to remember he isn't. Either way the multiple denialist idea is in general a very good one, and certainly one borne out by a prima facie examination of the evidence.

--------------
Bye.

  
Arden Chatfield



Posts: 6657
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Mar. 16 2008,16:31   

Quote (Louis @ Mar. 16 2008,16:24)
Wait so Skeptic thinks that IF global warming is happening and IF it's god's will that it's happening (which it pretty much has to be according to fundy "theology") then there's nowt we can do so therefore all the people trying to "save the planet" are doing is either wasting their time or sinister population control/red agenda etc?

Actually, if I interpreted Skeptic's old-man grousing correctly, I think he's saying that while he thinks that global warming (and environmentalism, and probably evolution) is all a bunch a pointy-headed liberal hogwash, he may not himself ascribe to the "Jesus wants us to burn through the planet's resources as quick as possible so as to hasten the rapture" notion. I *think* he's just describing what the SB's think, not necessarily agreeing with it.

Do correct me if there's evidence to the contrary.

Quote
Just a hint, the SBC doesn't really embrace GW, this is PR, nothing more.  


We figured that out. Give us *some* credit.

--------------
"Rich is just mad because he thought all titties had fur on them until last week when a shorn transvestite ruined his childhood dreams by jumping out of a spider man cake and man boobing him in the face lips." - Erasmus

  
Assassinator



Posts: 479
Joined: Nov. 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Mar. 16 2008,16:53   

Skeptic:
 
Quote
When you guys come back to reality and start to think again in lieu of these boorish generalizations you might try thinking about the condition of humanity as a whole and the causes for that conditions.

Certainly, but you know that the little kid I showed earlier has nothing to do with that and doesn't deserve that.
 
Quote
Is it God's fault that man has chosen to act the way it has, to squander it's resources the way it has, to kill one another the way it has?  As much as you wish it to be so, this has nothing to do with me and where I was born or what I've been exposed to.  This has to do with free will and humanity's exercise thereof.

We never sad it was God's fault, we just blaim him for not doing anything. And again, that little kid and thousands like them have nothing to do with those choices. You do know that don't you?
I wasn't talking about us as a whole, I'm talking about individuals, individuals like that little child who are apperantly ignored by God and left to die horribly just like tens of thousands like him.

It's about this Skeptic:
You and I have choices, that little kid had none. Nothing has been done about it, he died slowly and horribly. We're only wondering how that is compatible with a loving God, we're just wondering why the héll we want to worship such a being. Do you understand that?

@Louis:
No no what he sad about population control, is that population control would be a 'solution' for climate change. I do find it almost funny that we westren people think we can and should stop climate change. Really, isn't that the most retarted thing you've (and anyone) has heard?

  
Reed



Posts: 274
Joined: Feb. 2008

(Permalink) Posted: Mar. 16 2008,17:13   

Quote (skeptic @ Mar. 16 2008,07:29)
Sorry, Reed, there's so much on here to respond to at the moment your's might have just gotten lost in the shuffle.  Repeat them please and I'll try to get to them.

They are still here, no need to repeat them.
     
Quote

Also, in regards to the oft-refuted article, I find it funny that it was published again just 3 days ago.

This is a standard denialist tactic. Repeat the same lies frequently to maintain the illusion that there is a real debate. Teach the non-existent controversy!

 
Quote
4)  Realize that you can not simultaneously hate and blame God for the state of the world and deny his existence.

You have utterly failed to understand the objection, or are deliberately distorting it. Pointing out the apparent contradictions in your view doesn't require us to accept the assumptions it is based on.

As an apparent believer in God, you have to deal with the whole question of whether God is a giant asshole, and how that squares with the claim that he is also good and loving. Atheism, and indeed other religions such Hinduism and the Greek and Norse mythologies do not, since these views do not depend on an all-powerful benevolent creator.

  
Nerull



Posts: 317
Joined: June 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Mar. 16 2008,18:59   

Quote (skeptic @ Mar. 16 2008,15:44)
Also, to shed some light on my motivation for starting the thread, much to the contrary of proposed theories, I posted that story as sarcasm.  Personally, I find it pathetic that the SBC or any other organization feel so pressured that they must jump on a brain-dead bandwagon to curry favor.  Just a hint, the SBC doesn't really embrace GW, this is PR, nothing more.  If you follow SB theology, outside of the commandment to tend the Garden, baptists and most fundamentalists believe that God is directly in control and nothing mankind can do or say will change that.  The world will end at God's command and not a moment before and if God chooses to use GW or a rain of fire then incandescent light bulbs and hybrid cars aren't going to change that.  It's PR and that's why it's easier to embrace than evolution because they don't really believe it either.

And *that* is quite clearly and irrefutably wrong.

Psst. Skeptic. If you die, the world doesn't end. It'll be here no matter how badly we fuck it up. At least until we start playing with sufficiently large quantities of anti-matter.

Earth does not require humans.

--------------
To rebut creationism you pretty much have to be a biologist, chemist, geologist, philosopher, lawyer and historian all rolled into one. While to advocate creationism, you just have to be an idiot. -- tommorris

   
skeptic



Posts: 1163
Joined: May 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Mar. 16 2008,19:12   

Quote (Erasmus, FCD @ Mar. 16 2008,15:41)
well it depends on which baptists you are talking about then i reckon that does make a difference.  these first baptist types that go to church downtown where they work ain't exactly the kinda baptists I like to pick on.

I'm talking bout missionary baptists and three wheel baptists, i'm talking about churches being about 100 meters from each other going down the road because they had some sort of doctrinal split a while back and some of em ain't spoke since.  I'm talking the kinda baptist where you could still get the spirit in the middle of preachin and just holler as loud as you could right there with your hand held up high and just holler about it.

That's a lot more fun to talk about than our boorish generalizations or some people's argumentum ad mere assertionismus incessantum.  Has anyone here ever went to a snake handling?  Cause they probly weren't baptists there.

You talking more about Pentecostals than baptists.

  
skeptic



Posts: 1163
Joined: May 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Mar. 16 2008,19:28   

Quote (Arden Chatfield @ Mar. 16 2008,16:31)
Quote (Louis @ Mar. 16 2008,16:24)
Wait so Skeptic thinks that IF global warming is happening and IF it's god's will that it's happening (which it pretty much has to be according to fundy "theology") then there's nowt we can do so therefore all the people trying to "save the planet" are doing is either wasting their time or sinister population control/red agenda etc?

Actually, if I interpreted Skeptic's old-man grousing correctly, I think he's saying that while he thinks that global warming (and environmentalism, and probably evolution) is all a bunch a pointy-headed liberal hogwash, he may not himself ascribe to the "Jesus wants us to burn through the planet's resources as quick as possible so as to hasten the rapture" notion. I *think* he's just describing what the SB's think, not necessarily agreeing with it.

Do correct me if there's evidence to the contrary.

Quote
Just a hint, the SBC doesn't really embrace GW, this is PR, nothing more.  


We figured that out. Give us *some* credit.

Exactly.  I'm just explaining what the SBs really think.  Don't shoot the messenger, lol.

For final clarification, to save Louis from having to go back and look up posts, I am not an anti-evolutionist I just disagree with the proposed mechanism.  Likewise, I don't necessarily disagree with GW, in truth I'm not very interested either way, but I do oppose the hype and find it insulting at the very least.

  
skeptic



Posts: 1163
Joined: May 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Mar. 16 2008,19:31   

Quote (Reed @ Mar. 16 2008,17:13)
Quote (skeptic @ Mar. 16 2008,07:29)
Sorry, Reed, there's so much on here to respond to at the moment your's might have just gotten lost in the shuffle.  Repeat them please and I'll try to get to them.

They are still here, no need to repeat them.
       
Quote

Also, in regards to the oft-refuted article, I find it funny that it was published again just 3 days ago.

This is a standard denialist tactic. Repeat the same lies frequently to maintain the illusion that there is a real debate. Teach the non-existent controversy!

   
Quote
4)  Realize that you can not simultaneously hate and blame God for the state of the world and deny his existence.

You have utterly failed to understand the objection, or are deliberately distorting it. Pointing out the apparent contradictions in your view doesn't require us to accept the assumptions it is based on.

As an apparent believer in God, you have to deal with the whole question of whether God is a giant asshole, and how that squares with the claim that he is also good and loving. Atheism, and indeed other religions such Hinduism and the Greek and Norse mythologies do not, since these views do not depend on an all-powerful benevolent creator.

No, Reed, I don't have to deal with that because I don't accept the premise.  That's your rationalization not mine.  Your intellectual conflict does not necessitate one for me.

Nerull, what is wrong?

  
GCT



Posts: 1001
Joined: Aug. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Mar. 16 2008,20:53   

Quote (skeptic @ Mar. 16 2008,20:31)
No, Reed, I don't have to deal with that because I don't accept the premise.  That's your rationalization not mine.  Your intellectual conflict does not necessitate one for me.

IOW, 'I go by the name skeptic, but I'm really just a true believer that has accepted my religious doctrines and I don't care that they are contradictory.  I either realize they are so and am not bothered by cognitive dissonance, or I don't realize it because I'm blind to the idea that I might be wrong about something.'

  
Reed



Posts: 274
Joined: Feb. 2008

(Permalink) Posted: Mar. 16 2008,22:44   

Quote (skeptic @ Mar. 16 2008,17:31)

No, Reed, I don't have to deal with that because I don't accept the premise.  That's your rationalization not mine.  Your intellectual conflict does not necessitate one for me.

It's not my intellectual conflict. I find the existence of God to be unsupported by any evidence. Given that, it's only of minor interest that most definitions of God (including yours, to the extent that you have presented it) also appear contradictory.

If you'd read the rest of the post, you'd realize that my complaint was about your completely nonsensical response:
       
Quote
4)  Realize that you can not simultaneously hate and blame God for the state of the world and deny his existence.

In any event, your response to my restatement of the question is remarkably content free. Which premise do you not accept ?

But who am I kidding, it's clear you aren't interested in a coherent discussion. Before Lou FCD gives this the lock, could you at least clarify whether killing homosexuals and witches is part of the bibles blueprint for a better life ?

I'm always looking for ways to improve my life.
{eyes Louis and Kristine}

  
skeptic



Posts: 1163
Joined: May 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Mar. 17 2008,01:18   

I've gone into this elsewhere but for your benefit I'll restate it.  There is only one piece of evidence, in the sense you're using it, that can be applied to the existence of God and that is existence itself.  First Cause.  Everything beyond that is purely faith.

As far as your question concerning witches, etc.  You have to look at the Bible in it's full context and to over-simplify it in that way distorts it's meaning or relevance.  The Bible can be viewed as literature, history, theology, metaphor, parable, etc.  A good example is adultery.  In many cultures, past and present, adulterers have been treated harshly.  Our modern sensibilities may reject those acts, and I hope they do, but the underlying message that adultery is bad remains.  Of course, if you ask my wife she fully supports all available punishment for me should the need arise.  Likewise from a theological sense witchcraft and homosexuality are bad things and punishment is a deterrent.  On a personal note, I've always found it strange that believers exercise punishment in this life on things that are not threats to public welfare.  From my perspective, eternal punishment should be enough of a deterrent and punishment that we need not be involved.  Another failing of human nature, I suppose.

  
Louis



Posts: 6436
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Mar. 17 2008,05:26   

Quote (Arden Chatfield @ Mar. 16 2008,22:31)
Quote (Louis @ Mar. 16 2008,16:24)
Wait so Skeptic thinks that IF global warming is happening and IF it's god's will that it's happening (which it pretty much has to be according to fundy "theology") then there's nowt we can do so therefore all the people trying to "save the planet" are doing is either wasting their time or sinister population control/red agenda etc?

Actually, if I interpreted Skeptic's old-man grousing correctly, I think he's saying that while he thinks that global warming (and environmentalism, and probably evolution) is all a bunch a pointy-headed liberal hogwash, he may not himself ascribe to the "Jesus wants us to burn through the planet's resources as quick as possible so as to hasten the rapture" notion. I *think* he's just describing what the SB's think, not necessarily agreeing with it.

Do correct me if there's evidence to the contrary.

Quote
Just a hint, the SBC doesn't really embrace GW, this is PR, nothing more.  


We figured that out. Give us *some* credit.

I think you're right Arden, hence why I framed that bit you quote as a question.

The only bit that makes me unsure is the "brownie points" angle. Why on earth would the SB's position, pure PR or otherwise, win any brownie points? It just doesn't fool anyone with half a brain.

I return to my original comments about the "point" of this thread.

Louis

--------------
Bye.

  
skeptic



Posts: 1163
Joined: May 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Mar. 17 2008,07:07   

uhh...sarcasm.

  
Lou FCD



Posts: 5402
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Mar. 17 2008,07:30   

Quote (GCT @ Mar. 16 2008,16:11)
Lou, this horse is dead.  You may as well shoot it.

Bang.

--------------
Lou FCD is still in school, so we should only count him as a baby biologist. -carlsonjok -deprecated
I think I might love you. Don't tell Deadman -Wolfhound

Work-friendly photography
NSFW photography

   
  99 replies since Mar. 11 2008,00:05 < Next Oldest | Next Newest >  

Pages: (4) < [1] 2 3 4 >   


Track this topic Email this topic Print this topic

[ Read the Board Rules ] | [Useful Links] | [Evolving Designs]