Pope Francis describes ‘ideological Christians’ as a ‘serious illness’

[DArtagnan]

He could have but that would make human beings not the image of God though quite a bit lesser. We were made in the image of God. He was aware of the risks. I guess it comes from the nature of God. It is like the difference between having a child and a pet. You probably have far more control over a pet.

So he was aware that he might have to slaughter them to make a point and he was ok with that?

 

[Roq]

So he was aware that he might have to slaughter them to make a point and he was ok with that?

Hang on a sec, there's no "might" about it, the guy is omniscient! He knew exactly how every one of his creations was going to behave before he created them and exactly when he'd "have" to slaughter them for idol worship and other such misdemeanors.

 

[DArtagnan]

Hang on a sec, there's no "might" about it, the guy is omniscient! He knew exactly how every one of his creations was going to behave before he created them and exactly when he'd "have" to slaughter them for idol worship and other such misdemeanors.

That's right - he should understand all things past, present and future.... Meaning all events happen exactly according to plan.

But that's a paradox, because maybe he intentionally created random seeds so things wouldn't be predictable - and is that omniscience or not?

 

[redman5427]

You guys are having too much fun.

Whatever happens, you guys should be hired to do the writing for the next game in the Populous series.

 

[zahratustra]

Well, well, well, wonders will never cease… I actually agree with what dte wrote in his last 6 posts

 

[dteowner]

Well, well, well, wonders will never cease… I actually agree with what dte wrote in his last 6 posts

It's already a crazy day when I'm somehow defending religion, so we might as well put it over the top, eh? Hockey games in hell and all...

 

[Damian]

So he was aware that he might have to slaughter them to make a point and he was ok with that?

Hang on a sec, there's no "might" about it, the guy is omniscient! He knew exactly how every one of his creations was going to behave before he created them and exactly when he'd "have" to slaughter them for idol worship and other such misdemeanors.

That's right - he should understand all things past, present and future…. Meaning all events happen exactly according to plan.

Right. You see if Jesus came before a period of time where God didnt prove that man cant do it alone, people would say it wasnt necessary.

 

[zahratustra]

It's already a crazy day when I'm somehow defending religion, so we might as well put it over the top, eh? Hockey games in hell and all…

In this particular thread you just have happened to defended religion. But, with a change of emphasis, your argument works equally well the other way round.

 

[DArtagnan]

Right. You see if Jesus came before a period of time where God didnt prove that man cant do it alone, people would say it wasnt necessary.

I'm trying to make sense of what you just said, but I guess it's too early in the morning

I probaby have to be a Christian to understand this kind of deep reasoning!

 

[Roq]

I'm trying to make sense of what you just said, but I guess it's too early in the morning

I probaby have to be a Christian to understand this kind of deep reasoning!

I think the idea is that if Jesus had appeared before God took to drowning the earth and otherwise decimating it's population, then you could argue that Jesus wasn't necessary, as man at that time hadn't yet demonstrated his sinfulness sufficiently to make the savior maximally impactful.

If God had sent in Jesus immediately the first man sinned it would have saved a lot of bloodshed, but wouldn't have done so much for god's public relations.

 

[DArtagnan]

I think the idea is that if Jesus had appeared before God took to drowning the earth and otherwise decimating it's population, then you could argue that Jesus wasn't necessary, as man at that time hadn't yet demonstrated his sinfulness sufficiently to make the savior maximally impactful.

If God had sent in Jesus immediately the first man sinned it would have saved a lot of bloodshed, but wouldn't have done so much for god's public relations.

That doesn't really answer the question about why God created a sinful race, being all-knowing, and knowing that he'd have to punish them through slaughter - and then send Jesus to make an example through him, by making him suffer tremendously, despite not having been sinful himself. He sacrificed himself, the decent fellow that he was - but why did he have to?

Also, people are still being rather nasty and sinful - so torturing Jesus didn't make the slightest difference. AFAIK, we've had quite a lot of torture and mass-slaughter BECAUSE religious people don't agree with each other, and apparently - it's A-OK to kill each other for that reason, based on a surprisingly widespread interpretation of the divine word.

Obviously, we're not smart enough to interpret the crystal clear teachings of the Bible, so we're going to kill each other. But is that our own fault for being so stupid? Are we being willfully stupid and do we really enjoy killing and dying?

Again, it's obviously something you'd have to be a Christian to understand.

I've never been comfortable with other people suffering - and if I could have my way, people wouldn't need to die and suffer constantly. I felt really bad just this morning when I drove right past the corpse of a cat with the lower body maimed on the freeway. I don't really understand why the cat had to go through that - but I guess there's a lesson there somewhere.

If the lesson is that we should not drive cars, then I wonder why we're capable of creating them in the first place? If God doesn't like that kind of suffering - then why is the lesson itself more important than the suffering of innocent animals?

How many people would have died and suffered as a result of not being able to drive to the hospital, if we're not allowed to drive cars?

Why are cats made without the ability to stay out of harm's way?

We can drive cars, but only if we're perfect drivers who can't make mistakes? People are still Christian if they make a mistake, though, so all will be forgiven - but the cat still suffered.

The cat itself was sinful? It didn't read the Bible thoroughly enough?

So many things I don't understand.

But I'm not a Christian, so obviously I just don't have what it takes to understand all things divine.

 

[Roq]

That doesn't really answer the question about why God created a sinful race, being all-knowing, and knowing that he'd have to punish them through slaughter - and then send Jesus to make an example through him, by making him suffer tremendously, despite not having been sinful himself. He sacrificed himself, the decent fellow that he was - but why did he have to?

Christians can never quite decide whether their God is some ineffable power, on the one hand, or a morally primitive old man (with or without a long white beard) who behaves a bit like an admixture of their dads and Osama Bin Laden, and requires pacification lest he smite you.

The doctrine of atonement/redemption is based on the "dad" side of God's nature: If you've sinned you need to be chastised, but if you are clever you can substitute something or someone else, such as a goat, lamb or Jesus ("lamb of god that taketh away the sins of the world"). And of course that's all bound up with the primitive rationale for sacrificing stuff, which permeates the bible.

Christian apologists have struggled with this schizophrenic view for centuries, in an attempt to modernize the concept of their god. But, there can be no resolution, because the death and resurrection of Jesus is *the* central part of the Christian faith and the rationale for it (atonement) is steeped in primitive moral thinking beyond any hope of making it appear sensible in the light of the modern secular moral values that emerged in the enlightenment.

 

[DArtagnan]

That's one theory.

Another theory is that (some) people of faith have some kind of innate understanding instilled through whatever divine means, that I'm simply unable to comprehend. That they can't articulate it in such a way as to make me appreciate it, doesn't necessarily indicate they're in the wrong. I could simply be unable to grasp it.

I can't rule it out, because I'm not an atheist - and I don't consider my own perception infallible.

 

[Damian]

That doesn't really answer the question about why God created a sinful race, being all-knowing, and knowing that he'd have to punish them through slaughter - and then send Jesus to make an example through him, by making him suffer tremendously, despite not having been sinful himself. He sacrificed himself, the decent fellow that he was - but why did he have to?

God didn't make a sinful race to begin with. Man chose to rebel against God when they were "tricked". Adam knew he was in the wrong Eve didnt. Adam could have stopped her if he wanted to, but he didn't.

Also, people are still being rather nasty and sinful - so torturing Jesus didn't make the slightest difference. AFAIK, we've had quite a lot of torture and mass-slaughter BECAUSE religious people don't agree with each other, and apparently - it's A-OK to kill each other for that reason, based on a surprisingly widespread interpretation of the divine word.

People dont really kill each other over the bible these days. Except for maybe Africa where very few people have bibles. They kill each other because thier pastors mislead them.

Obviously, we're not smart enough to interpret the crystal clear teachings of the Bible, so we're going to kill each other. But is that our own fault for being so stupid? Are we being willfully stupid and do we really enjoy killing and dying?

I honestly dont know. It might have something to do with maturity. But judging by the news i guess some people never mature.

I've never been comfortable with other people suffering - and if I could have my way, people wouldn't need to die and suffer constantly. I felt really bad just this morning when I drove right past the corpse of a cat with the lower body maimed on the freeway. I don't really understand why the cat had to go through that - but I guess there's a lesson there somewhere.

If the lesson is that we should not drive cars, then I wonder why we're capable of creating them in the first place? If God doesn't like that kind of suffering - then why is the lesson itself more important than the suffering of innocent animals?

How many people would have died and suffered as a result of not being able to drive to the hospital, if we're not allowed to drive cars?

Why are cats made without the ability to stay out of harm's way?

We can drive cars, but only if we're perfect drivers who can't make mistakes? People are still Christian if they make a mistake, though, so all will be forgiven - but the cat still suffered.

It is good that you dont like suffering. And cats can stay out of harms way most of the time. It is only when a vehicle is travelling at over 100kmph that is has problems IMO anyway. Then again cats are weird. Like to save a cat from drowning arent you supposed to spin it over your head by the tail?

 

[DArtagnan]

God didn't make a sinful race to begin with. Man chose to rebel against God when they were "tricked". Adam knew he was in the wrong Eve didnt. Adam could have stopped her if he wanted to, but he didn't.

How can a race be sinful if it wasn't part of their make-up to become such?

Eve was banished even though she wasn't aware she was in the wrong?

People dont really kill each other over the bible these days. Except for maybe Africa where very few people have bibles. They kill each other because thier pastors mislead them.

Are you saying not a single killing has taken place that has been due to misinterpretation of something the Bible says?

The pastor is a human being, is he not?

I honestly dont know. It might have something to do with maturity. But judging by the news i guess some people never mature.

Why would God create people who don't mature when the result is the death of innocent and mature people?

It is good that you dont like suffering. And cats can stay out of harms way most of the time. It is only when a vehicle is travelling at over 100kmph that is has problems IMO anyway. Then again cats are weird. Like to save a cat from drowning arent you supposed to spin it over your head by the tail?

No one likes suffering.

The only being I would suspect enjoys suffering would be a being that inflicts pain for a reason that you can't trace back to something you can understand.

As of this moment, the only being I'm aware of that behaves in such a way is God - assuming that being exists.

Are you saying a cat has never been run over by a car driving slower than 100 KMH?

Cats may be weird, but they're still suffering - and I don't understand why that has to be.

Again, I'm not a Christian - so I can't grasp this.

 

[Roq]

That's one theory.

Another theory is that (some) people of faith have some kind of innate understanding instilled through whatever divine means, that I'm simply unable to comprehend. That they can't articulate it in such a way as to make me appreciate it, doesn't necessarily indicate they're in the wrong. I could simply be unable to grasp it.

I can't rule it out, because I'm not an atheist - and I don't consider my own perception infallible.

One problem with that is the huge multiplicity of religions that make totally contradictory claims. And all religions, including Christianity, make very specific claims to know things about their object/s of worship. And It must be pretty clear that your "sensus divinitatus" tells you very different things according to which culture and historical period you are born into. In the light of that you'd need some very convincing evidence to prefer one religion over another, and there isn't any. So, the most sensible conclusion is that they are all false and that this sense of the divine is a delusion. Noone should be surprised that people believe things that are not true. After all, everyone knows that every religion, but their own, is false.

 

[DArtagnan]

One problem with that is the huge multiplicity of religions that make totally contradictory claims. And all religions, including Christianity, make very specific claims to know things about their object/s of worship. And It must be pretty clear that your "sensus divinitatus" tells you very different things according to which culture and historical period you are born into. In the light of that you'd need some very convincing evidence to prefer one religion over another, and there isn't any. So, the most sensible conclusion is that they are all false and that this sense of the divine is a delusion. Noone should be surprised that people believe things that are not true. After all, everyone knows that every religion, but their own, is false.

I don't think you and I are on the same page when it comes to the concept of flawed perception.

In my mind, I have to accept the possibility that my brain is not complete or fully functional. It's possible that there are things that seem completely and utterly irrational or incomprehensible, and yet they don't have to be that way.

Just like I don't understand the concept of infinity and I don't understand the theory of the Big Bang - it's possible that I don't understand faith.

No matter how clearly and rationally I can deconstruct any argument supporting the existence of one or more divine beings, it's not at all impossible that my logic will be incomplete or heavily flawed - because there are factors that are completely beyond my own understanding - and possibly even senses that I don't possess.

It's something I have to accept as a possibility, even though I'm not going to live my life as if I didn't understand anything. I don't see how that can be possible and reasonably pleasant at the same time.

 

[Damian]

How can a race be sinful if it wasn't part of their make-up to become such?

It is the snowball effect. It starts small and gets really big.

Eve was banished even though she wasn't aware she was in the wrong?

Yes because while she knew from Adam that she shoudlnt eat from the tree it was Adams duty to look after her, he failed. They are together so they deal with things together.

Are you saying not a single killing has taken place that has been due to misinterpretation of something the Bible says?

Pretty much.

The pastor is a human being, is he not?

Yes.

Why would God create people who don't mature when the result is the death of innocent and mature people?

God didnt create people like that. It is the result of sin that has a physical element to it. The bodies of children have the effects of sin to deal with.

The only being I would suspect enjoys suffering would be a being that inflicts pain for a reason that you can't trace back to something you can understand.

As of this moment, the only being I'm aware of that behaves in such a way is God - assuming that being exists.

You really havent look that hard have you? I dont blame you form not looking. But a lot of mass murderers enjoy inflicting pain on people. And FYI God doesnt enjoy the suffering of people that dont deserve it.

Are you saying a cat has never been run over by a car driving slower than 100 KMH?

Cats may be weird, but they're still suffering - and I don't understand why that has to be.

Again, I'm not a Christian - so I can't grasp this.

That 100kmph is an arbitary number however an animals instincts would help it get out of the way of a slow moving object imo. Then again i havent had much dealings with animals.

 

[Roq]

I don't think you and I are on the same page when it comes to the concept of flawed perception.

In my mind, I have to accept the possibility that my brain is not complete or fully functional. It's possible that there are things that seem completely and utterly irrational or incomprehensible, and yet they don't have to be that way.

Just like I don't understand the concept of infinity and I don't understand the theory of the Big Bang - it's possible that I don't understand faith.

No matter how clearly and rationally I can deconstruct any argument supporting the existence of one or more divine beings, it's not at all impossible that my logic will be incomplete or heavily flawed - because there are factors that are completely beyond my own understanding - and possibly even senses that I don't possess.

It's something I have to accept as a possibility, even though I'm not going to live my life as if I didn't understand anything. I don't see how that can be possible and reasonably pleasant at the same time.

Yes, but aren't you trying to be so open minded that your brain falls out? And if you really want to adopt that kind of position, you need to take account of all sorts of other things, not just faith in some deity: It may equivalently be that you don't truely understand father christmas or the tooth fairy or the flying spaghetti monster. Why should one reject those concepts and not some equally ludicrous father figure in the sky?

 

[dteowner]

You mean you don't believe in the Flying Spaghetti Monster? Fucking heathen.