So here's a replacement thread for the 14-page general religion thread which is too long for anyone to expect to read and actually isn't about this kind of thing and also to get the people talking about it in the Ask Bisqwit thread out so they don't bury, um, questions to Bisqwit in their off-topic posts.
Put theological questions concerning Christianity / Judaism / Islam here.
[Edit by AngerFist: I have deleted erokkys and Fabians post. I did not like and find them contributing to the topic. Respect the topic, if not, I will lock it.]
someone is out there who will like you. take off your mask so they can find you faster.
I support the new Nekketsu Kouha Kunio-kun.
Here's what I think.
"Do you believe in god?" is a loaded question, because it asserts the existence of a god regardless of the answer.
Having said that though, I do believe in magic.
Joined: 4/21/2004
Posts: 3517
Location: Stockholm, Sweden
I believe in God but I do not belong to any religion. For some, its obviously hard to explain it but I often refer God with miracles and coincidence.
Nitrogenesis wrote:
Guys I come from the DidyKnogRacist communite, and you are all wrong, tihs is the run of the mileniun and everyone who says otherwise dosnt know any bater! I found this run vary ease to masturbate too!!!! Don't fuck with me, I know this game so that mean I'm always right!StupedfackincommunityTASVideoz!!!!!!
Arc wrote:
I enjoyed this movie in which hands firmly gripping a shaft lead to balls deep in multiple holes.
natt wrote:
I don't want to get involved in this discussion, but as a point of fact C# is literally the first goddamn thing on that fucking page you linked did you even fucking read it
Cooljay wrote:
Mayor Haggar and Cody are such nice people for the community. Metro City's hospitals reached an all time new record of incoming patients due to their great efforts :P
Joined: 3/13/2004
Posts: 1118
Location: Kansai, JAPAN
erokky wrote:
Here's what I think.
"Do you believe in god?" is a loaded question, because it asserts the existence of a god regardless of the answer.
I agree, erokky, although notice that the question raised in this topic is not nearly as loaded.
Personally, I've never been much interested in the answer to this question. When I was a kid, I rejected this "omnipotent being" concept pretty early on. However, I freely admit that all of my observations are based purely on the world I am able to see, so it is entirely possible that there a God (or Gods) exist somewhere beyond my limited vision. However, I take no comfort in that, nor would I be disappointed if there were no such thing.
One thing I don't believe for a second is that any God/Gods that might be out there are concerned with the day-to-day activities of us folks here on Earth. It seems wildly improbable at best and woefully foolish at worst. So I cringe when I hear people use God to defend/condemn anything, especially in matters of morality, public health, and family.
The idea of a God is not particularly abhorrent to me; I certainly think there must be other beings that have innate powers or abilities that humans do not have. However, as feitclub mentions, I would not believe they care about what we do (if they know about us at all).
If other people need to worship a supreme being in order to have a stable pillar in their life on which to lean, I can understand that, but I do not have this compulsion. I prefer instead to rely on myself, and on my friends.
If I ever met a/the God, besides being surprised, I would ask him/it what made humans so special. Are there other aliens with their own God?
"Do you believe in god?" isn't the point of this thread, which I made to get the discussion in the Ask Bisqwit thread moved out of it so it could be continued without burying legitimate posts in that thread. I'd like it if people at least made whatever assumptions they need to get past that and asked actual theological questions (not "do you believe in god?" but "what do you believe about god / the bible / etc?" and "how do you resolve [problem x]?" and "what do you think about [problem y]?" etc).
someone is out there who will like you. take off your mask so they can find you faster.
I support the new Nekketsu Kouha Kunio-kun.
"Do you believe in god?" is a loaded question, because it asserts the existence of a god regardless of the answer.
As I have already said, I don't think it asserts the existence of (a) God/god(s). At most it could make it seem like the person that asks the question has a certain belief/disbelief... but both a theist and an atheist could ask "Do you believe in god?"... so you can't really conclude anything from that.
Note (and some people might disagree, so I've heard), "Do you believe in god?" is the same as "Do you believe god exists?". If you disagree, I'd be interested to hear what exactly is the difference. I think the question is the same in two aspects. Either you literally read it as the same, or you do think that there is something different to "believing in god" and "believing that god exists". If you think there is something different about it consider that there is no possible logic for someone to believe god exists and not believe in him, or for someone to believe in god without thinking that god exists.
erokky wrote:
Having said that though, I do believe in magic.
I don't really know if you were joking or not... but I'll ask anyway. What do you call magic?
Boco wrote:
I'd like it if people at least made whatever assumptions they need to get past that and asked actual theological questions (not "do you believe in god?" but "what do you believe about god / the bible / etc?" and "how do you resolve [problem x]?" and "what do you think about [problem y]?" etc).
Alright then... I won't make any assumptions, but I'm asking these questions to people who consider themselves theists. It has to do with this thing I asked in the "ask Bisqwit"-thread :
Bisqwit wrote:
Baxter wrote:
Is there a difference between the soul of a male and a female?
No. I couldn't find the location in Bible that tells this, but I seem to remember something mentioning that in Heaven, there is no difference between a man and a woman.
Are you able to meet the people again you knew when you were alive in afterlife? How about if you were married, will you still be married in afterlife, or be together? If heaven means complete happyness, then wouldn't that for some people also mean being able to meet their pets again? Would this mean that animals also go to heaven? (If you answer yes to this last question, then do you eat meat, and can you justify that for yourself?)
Also, in most religions, being gay is considered a sin. But if the souls of men and women are the same, then wouldn't it be the same for two men or two women to fall in love, just like a man and a women? In afterlife you wouldn't be able to tell the difference anyway, if the quote from Bisqwit is true.
p.s. Fabian: please don't ignore me ;)
How about if you were married, will you still be married in afterlife, or be together?
According to Matthew 22:23-30, people will not still be married in Heaven.
Baxter wrote:
If heaven means complete happyness, then wouldn't that for some people also mean being able to meet their pets again?
It seems like you're assuming that "complete happiness" in Heaven would be whatever people living now on earth would consider "complete happiness," which I do not necessarily think is the case. I think the most important thing to keep in mind is that the defining characteristic of Heaven is being in the presence of God:
Revelation 21:3-4 wrote:
And I heard a great voice out of heaven saying, Behold, the tabernacle of God is with men, and he will dwell with them, and they shall be his people, and God himself shall be with them, and be their God.
And God shall wipe away all tears from their eyes; and there shall be no more death, neither sorrow, nor crying, neither shall there be any more pain: for the former things are passed away.
As those verses indicate, being in the presence of God will more than offset any possible sorrow due to family members, friends, or pets who will not be there.
As far as animals going to heaven, I'm not sure about that. I'll look into it some more.
Baxter wrote:
If you answer yes to this last question, then do you eat meat, and can you justify that for yourself?
God gave Noah and his sons permission to eat meat after the Flood (Genesis 9:1-4).
Baxter wrote:
Also, in most religions, being gay is considered a sin. But if the souls of men and women are the same, then wouldn't it be the same for two men or two women to fall in love, just like a man and a women? In afterlife you wouldn't be able to tell the difference anyway, if the quote from Bisqwit is true.
God defined marriage as between one man and one woman in Genesis 2:18-24. Furthermore, God made it clear that homosexuality is a sin through passages such as Leviticus 18:22, Leviticus 20:13, and Romans 1:26-27. Since people won't be married in the afterlife, I don't think an "equality of souls" argument is appropriate.
I'd actually like to know what passage Bisqwit was referring to when he answered that question about the souls. The closest I can find is Galatians 3:26-28. I wouldn't be too comfortable using just that passage to prove that male and female souls are completely the same, since the point of it is that Jesus' sacrifice applies to all types of people, even those who might be seen as inferior by others. What is clear, however, is that both male and female souls are alike in that they can be saved.
Is there a difference between the soul of a male and a female?
No. I couldn't find the location in Bible that tells this, but I seem to remember something mentioning that in Heaven, there is no difference between a man and a woman.(1)
Are you able to meet the people again you knew when you were alive in afterlife?(2) How about if you were married, will you still be married in afterlife, or be together?(3) If heaven means complete happyness(4), then wouldn't that for some people also mean being able to meet their pets again? Would this mean that animals also go to heaven?(5) (If you answer yes to this last question, then do you eat meat(6), and can you justify that for yourself?)
Also, in most religions, being gay is considered a sin.(7) But if the souls of men and women are the same, then wouldn't it be the same for two men or two women(8) to fall in love, just like a man and a women? In afterlife you wouldn't be able to tell the difference anyway, if the quote from Bisqwit is true.
1. This is correct; Galations 3:28 There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither slave nor free, there is neither male nor female – for all of you are one in Christ Jesus.
The Mosaic code defines four sexes which are used for legal purposes but these distinctions are created due to this world and not intrinsic ones. In the same way, nothing expressly differentiates a (for example) Jewish soul from that of a non-Jew - the Jews were chosen to be made example of by God for reasons unrelated to actual spiritual differentiation.
2. Yes; Genesis 25:8 Then Abraham breathed his last and died at a good old age, an old man who had lived a full life. He joined his ancestors.
This and other references (though somewhat masked in this translation) exhibit the idea of a reunion after death. Some specific punishments exclude a person from this reunion: Exodus 31:14 So you must keep the Sabbath, for it is holy for you. Everyone who defiles it must surely be put to death; indeed, if anyone does any work on it, then that person will be cut off from among his people. (keep in mind that this law is intended for and only applies to Jews, but the idea is still there)
3. Marriage is a this-world institution that will NOT be carried forward; Mark 12:24 Jesus said to them, “Aren’t you deceived for this reason, because you don’t know the scriptures or the power of God? 12:25 For when they rise from the dead, they neither marry nor are given in marriage, but are like angels in heaven.
4. It's neither heaven nor happiness, rather a perfected renewed Earth. This is a perpetual misunderstanding that's really annoyingly common. The ressurection will occur on this Earth, and the dead don't "go to heaven" immediately or at all. Revelation 20:5 (The rest of the dead did not come to life until the thousand years were finished.) This is the first resurrection. and Reveltion 21:1 Then I saw a new heaven and a new earth, for the first heaven and earth had ceased to exist, and the sea existed no more. 21:2 And I saw the holy city – the new Jerusalem – descending out of heaven from God, made ready like a bride adorned for her husband. 21:3 And I heard a loud voice from the throne saying: “Look! The residence of God is among human beings. He will live among them, and they will be his people, and God himself will be with them. 21:4 He will wipe away every tear from their eyes, and death will not exist any more – or mourning, or crying, or pain, for the former things have ceased to exist.”
5. No. Animals do not possess the correct kind of soul.
6. I don't personally eat meat but there's no religious reason. It should be noted that humans were intended to have a vegetarian diet Genesis 1:29 Then God said, “I now give you every seed-bearing plant on the face of the entire earth and every tree that has fruit with seed in it. They will be yours for food. 1:30 And to all the animals of the earth, and to every bird of the air, and to all the creatures that move on the ground – everything that has the breath of life in it – I give every green plant for food.” It was so., with meat only allowed once the world had been fundamentally altered Genesis 9:2 Every living creature of the earth and every bird of the sky will be terrified of you. Everything that creeps on the ground and all the fish of the sea are under your authority. 9:3 You may eat any moving thing that lives. As I gave you the green plants, I now give you everything., and come the ressurection there will be a return to vegetarianism Isaiah 11:6 A wolf will reside with a lamb,/and a leopard will lie down with a young goat;/an ox and a young lion will graze together,/as a small child leads them along./11:7 A cow and a bear will graze together,/their young will lie down together./A lion, like an ox, will eat straw., but there's no religious impetus to be vegetarian in the current age.
7. This is a topic all to itself that would take a long time to answer, so I'll save it for another time.
8. Lesbianism has never been restricted and this is intentional.
someone is out there who will like you. take off your mask so they can find you faster.
I support the new Nekketsu Kouha Kunio-kun.
The only interesting idea (interesting as in, no one has ever had the balls to reply to it) I've had is that there's really no way for a theist to know that their particular holy book was not, in truth, written by their particular anti-deity.
Many people accept that either God or Satan can respectively "speak through" or "possess" an individual. How, then, do we know that the bible wasn't written by someone possessed by Satan?
What if following the bible actually gets you sent to hell, and the "true way" is, for example, to abstain from letting a book dictate your morality to you?
I believe that because one cannot know the answer to this question, no one has dared provide a serious answer to it whenever I bring it up.
It's not this earth, it's a new one, as the passage you posted says.
Boco wrote:
No. Animals do not possess the correct kind of soul.
Since you're using that passage from Isaiah to indicate what will happen after the Resurrection, and it largely consists of changed animal behaviors, aren't you contradicting yourself?
Boco wrote:
Lesbianism has never been restricted and this is intentional.
What leads you to say this? The Genesis passage that I posted above shows that God made men and women specifically for each other. This is reinforced by what Jesus said:
Mark 10:6 wrote:
But from the beginning of the creation God made them male and female.
Any other combinations are contrary to God's will.
nfq wrote:
A soul does not have a gender
When I said "male and female souls," I meant the souls of males and females.
nfq wrote:
Do you think you are a man just because you're currently wearing a man's body?
I never said that. By the way, this seems to contradict your previous sentence. If it's not the soul or the body that differentiates between men and women, what is it?
I don't believe in a god, and I can't, but I wish I could believe so that life wouldn't seem so pointless.
Get born, have and raise children so that they can have children, and then die.
Am I being overly negative?
I don't believe in a god, and I can't, but I wish I could believe so that life wouldn't seem so pointless.
Get born, have and raise children so that they can have children, and then die.
Am I being overly negative?
Maybe... small-minded? You can't say that life is pointless and then say that the point is to reproduce. There's no point, but there are things that make sense, like living for personal fulfillment and enjoyment, or supplicating yourself to an imaginary father figure.
Of course, you could ask Bisqwit to change your name to from SwedishMartin to NegativeNancy. :)
It seems like you're assuming that "complete happiness" in Heaven would be whatever people living now on earth would consider "complete happiness," which I do not necessarily think is the case. I think the most important thing to keep in mind is that the defining characteristic of Heaven is being in the presence of God
Well... I'm not talking about someone being very fond of his collection of stamps, or his HD tv. I'm talking about things that define how a person lives... something a person would give his/her life for, such as their child. A mother will not have forgotten about her child in afterlife... otherwise you can hardly say it's the same 'person'/soul. Suppose for whatever reason (maybe the child was an atheist) the mother wouldn't be able to meet her child again in afterlife... she would still be thinking about the child, and it could hardly be called complete happiness. Note that I said if heaven means complete happiness in the question I asked in the earlier post. I know you already wrote somewhat of a response to this:
Dacicus wrote:
As those verses indicate, being in the presence of God will more than offset any possible sorrow due to family members, friends, or pets who will not be there.
But knowing your child isn't experiencing the happiness you are experiencing can't possibly be solved by you experiencing happiness.
You also made me wonder... aren't we already in God's presence when we are alive?
Dacicus wrote:
God defined marriage as between one man and one woman in Genesis 2:18-24
If they gay people were to have some kind of other official commitment, which was called something different than "marriage", wouldn't that just be the same with another name for it? It would seem strange to me if the only problem people were having with it was the word "marriage", it would only be a semantic thing. If however a kind of commitment similar to marriage is not approved, then wouldn't that mean telling other people to act according to your personal belief, while they might be believing something completely different themselves? I think that would be disliked by any person.
Dacicus wrote:
Furthermore, God made it clear that homosexuality is a sin through passages such as Leviticus 18:22, Leviticus 20:13, and Romans 1:26-27
Any idea why it is a sin?
Dacicus wrote:
Since people won't be married in the afterlife, I don't think an "equality of souls" argument is appropriate.
Replace "married" with "in love". People can still be in love in the afterlife right?
Actually, these questions were also for Boco, for instance:
Boco wrote:
Marriage is a this-world institution that will NOT be carried forward
Is love carried forward? If your feelings aren't carried forward, wouldn't that mean you are someone different?
etc
Also:
Boco wrote:
The ressurection will occur on this Earth, and the dead don't "go to heaven" immediately or at all.
I assume you don't mean this Earth, like Dacicus said, but some other place were souls would hang around. If you did mean this Earth, you could ask questions like "Do souls have a mass?", "Are souls able to see?" and other stupid questions.
Boco wrote:
No. Animals do not possess the correct kind of soul.
This directly leads me to the question: What is your stance on evolution?
Boco wrote:
Lesbianism has never been restricted and this is intentional.
Oh, didn't know this. You sound like there is a good reason why this is also; I'd like to hear it. (To me, it somehow sounds like something men made up.)
Dromiceius wrote:
The only interesting idea (interesting as in, no one has ever had the balls to reply to it) I've had is that there's really no way for a theist to know that their particular holy book was not, in truth, written by their particular anti-deity.
It allows cancer and child rape. Why not?
To elaborate, gods are apathetic fellows.
Epicurus wrote:
Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able? Then he is not omnipotent.
Is he able, but not willing? Then he is malevolent.
Is he both able and willing? Then whence cometh evil?
Is he neither able nor willing? Then why call him God?
Warp wrote:
This is the stupidest and most useless thread in the entire site. Just lock it, please.
Tsk. What an anti-intellectual attitude! You should at least justify your position if you're going to insinuate that we're all stupid, and try to armchair-moderate the forum.
oh my god boco, are you a christian...
Warp wrote:
This is the stupidest and most useless thread in the entire site.
Why?
Epicurus wrote:
Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able? Then he is not omnipotent.
Is he able, but not willing? Then he is malevolent.
Is he both able and willing? Then whence cometh evil?
Is he neither able nor willing? Then why call him God?
Epicurus was a fool. Let me explain: God is both able and willing to prevent evil but he can't because evil is good. If there was no evil, how could we know what good is? Without evil, we couldn't do good, so it has to exist.
Baxter wrote:
she would still be thinking about the child, and it could hardly be called complete happiness.
fool (edit: what the hell is that fool doing there?) no one loves another person, they only love the love itself which is god because the bible says that god is love.
without that feeling, a mother wouldn't love her child.
You also made me wonder... aren't we already in God's presence when we are alive?
you can sense god's presence like this: the happier you are, the closer to god you are.
Any idea why it is a sin?
because you get AIDS. everybody can see that god and nature meant that man and woman should be together, because otherwise no child is born.
behold the magnets: they only love their opposites. they are moral and perfect because they're not smart enough to sin, so we should do the same.
Replace "married" with "in love". People can still be in love in the afterlife right?
no f--ing way they can! to love someone means to lack something, but in heaven we are whole, complete and one with god.
If your feelings aren't carried forward, wouldn't that mean you are someone different?
does it matter? you are different than you were as a child. infact, you are reborn each day and are a [little] different person each day.
Dromiceuis has effectively said it all.
I have often half-jokingly conducted tests as to the existence of God. If God smites people so readily, one could do something to anger Him and see if one gets hit by a meteor, turned into salt, or zapped by lightning. For example, yesterday I moved a bible into the fiction section at a bookstore. Such an overt display would greatly anger God, if he existed, but there's been no lightning yet.
Another, more basic test, involves praying for God to set a bush on fire without any true chemical reaction occuring, as mentioned somewhere or other in the bible. Nothing. It's been over a month since that test, and still nothing has happened.
Not that I disagree, but by that logic there would no way to distinguish who goes to heaven or hell. For the sake of argument, I am assuming that god wouldn't make himself morally indifferent, and yet give two poops about the morality of humans.
The point I'm actually trying to argue still stands.
I didn't ask you anything for a good reason; your arguments make no sense, and your ideas are uninteresting... they also aren't sincere. There is no point in responding to them.
Dromiceius wrote:
Baxter wrote:
You think their deity would allow this?
It allows cancer and child rape. Why not?
One could give answers like it not being the same. One was directly influenced by the anti-deity, the others (rape, cancer) come from natural causes/choices. One could draw a distinction between that and say that's the reason.
If an anti-deity had done something which made it unable for good souls to go to 'heaven'... the deity would probably do something about it. Cancer and rape don't prevent good souls going to heaven.
(This might not sound so terribly convincing... but I'm only trying to guess what arguments could be brought up.)
One could give answers like it not being the same. One was directly influenced by the anti-deity, the others (rape, cancer) come from natural causes/choices. One could draw a distinction between that and say that's the reason.
If an anti-deity had done something which made it unable for good souls to go to 'heaven'... the deity would probably do something about it. Cancer and rape don't prevent good souls going to heaven.
I suppose I could counter by pointing out that God allows other religions; Christianity allows Islam to exist and vice-versa. Allowing these "false gods" to exist and mislead millions would be equivalent to letting Satan write the bible, IMO.
But more importantly, your premises depend on the possibility of understanding god's will, which we can only claim to know through the bible (and/or various arguments from personal credulity.)
