Does God exist? (your opinion anyways.)

Off-topic if anyone could recommend any good history books, that might be cool.

Give me a couple days to get a list together... I'll PM the list to you when I get it.

I don't know, maybe it's a misconception on my part but I feel that all our culture is pervaded by implication that sex (or rather sexual desire) is a manifestation of the original sin. Equating virginity with innocence, kids being OK if watching Rambo but them seeing a pair of tits flashing on TV destroys the innocence etc...

On the other hand, other than the TV censors, they try to shove sex at you from every angle... All in all, they are extremely hypocritical in today's secular environs. (my opinion: squishy boobs are fun to watch, just don't squirt in them unless you're married to them)

Honestly, my Mom (who many have equated to being a religious prude) will sit and comment on boobs that are shown in movies, and she'll make fairly lewd jokes from time to time. If she is a "religious prude", and "equating sex with sin", (she has 3 kids, and I was born 12 years after she got her tubes tied) then is a regular person really just a raging nymphomaniac? (I could get into even more detail about how my family violates that stereotype, but that'd take the thread off topic)

Actually, back right after the garden, there wasn't anyone else around... Siblings married each other, and had families... Incest wasn't a taboo since there were no genetic mutation associated with those kind of couplings. After Noah, same thing... (read this for some insight into the history of incest: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Incest_taboo)

In the 1920's and 30' the average family size for Christian farmers was 8+ children... In the middle ages, Christian families were getting over 5 children on average, and about 2/3 were dying... Near the birth of Christ, the number of children is estimated to be between 4 and 7 children per household... Sex has never been considered bad unless you're not married to your sexual partner. (at least not by any of the religions, only by people trying to impose their own will on others and using religious interpretation as an excuse)

But how can you do that without interpreting?

It's not doing it without interpreting, it's doing the interpreting in the way that people would've done back then... People are trying to interpret it as if it was written in the past 100 or so years, not as if it was written (mostly) over 3000 years ago, (the old testament) and over 1800 years ago. (the new testament)

Most people don't realize that the bible would be over 1000 books if every book they wanted to put into it was actually in it. People even complain about the Catholic bible having two additional books, saying that we're "changing the religion" or "adding propaganda", but it's just that the extra books are added because we can use thinner pages when we print, and can now fit some of the other books in where they were supposed to be from the beginning. (last I heard, more were coming)

Yes, it's very quantum mechanical - he had a superposition of all possible states ready to collapse to any of them... But what I meant was the whole thing seems to be a plan to send the mankind out of the cosy Eden to learn by ourselves, grow up, eventually find a way past the sleeping cherubs and the force shield, have a reunion with God and share a beer or two with him while discussing plans for creating a new Universe... This is my preferred interpretation.

Maybe that was the plan from the very beginning, but we'll never know for sure until we meet God and ask him.

But how can you do that without interpreting?

It's not doing it without interpreting, it's doing the interpreting in the way that people would've done back then... People are trying to interpret it as if it was written in the past 100 or so years, not as if it was written (mostly) over 3000 years ago, (the old testament) and over 1800 years ago. (the new testament)

 

Most people don't realize that the bible would be over 1000 books if every book they wanted to put into it was actually in it. People even complain about the Catholic bible having two additional books, saying that we're "changing the religion" or "adding propaganda", but it's just that the extra books are added because we can use thinner pages when we print, and can now fit some of the other books in where they were supposed to be from the beginning. (last I heard, more were coming)

 

Yes, it's very quantum mechanical - he had a superposition of all possible states ready to collapse to any of them... But what I meant was the whole thing seems to be a plan to send the mankind out of the cosy Eden to learn by ourselves, grow up, eventually find a way past the sleeping cherubs and the force shield, have a reunion with God and share a beer or two with him while discussing plans for creating a new Universe... This is my preferred interpretation.

Maybe that was the plan from the very beginning, but we'll never know for sure until we meet God and ask him.

People interpret the bible every which way as it is. Anyone who claims that their own interpretation is the correct one will have a hard time convincing others of the same, or proving it.

-------------------------------------------

If "he" even exists.

But yeah, every person of a particular religion is going to have their own interpretation. Which is good because if everyone believed the exact same thing then nothing would ever change for the better. Wanting to keep the same interpretation as existed thousands of years ago when the entire world was completely different is backwards thinking.

Religion or not, wouldn't have changed that people kill other people. They used religion as an excuse, not a motivator.

Wrong. Several groups used religion specifically as a motivator.

Wanting to keep the same interpretation as existed thousands of years ago when the entire world was completely different is backwards thinking.

If you change the interpretation, the wording to convey an idea ceases to convey the same idea, and that is where holy wars and inquisitions come from. It was originally worded for the people of 1800-3000 years ago, not now... Interpreting it by our current language style doesn't convey anything close what was originally intended. (and the current translations are word for word, not idea for idea, a problem that occurs with any language translation)

You seem to be arguing the same thing right back at me. So you're saying that the bible should be "retranslated" so that it matches your interpretation?

Actually, back right after the garden, there wasn't anyone else around... Siblings married each other, and had families... Incest wasn't a taboo since there were no genetic mutation associated with those kind of couplings.

Actually, incest is always the last resort, even in the animal world. First humans did inbreed to a certain extent but they also continued to interbreed with other proto-humans, like Neanderthals, which helped to diversify and strengthen the genome. There is evidence that aversion to incest is instinctive in humans (as in other mammals) as long as they can recognise genetic closeness in a potential partner.

It is wrong to think that the mutations which happen due to inbreeding have only appeared recently. The way it works is *any* inbreeding may result in significant problems already in the first generation.

Sex has never been considered bad unless you're not married to your sexual partner.

I may be wrong, but I think Catholics think it's sinful because it is accompanied by desire and anyway they are all sinners when born and their babies, if they die young, go to Hell's kindergarten and they just have to live with the guilt of having to further sin if they were to procreate (and to not procreate is probably a sin in itself and they are screwed one way or another)

It's not doing it without interpreting, it's doing the interpreting in the way that people would've done back then...

But that is interpreting an interpretation = interpretation^2, so the chances that the end result would be correct are very slim...

That is beside the things, which if true in the Book, must necessarily mean that what we see around us is an illusion.

Regards

Actually, incest is always the last resort, even in the animal world. First humans did inbreed to a certain extent but they also continued to interbreed with other proto-humans, like Neanderthals, which helped to diversify and strengthen the genome. There is evidence that aversion to incest is instinctive in humans (as in other mammals) as long as they can recognise genetic closeness in a potential partner.

 

It is wrong to think that the mutations which happen due to inbreeding have only appeared recently. The way it works is *any* inbreeding may result in significant problems already in the first generation.

What proof do you have that there even were "proto-humans" at that time?

I may be wrong, but I think Catholics think it's sinful because it is accompanied by desire and anyway they are all sinners when born and their babies, if they die young, go to Hell's kindergarten and they just have to live with the guilt of having to further sin if they were to procreate (and to not procreate is probably a sin in itself and they are screwed one way or another)

You are so far off base, I can't even figure out where to begin... I'm not up to posting a wall of text, so I can't fully reply to this, but suffice to say, you need to do a LOT more research into the Catholic faith before making bad assumptions like this.

It's not doing it without interpreting, it's doing the interpreting in the way that people would've done back then...

But that is interpreting an interpretation = interpretation^2, so the chances that the end result would be correct are very slim...

Actually, it's far better than taking a word-for-word translation, that was translated from a translation, and interpreting that.

That is beside the things, which if true in the Book, must necessarily mean that what we see around us is an illusion.

Where do you get that from?

I still don't understand how "interpreting the ideas" rather than "interpreting the translations of the ideas" means anything whatsoever.

It's called Insane Troll Logic.

I still don't understand how "interpreting the ideas" rather than "interpreting the translations of the ideas" means anything whatsoever.

Translating from one set of text to another doesn't usually take into account the historical meaning of words, phrases, or even slang. Everything is contextual, and most of the ideas have been poorly translated into modern languages.

Just go and try a word-for-word translation of a current language's slang or pop culture phrase into another language, then another, then English... You won't understand it at all, and it probly won't even fully translate.

It's called Insane Troll Logic.

Please try to refrain from personal attacks in this forum. (also known across the internet as "flaming") I don't mind personally, but it kinda detracts from the issues, and it's against rule #2. (http://www.accursedfarms.com/forums/viewtopic.php?f=18&t=13)

Didn't mean to offend, but you aren't really making any sense.

I don't read the bible with any regularity so I guess I wouldn't really know. My point remains that it's going to be interpreted different no matter what, and that your idea of "fixing" the translation just seems like trying to force your own interpretation.

I didn't see anything wrong with the joke. Seemed to apply and it could have been about the subject of the thread rather than our recent posts. "Does God exist?" "Seems like insane troll logic to me."

That is a reasonable point. The thing is that you can't disprove God's existence either. Anyone trying to prove god's existence or lack thereof is likely working under insane troll logic.

Personally I just don't believe in Divine Intervention, which is what people always argue for or against "his" existence.

I don't really believe in God, but I don't hate people who do. I can see the allure of God, and I can see why people want to believe in him, but I just don't.

I don't really believe in God, but I don't hate people who do. I can see the allure of God, and I can see why people want to believe in him, but I just don't.

Simple but effective. :3 What I hate is how people think they have to spread their religion and go around preaching to people out on their daily lives. That was really annoying to be at the park with my little brother and have someone come up and ask me why I don't believe Jesus was a physical incarnation of God or whatever the proper phrasing is. I don't believe it because that's not what I choose to believe. "Oh but what if it is this way and you're going to go to hell for not believing?" What if my own beliefs are true and I'm free to live the way I want to? Stupid "what if."

But yeah, I don't hate that person, I'm just annoyed with her. Not that I'll ever see her again so I don't think about it and it doesn't matter. It's nice to have as an anecdote, though. I'm fine with whatever you believe as long as it doesn't lead to hurting anyone directly or indirectly (such as arguing stupid things like "abortion is evil" in the face of the logic that, while not a favorable system, is better to have as an option for those that so choose).

Wow I really do ramble mindlessly.

"Oh but what if it is this way and you're going to go to hell for not believing?"

That's the Pascal's Wager! It is better to believe that God exists, then if you win you win a place in Paradise and if you lose - it doesn't matter, however, if you don't believe in God and lose - you go to Hell for a very long time...

The trouble is what if you chose to believe on the basis of that rational argument and God really exists and he sees your mental calculations and disqualifies you for the opportunism?

What proof do you have that there even were "proto-humans" at that time?

From Wiki: "Anatomically modern humans appear from about 200,000 years ago and after 70,000 years ago (see Toba catastrophe theory) gradually marginalize the "archaic" varieties. Non-modern varieties of Homo are certain to have survived until after 30,000 years ago, and perhaps until as recent as 10,000 years ago. Which of these, if any, are included under the term "archaic human" is a matter of definition and varies among authors. Nonetheless, according to recent genetic studies, modern humans may have bred with "at least two groups" of ancient humans: Neanderthals and Denisovans.[3] Other studies have cast doubt on admixture being the source of the shared genetic markers between archaic and modern humans, pointing to an ancestral origin of the traits originating 500,000 to 800,000 years ago."

But, of course, if the Universe is only 6 or 7 thousand years old this is all an illusion.

You are so far off base, I can't even figure out where to begin...

That's why I qualified my earlier post(s) on that... After all, RE was not the most prominent part of the Soviet school curriculum and, quite frankly, I never bothered to investigate the subject in more details as I just don't see the need. Also, I live in the UK now and people here generally did nothing to correct my misconceptions. However, seeing as they historically view the Papists with some suspicions and disapproval, there may be a bias here as well

Vapymid wrote:

That is beside the things, which if true in the Book, must necessarily mean that what we see around us is an illusion.

 

Where do you get that from?

Isn't that the only logical conclusion? If the source seen as absolutely and infallibly true says "A" and your observations say "B", there follows that "B" is an illusion.

Regards

"Oh but what if it is this way and you're going to go to hell for not believing?"

 

That's the Pascal's Wager! It is better to believe that God exists, then if you win you win a place in Paradise and if you lose - it doesn't matter, however, if you don't believe in God and lose - you go to Hell for a very long time...

 

The trouble is what if you chose to believe on the basis of that rational argument and God really exists and he sees your mental calculations and disqualifies you for the opportunism?

 

This is why I choose to believe that if the christian god is the real one, he's a lot more reasonable than people make him out to be. I was actually raised catholic and took weekly classes over the course of, I dunno, 5 or so years at the church in our faith. I think it actually helped me with defining my own beliefs, taking some ideas and throwing out others until I found a system that I personally believe in and allows me to live the way I want to.

The way I see it, if I'm going to hell because of my beliefs, then God is a jackass and doesn't deserve my love anyway. I won't know any of that until I'm dead, and my own beliefs gives me a different idea of what will happen after death, so what if I'm right? That's the thing about faith, it's all about what you choose to and choose not to believe. Changing the way the bible is written won't accomplish anything other than giving people yet another series of things to argue about.

In fact, surely there are many people who would be fully against changing the translation, because they think that this version of the bible is the really real one. Again, it's all subjective and nothing's ever going to change that.

"Oh but what if it is this way and you're going to go to hell for not believing?"

 

That's the Pascal's Wager! It is better to believe that God exists, then if you win you win a place in Paradise and if you lose - it doesn't matter, however, if you don't believe in God and lose - you go to Hell for a very long time...

 

The trouble is what if you chose to believe on the basis of that rational argument and God really exists and he sees your mental calculations and disqualifies you for the opportunism?

Don't use Pascal's Wager... God won't like it.

What proof do you have that there even were "proto-humans" at that time?

 

From Wiki: "Anatomically modern humans appear from about 200,000 years ago and after 70,000 years ago (see Toba catastrophe theory) gradually marginalize the "archaic" varieties. Non-modern varieties of Homo are certain to have survived until after 30,000 years ago, and perhaps until as recent as 10,000 years ago. Which of these, if any, are included under the term "archaic human" is a matter of definition and varies among authors. Nonetheless, according to recent genetic studies, modern humans may have bred with "at least two groups" of ancient humans: Neanderthals and Denisovans.[3] Other studies have cast doubt on admixture being the source of the shared genetic markers between archaic and modern humans, pointing to an ancestral origin of the traits originating 500,000 to 800,000 years ago."

 

But, of course, if the Universe is only 6 or 7 thousand years old this is all an illusion.

Well, I can go into several aspects of how current dating methods are so corrupt that they can't get a true date on anything that wasn't observed and recorded when it actually was... I could also go into that stupid assumption that because the bible says that Adam & Eve were kicked out of the garden 6000 years ago, that it also means that the age of earth/the universe is the same...

I think I'll let you decide what I should reply to first.

You are so far off base, I can't even figure out where to begin...

 

That's why I qualified my earlier post(s) on that... After all, RE was not the most prominent part of the Soviet school curriculum and, quite frankly, I never bothered to investigate the subject in more details as I just don't see the need. Also, I live in the UK now and people here generally did nothing to correct my misconceptions. However, seeing as they historically view the Papists with some suspicions and disapproval, there may be a bias here as well

Yeah, you've got two sides of bias pushing you to completely dismiss as untrue anything that doesn't meet their political agenda. (the king is the head of the church in the UK, and Russia has a history of controlling the religion with an iron fist)

That is beside the things, which if true in the Book, must necessarily mean that what we see around us is an illusion.

 

Where do you get that from?

 

Isn't that the only logical conclusion? If the source seen as absolutely and infallibly true says "A" and your observations say "B", there follows that "B" is an illusion.

Sometimes we just don't see how two seemingly conflicting sets of facts can be true at the same time. Doesn't mean either observation/fact is wrong, it just means we don't know HOW it works.

"Oh but what if it is this way and you're going to go to hell for not believing?"

 

That's the Pascal's Wager! It is better to believe that God exists, then if you win you win a place in Paradise and if you lose - it doesn't matter, however, if you don't believe in God and lose - you go to Hell for a very long time...

 

The trouble is what if you chose to believe on the basis of that rational argument and God really exists and he sees your mental calculations and disqualifies you for the opportunism?

 

 

This is why I choose to believe that if the christian god is the real one, he's a lot more reasonable than people make him out to be. I was actually raised catholic and took weekly classes over the course of, I dunno, 5 or so years at the church in our faith. I think it actually helped me with defining my own beliefs, taking some ideas and throwing out others until I found a system that I personally believe in and allows me to live the way I want to.

 

The way I see it, if I'm going to hell because of my beliefs, then God is a jackass and doesn't deserve my love anyway. I won't know any of that until I'm dead, and my own beliefs gives me a different idea of what will happen after death, so what if I'm right? That's the thing about faith, it's all about what you choose to and choose not to believe. Changing the way the bible is written won't accomplish anything other than giving people yet another series of things to argue about.

 

In fact, surely there are many people who would be fully against changing the translation, because they think that this version of the bible is the really real one. Again, it's all subjective and nothing's ever going to change that.

And you have every right to believe that. Everybody has the right to believe what they believe, I'm just trying (hopefully) to provide a more accurate view of what the Catholic faith is. (there are so many misconceptions that even 90% of Catholics are wrong about what the faith's teachings actually are)

I can go into several aspects of how current dating methods are so corrupt that they can't get a true date on anything that wasn't observed and recorded when it actually was.

Which is a blatant lie.

That's why I qualified my earlier post(s) on that... After all, RE was not the most prominent part of the Soviet school curriculum and, quite frankly, I never bothered to investigate the subject in more details as I just don't see the need. Also, I live in the UK now and people here generally did nothing to correct my misconceptions. However, seeing as they historically view the Papists with some suspicions and disapproval, there may be a bias here as well

Yeah, you've got two sides of bias pushing you to completely dismiss as untrue anything that doesn't meet their political agenda. (the king is the head of the church in the UK, and Russia has a history of controlling the religion with an iron fist)

And you're so great, because you only have ONE side of bias driving you.

I can go into several aspects of how current dating methods are so corrupt that they can't get a true date on anything that wasn't observed and recorded when it actually was.

Which is a blatant lie.

Yes, their dating methods are a lie. If we knew the atmospheric concentrations, and the original concentrations of the various elements they use for dating, then they could be fairly accurate, but neither of those are known. (not just C-14 dating, this includes all of their current dating methods)

And you're so great, because you only have ONE side of bias driving you.

Resorting to a personal attack, or are you actually going to refute the argument?

I can go into several aspects of how current dating methods are so corrupt that they can't get a true date on anything that wasn't observed and recorded when it actually was.

Which is a blatant lie.

Yes, their dating methods are a lie. If we knew the atmospheric concentrations, and the original concentrations of the various elements they use for dating, then they could be fairly accurate, but neither of those are known. (not just C-14 dating, this includes all of their current dating methods)

GIVE THE SOURCES. We can't progress without them.

And you're so great, because you only have ONE side of bias driving you.

Resorting to a personal attack, or are you actually going to refute the argument?

Oh, and that comment you made to @Vapymid about having two sides of bias was TOTALLY not a personal attack.