Religious Debate o.O

[spAce]

DixieChck615 wrote:   My boobs are disappointed.


Mine too

[Grakthis]

lmao... i havent read the whole thread, so i have no idea what you're talking about, but the idea of burritos and God is just really funny to me.

Well, the REAL question is "could go make a rock so heavy even he couldn't lift it"

The burrito part is homer simpson's spin  :wink:

[Alecs]

1Meanwhile, when a crowd of many thousands had gathered, so that they were trampling on one another, Jesus began to speak first to his disciples, saying: "Be on your guard against the yeast of the Pharisees, which is hypocrisy. 2There is nothing concealed that will not be disclosed, or hidden that will not be made known. 3What you have said in the dark will be heard in the daylight, and what you have whispered in the ear in the inner rooms will be proclaimed from the roofs.
4"I tell you, my friends, do not be afraid of those who kill the body and after that can do no more. 5But I will show you whom you should fear: Fear him who, after the killing of the body, has power to throw you into hell. Yes, I tell you, fear him.

makes me think twice about a lot of things...

I only mention these things because this is the religious thread.

[Holly]

lmao... i havent read the whole thread, so i have no idea what you're talking about, but the idea of burritos and God is just really funny to me.

Well, the REAL question is "could go make a rock so heavy even he couldn't lift it"

The burrito part is homer simpson's spin  :wink:

ooo... i see, lol

[tricia]

What if God doesn't even like burritos?

Then what?

*so confused*

[tylor2000]

Well, God could make a burrito so hot he couldn't eat, because he could make it so hot it wouldn't be a burrito anymore.  He would basically heat it out of existance.  But as long as it was a burrito he could eat it.  If you argue about eating the energy or matter in whatever form that were once a burrito, I would say he could.  But I doubt the question is about eating a burrito anymore.

tylor

This entire conversation went right over your head didn't it?

If God is omnipotent and he makes a burrito REALLY hot, then it would STILL BE A BURRITO if God WANTED it to be a burrito.  Otherwise God isn't omnipotent.  You're whole thing about "heating it out of existance" is pure speculation and makes NO SENSE within the bounds of this conversation.

Try not to trow in your 2 cents till you can follow the conversation... kthxbabai.

No, the whole conversation didn't go over my head.  haha  My aurgument makes perfect sense.  My aurgument is I could even make a burrito to hot for God to eat, lol.  Because if I heated it enough it would not be a burrito anymore.  But before you go on and on about how I can't see the point of the conversation, I'd like to point out that my philosophy, now and in the past, seems to follow a pattern.  If you hadn't noticed.

My point is no burrito exists that god could not eat, because god is omnipotent.  Any burrito that god could not eat could not exist.  The physical laws of nature reflex this because a burrito after being heated to a certain point ceases to exist.  Everything in nature reflexes god's will, so don't go on with your nonsense about, "IF God wanted."  Everything in nature ceases to exist at some point or another.  So there is nothing god could not do within the realm of nature.

*waits for you abusive rambling*

tylor

[Dancernl]

i've refrained from really getting into any real conversation on this topic, but, i just can't resist.  As an anthropology major I have to take specific courses in human evolution and there's all this genetics stuff too.  I have a really hard time trying to pass these classes because it conflicts with just about EVERYTHING i've learned in my religious education.  I'd like to know your thoughts about the whole Creationism vs. Evolution debate.  For example, the Scopes Monkey trial.

[Holly]

lol... im in my 4th year of religion in highschool, and we always have discussions like this!
but right now we're really into meaning of life and faith expiriences. i'm sposed to journal about how working with 3rd graders was a faith expirience for me... but i dont think it was. i loved working with the little kids, but faith expirience? *confused*

[tylor2000]

sweet! you are soo funny Holly!

ty you don't join you just are... its the beauty of it all.

I am an athiest.  I wanted to know how to join the club!    So I could be part of a group of people like me......religiously....

tylor

[Holly]

sweet! you are soo funny Holly!

ty you don't join you just are... its the beauty of it all.

I am an athiest.  I wanted to know how to join the club!    So I could be part of a group of people like me......religiously....

tylor

yeah, thats the thing with most religions... you dont have to formally join anything, you just are in a way.
there are some things just validate it more tho, like when i was baptised a few years ago... it made my christianity more real, but i think i always was. my parents just wanted to wait till i was old enough to decide what religion i wanted to be, unlike parents who baptise their infants.

[kev222]

Your statement is a complete impossibility. COMPLETE. If God CAN eat the burrito, then he didn't make it hot enough.

You're falling back on the generic answer of "We are mortal and we can't understand God"... which is fine, but it's a cop out. It's not an answer, it's what religious people say when they don't have an answer.

As I was saying to Rosie a couple of days back, I'm out of my depth in almost any level philosophy, it has never been an area of study for me. As such, I'm not trying to be dogmatic about whether God is ineffable or not (I have no idea what the implications of that might be). That's why I tried to put my point in the form of a question "Why should God be bound by logic?" Is your answer "because if God isn't bound by logic we have no chance to intellectualize Him"?

Noted about logic not being a property of observation or a principle of science.

the "omnipotence means he can do anything that is not a logical impossibility" theological statement tries to fill this in but it falls short IMHO

If you have time (and space), why do you feel this falls short? A link would perfectly suffice.

i've refrained from really getting into any real conversation on this topic, but, i just can't resist. As an anthropology major I have to take specific courses in human evolution and there's all this genetics stuff too. I have a really hard time trying to pass these classes because it conflicts with just about EVERYTHING i've learned in my religious education.

It is important to distinquish between the study of genetics and evolution. The study of genetics (just genetics from now on) is a real science that we can use to make observations in the present. Evolution however, is a non-observable belief system about the past (in much the same way as biblical creation or the beliefs of any other religion). Every belief system has the same evidence. The only way to determine which belief system is correct is to see which one best makes sense of the evidence that we have. On a course in human evolution, the results of genetics are interpreted within the evolutionary model, so that's why they conflict with everything you've learned in RE (different models). It shouldn't be assumed that evolution is the only past model with which to interpret the evidence. IMHO, the creationist model makes better sense of the same evidence, but of course there probably isn't a course in creation because evolution has a monopoly on education.

I'd like to know your thoughts about the whole Creationism vs. Evolution debate. For example, the Scopes Monkey trial.

Well the scopes trial isn't really useful for anything more than a history lesson for either side. Almost all the "evidences" presented for evolution have since been discredited even by evolutionists themselves. In a similar way the (embarrassing) defense for creation was comprised of compromising theologians who do not represent what is the creationist position today.

As for the evolution vs creation debate. Me and Andrew had a debate on this board a while back, mainly about whether or not evolution was an impossible process in light of the laws of information theory. Looking back, it seems we had differing definitions of impossible, but it still might be some use to you.

http://forum.nessaholics.com/viewtopic.php?t=2051 (it's in there somewhere

-Kev

[rosieposy87]

ooh everyone! Expect to be quoted in my philsosophy coursework: "In what ways may modern ideas about evolution conflict with the biblical concept of creation?" AHHHH hee hee.

[Grakthis]

No, the whole conversation didn't go over my head.  haha  My aurgument makes perfect sense.  My aurgument is I could even make a burrito to hot for God to eat, lol.  Because if I heated it enough it would not be a burrito anymore.  But before you go on and on about how I can't see the point of the conversation, I'd like to point out that my philosophy, now and in the past, seems to follow a pattern.  If you hadn't noticed.

My point is no burrito exists that god could not eat, because god is omnipotent.  Any burrito that god could not eat could not exist.  The physical laws of nature reflex this because a burrito after being heated to a certain point ceases to exist.  Everything in nature reflexes god's will, so don't go on with your nonsense about, "IF God wanted."  Everything in nature ceases to exist at some point or another.  So there is nothing god could not do within the realm of nature.

You contradict yourself multiple times in your own post.  God cannot be both omnipotent AND Limited by the realm of nature.  Pick on.  You sound terribly confused about your own beliefs.  If an omnipotent God wanted to make a burrito 8 billion degrees hot but have it STILL BE A BURRITO HE COULD.

So your God is weak and pathetic because he can't even break the rules of nature?  Then you don't belong in this dicussion because your "god" is not THE "God" that we are discussing.

Everything in nature doesn't HAVE to cease to exist at some point or another.  Not if God doesn't want it to.  Or are you making God weak again?

Tylor, you are too analytical minded for this conversation because you aren't following the philisophy behind it.  Leave while you still have some dignity intact.

*waits for you abusive rambling*

Masochist much?  If you knew the abuse was coming, why bring it on yourself?

[Grakthis]

That's why I tried to put my point in the form of a question "Why should God be bound by logic?" Is your answer "because if God isn't bound by logic we have no chance to intellectualize Him"?

*nods*

We must assume that God would not do things intentionally to confuse us (ala Descarte) because otherwise God is mean and deceitful, and is, therefore, not the God of western philosophy.

Therefore, we must assume that God follows the same rules of logic that God has provided us with.  Why would God ask us to love him but not give us the tools to understand him (more Descarte)?

If you have time (and space), why do you feel this falls short? A link would perfectly suffice.

Well, my problem with this explanation is that it doesn't answer the essential problem, all it does is redefine the word so that there is no more problem.  The classic definition of Omnipotent is that you can do ANYTHING.  No matter what.  I don't think Augustine has the right to redefine a word to solve the shortcomings of religion.  Invent a new word if he must, but don't reuse one that's already established.

In other words, it's another cop out, which always pisses me off.

I have no personal problem with the idea of a God who is limited to the things that are only logically possible.... I do have a problem with the Catholic dogma redefining the word "Omnipotent".  At that point, God isn't omnipotent, he's just REALLY fucking powerful.

it seems we had differing definitions of impossible, but it still might be some use to you.

I still argue that all you showed me was that it was highly improbable... not impossible.  Which I completely agree with.

For the benefit of the interested parties, i am gonna link you guys to one of the better religion/philosophy debates I have had in a LONG time.....

WARNING

This link is to a MB populated largely by people 20+ so the arguments may contain LOTS of foul language and there may be refernces that go over your head... and it's about 18 pages long.... but it's a really good read.  Primarily follow the points made by Psygno, Herr Kant and myself.

and don't ask me what the site is..... I really don't want to explain it.  It's just another MB I ocassionally post on.

Here

[rosieposy87]

That's why I tried to put my point in the form of a question "Why should God be bound by logic?" Is your answer "because if God isn't bound by logic we have no chance to intellectualize Him"?

*nods*

  Why would God ask us to love him but not give us the tools to understand him (more Descarte)?

Isn't there a theory, that if we understood the way in which God works then we would be halfway to becoming him? In which case we can never understand him, because if we could- that would make us capable of doing the things he does. That would not require faith anymore- that would not make him God.

  I'm not saying this is my view at all, but it has been posed. Am i right? I know there are a LOT of flaws to it, just saying it might answer that question.