Christian politics are hipocritical to the bible

[dildonicsboy]

The reason I would never actually call myself a Christian is because I'm not a strong believer and I dislike a lot of the people who use Christianity to their advantage.

I am not the most bible literate person so feel free to add your own verses or whatever.

A lot of these fake Christians want tax breaks because a lot of them are greedy. But OMG if it says you can't be gay in the bible and they are so righteous, then why don't they consider this verse below.

The bible says: James 5 (Warning to the Rich): "Come now, you rich, weep and howl for the miseries that are coming upon you. Your riches have rotted and your garments are moth-eaten. Your gold and silver have corroded, and their corrosion will be evidence against you and will eat your flesh like fire. You have laid up treasure in the last days. Behold, the wages of the laborers who mowed your fields, which you kept back by fraud, are crying out against you, and the cries of the harvesters have reached the ears of the Lord of hosts. You have lived on the earth in luxury and in self-indulgence. You have fattened your hearts in a day of slaughter. You have condemned; you have murdered the righteous person. He does not resist you."

I think that is a really cool verse

Also in John their is a section all about loving your neighbor and giving to the needy.

What really irks me is how these fake Christians use the bible to back up their political view. I know a lot of really cool Christian's that are not like this at all, so sorry if anyone actually does quiet times and gets into the word, because chance's are, your not the person I'm describing.

Thoughts?

P.S. sorry for spelling hypocrite wrong in the title.

[hXc_pwnage]

It's a pick and choose kind of world.

[s.t.e.v.e.n.]

The reason I would never actually call myself a Christian is because I'm not a strong believer and I dislike a lot of the people who use Christianity to their advantage.

I am not the most bible literate person so feel free to add your own verses or whatever.

A lot of these fake Christians want tax breaks because a lot of them are greedy. But OMG if it says you can't be gay in the bible and they are so righteous, then why don't they consider this verse below.

The bible says: James 5 (Warning to the Rich): "Come now, you rich, weep and howl for the miseries that are coming upon you. Your riches have rotted and your garments are moth-eaten. Your gold and silver have corroded, and their corrosion will be evidence against you and will eat your flesh like fire. You have laid up treasure in the last days. Behold, the wages of the laborers who mowed your fields, which you kept back by fraud, are crying out against you, and the cries of the harvesters have reached the ears of the Lord of hosts. You have lived on the earth in luxury and in self-indulgence. You have fattened your hearts in a day of slaughter. You have condemned; you have murdered the righteous person. He does not resist you."

I think that is a really cool verse

Also in John their is a section all about loving your neighbor and giving to the needy.

What really irks me is how these fake Christians use the bible to back up their political view. I know a lot of really cool Christian's that are not like this at all, so sorry if anyone actually does quiet times and gets into the word, because chance's are, your not the person I'm describing.

Thoughts?

As a Christian I agree with your point. I do not think that the "Christian" politicians and political groups line up with the gospel very often. For instance, when Jesus says to "love your enemies" in Matthew chapter 5, I take it to mean not to kill them. Seems logical.

There is a ministry called XXXchurch that ministers to those addicted to pornography and also reaches out to those in the porn industry. They are doing some amazing things. I bring it up because one time Craig Gross who founded XXXchurch was on the 700 club and was told that "I dont think Jesus would be going to porno conventions". Craig responded by saying "I don't think Jesus would watch the 700 club". I don't think he would either.

The teachings of Christ and the Christian Religious/Political machine are two different things in my mind.

[hailthewarrior]

As a Christian I agree with your point. I do not think that the "Christian" politicians and political groups line up with the gospel very often. For instance, when Jesus says to "love your enemies" in Matthew chapter 5, I take it to mean not to kill them. Seems logical.

There is a ministry called XXXchurch that ministers to those addicted to pornography and also reaches out to those in the porn industry. They are doing some amazing things. I bring it up because one time Craig Gross who founded XXXchurch was on the 700 club and was told that "I dont think Jesus would be going to porno conventions". Craig responded by saying "I don't think Jesus would watch the 700 club". I don't think he would either.

The teachings of Christ and the Christian Religious/Political machine are two different things in my mind.

I agree with everything in this post.

"Don't let your religion mess with my relationship."

[SiobhansBeard]

I agree that many times the phrase "Christian politics" really turns me off to whatever is being said. However, it should be noted that the laws of ancient Israel were at the same time very political and very religious. I agree that many of those laws are no longer relevant (i.e. killing homosexuals, animal sacrifice, etc.). But the true focus of the law of Israel was justice, namely caring for the poor, the widows, and the orphans. Old Testament ideas about property and individual rights would definitely not fly in the western democratic system. For a Christian, the purpose of government should be to work towards eliminating injustice (poverty, racism, etc.). This puts me in a weird place, because I realize if I don't pay taxes, the government won't have the means to accomplish this. But at the same time I don't see America's leaders doing anything radical or substantial to help the poor or the widow or the orphan. And those ideas aren't just in the Old Testament: the early church was communal, and all property was shared among the group. It really all comes down to the Golden Rule, which isn't even unique to Christianity.

[Shatter590]

What about the occasions in the Old Testament when God does kill non believers and heretics?

.

technically, Christians are supposed to take the commandments of Jesus over those of the old Terstament. The whole "Love thy neighbor" thing is supposed to take precedence.

[s.t.e.v.e.n.]

There is no "Christian" politics per se.

But yes, I don't like them either.

Also I'd be a lot more worried if people did start following the Bible word for word. Look a the middle ages. Sure there is "love" in there but there is a lot smiting folks too.



What about the occasions in the Old Testament when God does kill non believers and heretics?



What's so bad about porn?



I and probably everyone else would agree.

1. I see your point, but at the very least we as humans should not be killing them. I realize that is not a perfect answer, but I feel comfortable following the words of Jesus.

2. Well without starting a whole debate about porn, which wasn't my point in posting that, it breaks up many marriages and is running rampant in the church. For this reason, assisting those people who wish to break free of it seems like a good thing.

[Ambulance X]

technically, Christians are supposed to take the commandments of Jesus over those of the old Terstament. The whole "Love thy neighbor" thing is supposed to take precedence.

You mean the teachings of Confucius, which the writers of the bible ripped off?

[Shatter590]

You mean the teachings of Confucius, which the writers of the bible ripped off?

perhaps, but i think the bible was written before contact with asia was firmly established. not that being a nice person can be attributed to one ethnic group in general.

[Love As Arson]

The concept is universal, so it is disingenuous to say it was "ripped off"; that is, unless one believes the stories of Christ traveling to the east and returning with their wisdom. In any case, arguments using the bible for policies, whether they be a liberal or conservative interpretation, are fallacious, as they are circular. Natural law should be the basis for any argument. While I agree that many fall short of the ideal, and engage in hypocrisy, is that not the point? That is to say, the premise is that humanity is innately sinful, thus requiring Christ, so one should not be surprised that it is filled with hypocrisy; the point is to try to repent for this disposition. The facade of moral perfection put forth by many Christian groups contributes to this unbiblical stance, and what makes falls from grace even more salient. On the topic of the connection between poverty and government policy, I am not certain that leaving individuals to be sorted out by the free market would be Christ's ideal-contrary to what the Christian right might argue.

[Shatter590]

The concept is universal, so it is disingenuous to say it was "ripped off"; that is, unless one believes the stories of Christ traveling to the east and returning with their wisdom. In any case, arguments using the bible for policies, whether they be a liberal or conservative interpretation, are fallacious, as they are circular. Natural law should be the basis for any argument. While I agree that many fall short of the ideal, and engage in hypocrisy, is that not the point? That is to say, the premise is that humanity is innately sinful, thus requiring Christ, so one should not be surprised that it is filled with hypocrisy; the point is to try to repent for this disposition. The facade of moral perfection put forth by many Christian groups contributes to this unbiblical stance, and what makes falls from grace even more salient. On the topic of the connection between poverty and government policy, I am not certain that leaving individuals to be sorted out by the free market would be Christ's ideal-contrary to what the Christian right might argue.

what Dom said lol

[Love As Arson]

Being sorry for the way God made you is so stupid but I guess that's another argument.
Is it not dependent on the philosophical position an individual takes? That is to say, if the source of sinfulness is derived from an original act taken by the ancestry of humanity, then the argument is sound-at least at face value. It can be problematic, as you have said, especially if an individual believes the first eleven chapters of Genesis to be myth.

[Shatter590]

Is it not dependent on the philosophical position an individual takes? That is to say, if the source of sinfulness is derived from an original act taken by the ancestry of humanity, then the argument is sound-at least at face value. It can be problematic, as you have said, especially if an individual believes the first eleven chapters of Genesis to be myth.

its the entire policy of original sin that boggles me. I understand the premise behind it, but i also feel it is a: unfair on some level to punish a newborn for the acts of a percieved ancestor and b: isnt baptism supposed to remove original sin from your soul?

the idea that man in inherently sinful smacks of social control by the religious governing body.

[Love As Arson]

its the entire policy of original sin that boggles me. I understand the premise behind it, but i also feel it is a: unfair on some level to punish a newborn for the acts of a percieved ancestor and b: isnt baptism supposed to remove original sin from your soul?

the idea that man in inherently sinful smacks of social control by the religious governing body.
There is a difference between original sin and innate sinfulness. Baptism, in Catholicism, rids humanity of the original sin of Adam, but Adam's act caused a degeneration in the condition of humanity, which can only be received again through Christ. The argument is that the act was so great that such a great punishment was required.

Obviously that has plenty to do with it in reality but even if I were a born again I'd take issue with the fact that firstly two humans could bind posterity forever and secondly God made men with infinite forsight knowing that the apple would get eaten. He made us sinful and then punishes for all eternity for sinning. Regardless of the anything factualities that right there is a very awkward stand point when one is supposed to believe this is a just and loving God. It's like giving a dog a dog biscuit and then shooting it for eating it.
I think the key is the free will argument. This, too, is problematic, since one must ask whether or not free will was worth the consequences which followed.

[Love As Arson]

Bayle made this argument:

There is good mother who, having given her daughters permission to go to a dance, would not revoke that permission if she were assured that they would succumb to temptations and lose their virginity there. And any mother who, knowing for sure that this would come to pass, allowed them to go to the dance and was satisfied with exhorting them to be virtuous and with threatening to disown them if they were no longer virgins when they returned home, would, at the very least, bring upon herself the just charge that she loved neither her daughters nor chastity.

[Shatter590]

There is a difference between original sin and innate sinfulness. Baptism, in Catholicism, rids humanity of the original sin of Adam, but Adam's act caused a degeneration in the condition of humanity, which can only be received again through Christ. The argument is that the act was so great that such a great punishment was required.

thats the other part that doesnt make sense: god creating humanity to be innately sinful. I have a hard time believing that a child, who in a very religious sense, is "pure" can automatically have innate sin. and if certain doctrines of the origins of a child's soul are taken into account, then it can be surmised that the soul was created with sin already present. that seems illogical for God to create and perpetuate sin. furthermore, the idea that god punshed man for receiving intelligence sounds a little counterproductive.

it also means that a person who truly does his best to live without sin and be a good person is damned simply for innate sin that he may or may not have acted upon. Free will argument aside, it still seem very illogical.

the concept itself, though, has been central to every state religion, as i said, as a means of social control. make the person afraid of god and they will listen to everything the priest caste has to say about right action.

[dai the flu]

christians involved in politics at all is hypocritical. jesus said his followers would be no part of the world, and he would not get involved in political issues when he was on earth, even refusing to be king when the people tried to make him one.

[a speedo model]

its the entire policy of original sin that boggles me. I understand the premise behind it, but i also feel it is a: unfair on some level to punish a newborn for the acts of a percieved ancestor and b: isnt baptism supposed to remove original sin from your soul?

the idea that man in inherently sinful smacks of social control by the religious governing body.
Baptism is merely a sign of the covenant between God and Abraham. Originally shown in circumcision.

[Love As Arson]

Omnipotency and free will cannot logically co-exist.
Knowledge of a future created through the means of human will does not deter the ability to act on that will.

That is the kind of analogy which has value only for the current believer.
It does not seem belief specific. Your comment reminded me of that quote.

thats the other part that doesnt make sense: god creating humanity to be innately sinful.
Strictly speaking, god did not create man inherently sinful, but rather sin entered the world through man's actions.
I have a hard time believing that a child, who in a very religious sense, is "pure" can automatically have innate sin.
An apt analogy for the line of logic presented by the church would be one's inability to accept that a child gained a specific trait from their parents.

and if certain doctrines of the origins of a child's soul are taken into account, then it can be surmised that the soul was created with sin already present. that seems illogical for God to create and perpetuate sin.
Which doctrines are you referring to? I tend to think that the propensity for sin was present; for the alternative was slavery, so, in that regard, I think it is very logical.

furthermore, the idea that god punished man for receiving intelligence sounds a little counterproductive.
God punished man for disobedience. Objectively speaking, if there is a rule-maker, then the punishment for disobedience is subject to his discretion. That god did not them to gain knowledge is interesting, however, and whether or not it is beneficial can be argued in a number of ways. For example, the atomic bomb, it could be argued, is evidence of knowledge that is not beneficial. On the other hand, how can one truly have a virtuous life if there is no knowledge of the alternative, that is, a life without virtue?


it also means that a person who truly does his best to live without sin and be a good person is damned simply for innate sin that he may or may not have acted upon. Free will argument aside, it still seem very illogical.
There is such a differentiation amongst the sects regarding baptism that it is not beneficial to speak in such a general manner. In Catholicism, Eastern Orthodoxy and Lutheranism, baptism is required for salvation, as it gets rid of original sin, and actually provides a substantive metaphysical transformation of the individual. Many Protestant sects adhere to the belief that only faith is required to avoid damnation.


the concept itself, though, has been central to every state religion, as i said, as a means of social control. make the person afraid of god and they will listen to everything the priest caste has to say about right action.
Original sin itself was a concept spoken about prior to Christianity's fusion with the Roman state. It was formulated in a greater detail afterwards, but I would argue the state acclimated to it, rather than vice-versa.

[Nevuk]

Christianity is designed to make you obedient. Man's and Lucifer's crime was sin, doing something against god's(authority) will. The whole religion says you are being punished for being disobedient, its just absurd. But Christian politics speak to this nature as well... don't question authority, no free speech, bla blah.

[Love As Arson]

More Christians should adopt liberation theology.

[youcomebeforeyo]

This has probably been the only Christian thread i've read with actual debate that doesn't come across as "YOU'RE WRONG, NO U R".

Thankyou for an interesting read :)

[Shatter590]

Strictly speaking, god did not create man inherently sinful, but rather sin entered the world through man's actions.

this i understand, but it still does not seem logical to punish the descendents for an act of the father. it seems to go against the idea of a merciful god

Which doctrines are you referring to? I tend to think that the propensity for sin was present; for the alternative was slavery, so, in that regard, I think it is very logical.

its more of a fundamentalist concept, but certain protestant sects (usually of baptist or evangelical denominations) claim that children under the age of 13 (ie the age of confirmation) are all inherently pure, as they have not accepted or rejected God. Under that age, God forgives because they cannot understand the consequences of their actions. I know my church follows this doctrine (its of Calvinist descent).

all stems from the original covenant between God and Abraham, where children were innocent until circumcision, which happened at age 13, or the traditional Jewish Bar Mitzvah

God punished man for disobedience. Objectively speaking, if there is a rule-maker, then the punishment for disobedience is subject to his discretion. That god did not them to gain knowledge is interesting, however, and whether or not it is beneficial can be argued in a number of ways. For example, the atomic bomb, it could be argued, is evidence of knowledge that is not beneficial. On the other hand, how can one truly have a virtuous life if there is no knowledge of the alternative, that is, a life without virtue?

but thats the question, isnt it. without sinning to receive knowledge, free will would not exist. by that same token, without knowledge there would be no sin due to ignorance, which goes against every idea that God wished the best for his children. But i think Milton spoke enough on that idea

There is such a differentiation amongst the sects regarding baptism that it is not beneficial to speak in such a general manner. In Catholicism, Eastern Orthodoxy and Lutheranism, baptism is required for salvation, as it gets rid of original sin, and actually provides a substantive metaphysical transformation of the individual. Many Protestant sects adhere to the belief that only faith is required to avoid damnation.

in my church i dont know what purpose it serves, aside from removing original sin. but my minister says all one needs is faith in God to be saved. all comes down to interpretation.

Original sin itself was a concept spoken about prior to Christianity's fusion with the Roman state. It was formulated in a greater detail afterwards, but I would argue the state acclimated to it, rather than vice-versa.

i was referring to other religions that predate Christianity. The old Mesopotamian and Assyrian religions had a similar concept wherein adherents were inherently evil and the spawn of the adversary, and needed to follow the laws of the deity strictly in order to gain entrance into heaven. At least that's what we think the tablet's say...

[Shatter590]

This has probably been the only Christian thread i've read with actual debate that doesn't come across as "YOU'RE WRONG, NO U R".

Thankyou for an interesting read :)

because this is a theological debate between scholars lol. no name calling necessary.

[E-Skeezy]

More Christians should adopt liberation theology.

I did some research on liberation theology....turns out I knew what it was, I just didn't know it had an actual name. I really really think that this is the way christianity should be. I'm actually having a really hard time right now, personally, trying to wrestle with that. There's a part of me that just wants to drop everything and go out and help the poor and live based on necessity and not excess...but then there's the part of me that was raised for 21 years to a republican family that I should go out and work and get a good job and make a lot of money and get rich and buy nice things and all this stuff that the other half of me find repulsive. The problem is, those years of being brought up to believe in all this crap are still there and I can't seem to get rid of them, I still find myself from time to time wanting "things"...useless crap that I don't even need.

I'm sorry, I'm rambling waaaaaay off topic, so I'll just stop.

[Love As Arson]

this i understand, but it still does not seem logical to punish the descendents for an act of the father. it seems to go against the idea of a merciful god
There may be a misconception that, with every child, god actively afflicts them with original; rather, Adam and Eve were changed, both physically and spiritually, by their act, and that trait was just passed down onto those ancestors in the same way a genetic disease might be.

its more of a fundamentalist concept, but certain protestant sects (usually of baptist or evangelical denominations) claim that children under the age of 13 (ie the age of confirmation) are all inherently pure, as they have not accepted or rejected God. Under that age, God forgives because they cannot understand the consequences of their actions. I know my church follows this doctrine (its of Calvinist descent).
all stems from the original covenant between God and Abraham, where children were innocent until circumcision, which happened at age 13, or the traditional Jewish Bar Mitzvah
I'm not particularly familiar with that doctrine. I know many make exemption for children, however. Since the eradication of limbo, the Catholic church has had the stance that essentially one should hope god is merciful to them, despite their lack of knowledge/baptism.

but thats the question, isnt it. without sinning to receive knowledge, free will would not exist. by that same token, without knowledge there would be no sin due to ignorance, which goes against every idea that God wished the best for his children.
The ability to act on one's own is enough, is it not? That is to say, will did exist, but Adam and Even were only aware of it to a limited extent. Presumably, because, as Genesis argues, awareness leads to a degenerated state. The mercy can be found in the desire for the deity to shield humanity from the concepts that exist in degenerated states. I suppose it would be similar to a parent withholding information to a young child, because it would be to their detriment.

i was referring to other religions that predate Christianity. The old Mesopotamian and Assyrian religions had a similar concept wherein adherents were inherently evil and the spawn of the adversary, and needed to follow the laws of the deity strictly in order to gain entrance into heaven. At least that's what we think the tablet's say...
Paul says something similar, but leaves room for disobedience if the state is committing injustice or calling one to engage in action that conflicts with Christ's law.

[SubrosaSeductiv]

I think the key is the free will argument. This, too, is problematic, since one must ask whether or not free will was worth the consequences which followed.

I think your "key" has some major flaws. God allowed us the "gift" of free will. While doing this he must have had knowledge on the acts we would commit with the gift.

1. This is an impossibility. If we are already predestined there are no choices to be made. Christian believers in an all knowing being might as well be fatalists. With ultimate destination and pre-destined realities, we don't have free will.

2. Any "all-loving" being would never allow free will to occur if he foresaw the atrocities to be commited.

[Shatter590]

There may be a misconception that, with every child, god actively afflicts them with original; rather, Adam and Eve were changed, both physically and spiritually, by their act, and that trait was just passed down onto those ancestors in the same way a genetic disease might be.

The ability to act on one's own is enough, is it not? That is to say, will did exist, but Adam and Even were only aware of it to a limited extent. Presumably, because, as Genesis argues, awareness leads to a degenerated state. The mercy can be found in the desire for the deity to shield humanity from the concepts that exist in degenerated states. I suppose it would be similar to a parent withholding information to a young child, because it would be to their detriment.


that makes sense in a certain way.

well it all depends there on how much will existed or in what fashion. some interpretations argue that will is present in a limited state, that adam and eve were like children. others argue that there was no will, and that adam and eve were little more than animals, who could speak and act, but had no reasoning capability. by that same token, they also were not capable of faith, because faith in and of itself requires more than a limited will.

[Shatter590]

I think your "key" has some major flaws. God allowed us the "gift" of free will. While doing this he must have had knowledge on the acts we would commit with the gift.

1. This is an impossibility. If we are already predestined there are no choices to be made. Christian believers in an all knowing being might as well be fatalists. With ultimate destination and pre-destined realities, we don't have free will.

2. Any "all-loving" being would never allow free will to occur if he foresaw the atrocities to be commited.

1- calvinism

2- existentialism

[SubrosaSeductiv]

1- calvinism

2- existentialism

Thanks for the clarification.

[Shatter590]

Thanks for the clarification.

it all comes down to the interpretations. Calvinism is the only remaining branch of the church that posits predestination, and even then not in the ways it used to be. its not quite fatalism, because it is un known who is getting into heaven and who isnt, so everyone is good regardless.

existentialism basically comes down to "God sucks, but you believe because you have to" mentality.

[xvszero]

There is a ministry called XXXchurch that ministers to those addicted to pornography and also reaches out to those in the porn industry. They are doing some amazing things. I bring it up because one time Craig Gross who founded XXXchurch was on the 700 club and was told that "I dont think Jesus would be going to porno conventions". Craig responded by saying "I don't think Jesus would watch the 700 club". I don't think he would either.

They do know one of Jesus' closest friends was a whore, right?

And some people assume she just found Jesus and stopped, but in reality that's how she made her living. You can't just stop unless you find another way to get by. So chances are Jesus wasn't just hanging out with an ex-whore, but a still whoring whore.

[s.t.e.v.e.n.]

They do know one of Jesus' closest friends was a whore, right?

And some people assume she just found Jesus and stopped, but in reality that's how she made her living. You can't just stop unless you find another way to get by. So chances are Jesus wasn't just hanging out with an ex-whore, but a still whoring whore.

Yes they know that. That is their point. They have shirts that say Jesus loves Pornstars. They exist to love the people in that scene.

[3eb23]

I agree with everything in this post.

"Don't let your religion mess with my relationship."

dude your avatar rules

[Judge'sDaughter]

What really irks me is how these fake Christians use the bible to back up their political view.


How are these Christians fake? They're trying to use their religion to back up their ideology. Just because they're selective about the portions of their religion that they bring into play doesn't mean that they are fake.
It just doesn't.

[xvszero]

How are these Christians fake? They're trying to use their religion to back up their ideology. Just because they're selective about the portions of their religion that they bring into play doesn't mean that they are fake.
It just doesn't.

I would say a real Christian is trying to follow Christ.

A fake Christian is sort of using whatever they find wherever for their own benefits.

But really, most people in most religions half-ass it.

[Clockwork]

Being sorry for the way God made you is so stupid but I guess that's another argument.

It's being sorry for what the sin that entered the world made us

This has probably been the only Christian thread i've read with actual debate that doesn't come across as "YOU'RE WRONG, NO U R".

Thankyou for an interesting read :)

I agree!

christians involved in politics at all is hypocritical. jesus said his followers would be no part of the world, and he would not get involved in political issues when he was on earth, even refusing to be king when the people tried to make him one.

On the contrary, the Bible says that God puts people into positions of government authority (Romans 12 [i think]).

[xvszero]

Omnipotency and free will cannot logically co-exist.

Why not? God can say... you have the free will to choose how you want, and still know what we are going to choose.

Heck, even humans can do this to some degree of accuracy. I'm pretty good at predicting human behavior in the people I know. If I were omnipotent, I'd be completely accurate.

I think they went over some of these arguments in Minority Report...

[Clockwork]

Your statement was just the logical detraction of mine and so yes it is still really stupid.

God never mad us sinners. He gave us free will and we fell into sin on our own volition. There's a difference.

[Shatter590]

No there isn't.

God has ultimate forsight. He is omnipotent and as such knows everything that has ever happened and will ever happen throughout everything in existence. So when creating humans he knew that apple would get eaten yet he created us anyway and by default must have wished for us to eat the apple, else why create us knowing it was going to happen?

So God knew that if he created us then humans would sin. There is no avoiding that fact because he has infinite forsight yet he went ahead and did it anyway. Therefore either God wished for us to be sinful or God was somehow bound by an external force to create us knowing of the negative consequences. Since God is the most powerful being that has ever existed or ever will exist and is everything and anything, he cannot be subject to the will of another and thus must of wished to create us knowing we would sin.

Therefore by default we had no part in the matter. We are as God created us, he created us knowing we would sin because he created us flawed. So why should we be apologetic for doing exactly as God created our nature to be? We are aplogising to God because of how God created us. It is a logical absurdity. One cannot apologise sincerely or logically for something he had no part in.


someone read paradise lost recently lol

[Shatter590]

Not true actually, I read it maybe four years ago and not since. It funny how often I say something and you reference it to a book haha.

because thats where all our knowledge comes from.

ive only reads bits and pieces of Paradise Lost myself, but the concept of free will is so often debated these days...

if you really wanna read an interesting interpretation of free will, read the introduction section to "Demon: The Fallen" from White Wolf Press. It's fiction, and from an RPG, but the thing I love about WW is that they actually do their research before they publish something- its a great read on the ideas of "The Fall" and "Sin"

[Shatter590]

I honestly think that Free Will is totally incompatable with the Christian God.

well, look at it this way:

-If we are created in God's likeness, and above angels (who are created to serve), then free will comes with the deal.

-The entire thing with the apple was basically a test to see how obedient man is.

-The serpent does NOT represent the devil, rather it represents temptation, and was placed there by God to test both man's resovle, but also its ingenuity.

Those are the three basics. Here's where it gets interesting:

-God intended man to fall. Since we are created in his image, and we are required to sustain his power (which is actually part of just about every religious tradition: a god is only as powerful as his followers), he might have forseen humanity as transcending their current state and essentially ascending to become God. Thusly ensuring his survival beyond time.

-Man needs free will to worship, for anything else will not give God the power he needs to survive.

-God then uses "punishment" to strengthen the resolve and creativity of man to ensure their ascension beyond mere puppets. If he wanted puppets, he would have stuck with angels.

This entire argument is rooted in the first commandment: "Thou shalt have no other God but me." Literally read, it means that God isn't the only one, and he needs to collective power of his followers to remain in his position. Bear this in mind, Genesis was written LAST out of the Pentateuch. It's fully possible the whole creation account was added ex post facto, to justify the absolute power of God, when such absolution was never the case.

Entirely philosophical, but interesting to think about.

[Nevuk]

I honestly think that Free Will is totally incompatable with the Christian God.
It is. The only way for free will to exist in Christian is if you accept that god is not omniscient and is an idiot or is just straight up evil. Mostly due to Lucifer, the "I created Evil" verse, etc. Either he was too stupid to realize Lucifer would become Satan or he wanted this to happen. Isaiah 50 something says God created evil (in KJV, but still).

[Shatter590]

But we serve God too do we not? Anyway that's besides the point, I am unsure as to what you're getting at there.

actually, angels were made to serve. they have no free will and no capacity for faith

A test he knew we would fail and when we failed it would damn humanity forever. It's me cutting of someone's legs and then testing them to see if they can walk and then damning them forever when they fail.

like i said, he intended us to fail

See above.

Those are the three basics. Here's where it gets interesting:


Really? How can an omnipotent being need us? Surely he is the same whether he has one follower or 1 billion seen as we are all testiment to his power merely by existing.



God is surely timeless, if not he is not omnipotent. God himself is time since time is tied to the existence of the universe which is tied to God continued existence.



Again God needs us? And to me that just shows the absurdity of prayer but obviously that because I'm very titled on the subject.



Again you didn't explain why God could need us seen as he is already perfect. Surely by needing us he is lacking or relient on something and thus ceases to be omnipotent and perfect.



Very interesting. So would you consider that arguably the writer of the commandments believed in the existence of many God's and this was Yahweh's manifesto if you like?

what you need to do is remove yourself from the classical interpretation of a god. ONLY christianity, judaism and Islam view their gods as ultimate and timeless- no other religion holds this view. And its likely that this view was added post-Rome, to justify the power of both the empire and its god. I wouldnt be surprised if originally God was seen as temporal and linked to his followers- just about every other major religion sees this, the hallmark beign Zoroastrianism, which openly says that without followers, Ahura Mazda will lose to Angra Mianyu at the end of time.

Simply placing in the commandments "have no other god but me" can be taken several ways. But the fact that he acknowledges other gods can be seen as a limit to his power. Perhaps to a believer God is omniscient and all powerful, but wont every follower say that about their god? It was a common sight in Mesopotamia that gods fall as their followers die off.

because think about it: what is a god without followers? or better yet, who would remember a god without followers?

[xvszero]

No there isn't.

God has ultimate forsight. He is omnipotent and as such knows everything that has ever happened and will ever happen throughout everything in existence. So when creating humans he knew that apple would get eaten yet he created us anyway and by default must have wished for us to eat the apple, else why create us knowing it was going to happen?

So God knew that if he created us then humans would sin. There is no avoiding that fact because he has infinite forsight yet he went ahead and did it anyway. Therefore either God wished for us to be sinful or God was somehow bound by an external force to create us knowing of the negative consequences. Since God is the most powerful being that has ever existed or ever will exist and is everything and anything, he cannot be subject to the will of another and thus must of wished to create us knowing we would sin.

Therefore by default we had no part in the matter. We are as God created us, he created us knowing we would sin because he created us flawed. So why should we be apologetic for doing exactly as God created our nature to be? We are aplogising to God because of how God created us. It is a logical absurdity. One cannot apologise sincerely or logically for something he had no part in.

I don't believe in the whole apple story anyway, but if you're asking "why would god create us if he knew we were going to sin" you might be asking the wrong question. A better question would be "is it possible to have free will and NOT sin?" and after that "Is free will worth the price of sin?"

Just because you know something is going to happen doesn't mean you avoid creation. I'm sure our parents knew we would make some fuck-ups and hurt them in some ways, but they still had us. I think it is better than the alternative, non-existence, or the lack of free will IE living robots.

[xvszero]

Yeah well when I said I don't believe in the apple story what I really meant is I don't believe in Christianity.

What I am saying is that I think it is very possible for a god to be able to give free will yet still know what happens. A god. Some undefined, theoretical god. Maybe this god doesn't doom everyone to hell. Who knows.

Heck, who even says god is necessarily all GOOD? The Greeks certainly didn't believe that about their gods. Maybe god ENJOYS watching people suffer?

[Shatter590]

Aah right.



I agree, just not the Christian god.



Oh of course there are endless possiblities, but when it comes to the Christian God omnipotency and free will are a logical possiblity in this case tied in with scripture.

ben, you cant abandon me...

i drank a ton of concentrated espresso and sugar, my brain is misfiring all over the place...

[yutsmcgee]

You mean the teachings of Confucius, which the writers of the bible ripped off?

I honestly don't see much of a similarity between something like the Analects, and the Bible. Sure, there are similar themes such as filial piety and altruism. But one of the biggest pillars of Confucianism is that morality is a social construct, and people are naturally good. In the Bible, morality is constructed of unchanging absolutes, and people are inherently bad as a result of the Adamic fall.

So I don't really buy you saying that the Bible is a rip off of Confucius' teachings (not to mention the fact that many scholars believe that there was no Confucius, and that many people wrote under that name)

[Love As Arson]

The Christian god is not all-powerful. Titus explicitly states Yahweh is limited in that it cannot lie. Aquinas admitted god may only do that which is logically possible.

[Shatter590]

The Christian god is not all-powerful. Titus explicitly states Yahweh is limited in that it cannot lie. Aquinas admitted god may only do that which is logically possible.

citation? i wanna read that.

[Shatter590]

But I'm watching Bill Maher bash religion on youtube? I can't abandon this. I'll reply later tonight.

lol, ive seen some of those.

[Love As Arson]

citation? i wanna read that.

Titus 1:2
Paul, a bond-servant of God and an apostle of Jesus Christ for the faith of those chosen of God and the knowledge of the truth which is according to godliness, in the hope of eternal life, which God, who cannot lie, promised long ages ago

St. Thomas Aquinas:

It must, however, be remembered that since every agent produces an effect like itself, to each active power there corresponds a thing possible as its proper object according to the nature of that act on which its active power is founded; for instance, the power of giving warmth is related as to its proper object to the being capable of being warmed. The divine existence, however, upon which the nature of power in God is founded, is infinite, and is not limited to any genus of being; but possesses within itself the perfection of all being. Whence, whatsoever has or can have the nature of being, is numbered among the absolutely possible things, in respect of which God is called omnipotent. Now nothing is opposed to the idea of being except non-being. Therefore, that which implies being and non-being at the same time is repugnant to the idea of an absolutely possible thing, within the scope of the divine omnipotence. For such cannot come under the divine omnipotence, not because of any defect in the power of God, but because it has not the nature of a feasible or possible thing. Therefore, everything that does not imply a contradiction in terms, is numbered amongst those possible things, in respect of which God is called omnipotent: whereas whatever implies contradiction does not come within the scope of divine omnipotence, because it cannot have the aspect of possibility. Hence it is better to say that such things cannot be done, than that God cannot do them. Nor is this contrary to the word of the angel, saying: "No word shall be impossible with God." For whatever implies a contradiction cannot be a word, because no intellect can possibly conceive such a thing.

It would be more accurate to say that Yahweh is the most-powerful. This, however, is rejected by large cross-sections Christianity, both because of fundamental misunderstanding of omnipotence and the attachment to the idea of god as all-powerful; it would be similar to telling a Superman fan that he is not as powerful as he thought, but he is still pretty powerful. That would be quite damaging for the fan, just as this conception is damaging to the believer-despite the fact that it could solve some of their theological problems.

[Shatter590]

Titus 1:2


St. Thomas Aquinas:



It would be more accurate to say that Yahweh is the most-powerful. This, however, is rejected by large cross-sections Christianity, both because of fundamental misunderstanding of omnipotence and the attachment to the idea of god as all-powerful; it would be similar to telling a Superman fan that he is not as powerful as he thought, but he is still pretty powerful. That would be quite damaging for the fan, just as this conception is damaging to the believer-despite the fact that it could solve some of their theological problems.

Makes sense to me, and it falls in line with a lot of what ive been saying.

[Judge'sDaughter]

For once I agree with you.

There is no criteria to meet in order to be a Christian other than that one considers themselves a Christian.

The Phelps, Child Molesting Clergymen etc..

They are all Christians.

We need to celebrate.


I would say a real Christian is trying to follow Christ.

A fake Christian is sort of using whatever they find wherever for their own benefits.

But really, most people in most religions half-ass it.

Just because you half-ass it doesn't mean that you don't follow that religion. I'm protestant and haven't been to church more than three times in my life.
Jesus loves you no matter how well you know his biography or how much you grovel.

[Shatter590]

http://www.obsidianfields.com/zc/images/jesusloves_small.jpg

[Judge'sDaughter]

funny.

[Clockwork]

if we weren't made knowing we were going to fail, how could we possibly show true love to our Creator? If we were mindless drones or people with the only option to do good, I really don't think we would put our faith into God or show him true love. Failure gives us the free will to overcome our failure and really put our hearts and trust into God.

[Clockwork]

Just because you half-ass it doesn't mean that you don't follow that religion. I'm protestant and haven't been to church more than three times in my life.
Jesus loves you no matter how well you know his biography or how much you grovel.

And I think that's pretty awesome.

[SubrosaSeductiv]

what you need to do is remove yourself from the classical interpretation of a god. ONLY christianity, judaism and Islam view their gods as ultimate and timeless- no other religion holds this view. And its likely that this view was added post-Rome, to justify the power of both the empire and its god. I wouldnt be surprised if originally God was seen as temporal and linked to his followers- just about every other major religion sees this, the hallmark beign Zoroastrianism, which openly says that without followers, Ahura Mazda will lose to Angra Mianyu at the end of time.

Simply placing in the commandments "have no other god but me" can be taken several ways. But the fact that he acknowledges other gods can be seen as a limit to his power. Perhaps to a believer God is omniscient and all powerful, but wont every follower say that about their god? It was a common sight in Mesopotamia that gods fall as their followers die off.

because think about it: what is a god without followers? or better yet, who would remember a god without followers?

You're first step-by-step break down would be possible if we were talking about some random half-assed non-omniscient being, but we are talking about the Christian God here. He is directly stated as all-powerful and all-knowing. I think this is where you and lunch get confused.

[Judge'sDaughter]

And I think that's pretty awesome.
coolz.

[Shatter590]

You're first step-by-step break down would be possible if we were talking about some random half-assed non-omniscient being, but we are talking about the Christian God here. He is directly stated as all-powerful and all-knowing. I think this is where you and lunch get confused.

there are a number of ways to approach that argument, but i leave you with one:

If he is all powerful and all knowing, why are there other gods in general, that both predate his appearance, and coexist in other areas of the world. Rather large loophole.

And I do agree with what Dom posted.

[SubrosaSeductiv]

I'm not directly stating he exists or not. Taking other gods who's existence is in question and saying they exist doesn't prove the christian God isn't all powerful and all knowing. I never stated he was this, I merely meant that is what the Christian assumes him to be. Based on these assumptions and only taking into account the one God that christians claim to be in existence your break down would not work with him.

[Shatter590]

I'm not directly stating he exists or not. Taking other gods who's existence is in question and saying they exist doesn't prove the christian God isn't all powerful and all knowing. I never stated he was this, I merely meant that is what the Christian assumes him to be. Based on these assumptions and only taking into account the one God that christians claim to be in existence your break down would not work with him.

perhaps, were it not a Chrisitan who developed those ideas. i didnt come up with them, I found them while browsing through religious articles in an old textbook. Its based a bit on Milton, and a lot on older traditions.

[asmolitor]

what's christian politics? politics of people who happen to be christians? because, unfortunately, that happens on both sides of the aisle. i wish people would reconsider that a) God is not a politician, b) there are religious people on both sides of the aisle, regardless of personal conflict with their positions/religions. it's not heaven vs. hell, people.

[Clockwork]

what's christian politics? politics of people who happen to be christians? because, unfortunately, that happens on both sides of the aisle. i wish people would reconsider that a) God is not a politician, b) there are religious people on both sides of the aisle, regardless of personal conflict with their positions/religions. it's not heaven vs. hell, people.

Well put. The same should be said about "nonreligious" people. They're on both sides too.

[TranscendTrends]

what's christian politics? politics of people who happen to be christians? because, unfortunately, that happens on both sides of the aisle. i wish people would reconsider that a) God is not a politician, b) there are religious people on both sides of the aisle, regardless of personal conflict with their positions/religions. it's not heaven vs. hell, people.

agreed. fuck those politicians who say they have the moral high ground and think that they are doing god's biddings. personally, i'm not religious, but i find it painfully ironic that the same people who claim to be devout christian politicians don't give a damn about the poor. it is beyond frustrating.

[asmolitor]

agreed. fuck those politicians who say they have the moral high ground and think that they are doing god's biddings. personally, i'm not religious, but i find it painfully ironic that the same people who claim to be devout christian politicians don't give a damn about the poor. it is beyond frustrating.

well, to be fair, no one gives a damn about the poor. democrats are just better at hiding it. but i'm one of those "both sides suck" kind of people, so i find right wing religous motives just as unfounded as left wing anti-religious motives.

[Clockwork]

What a pathetic response, I've already proved why all this is stupid now either go away and have a think about rsponding properly, admit I am right, or don't post again.

I just basically proved the Bible is imcompatable with free will not so stop spouting cliches, get off your ass and defend yourself.



The title of this thread is "Christian politics are hypocritical to the Bible", how exactly are the non-religious being hypocritcal to anything seen as we don't attempt to follow any old books?

It's not cliche... it's what i believe. What i'm finding cliche is your relentless attacks on people's beliefs. Tolerance... basically, grow up and stop playing devil's advocate with every Christian's response. It's called a belief for a reason; but you can keep up your elitist attitude until pigs fly, but i don't think millions of people are going to drop their bags and follow lunchforthesky anytime soon.

And "The same should be said about "nonreligious" people. They're on both sides too." is called a comment. I was simply pointing out that even though someone claims to be a conservatist doesn't mean that person derives his or her outlook from any religion or book. Correct me if I'm wrong but i never once said they were hypocritical.

[Clockwork]

You do realise this a is a forum. To paraphrase Dawkins, it seems to me with regards to religion, offence is something people consider a right, a right they take up whenever they have run out of arguments.


This is a political forum, the whole damn point is to argue. I'm not being rude or insulting I am doing exactly what the purpose of this forum is and conducting myself in a civil manner.


And belief is inherently wrong, illogical and foolish.


Thinking makes me an elitist now because I actually question things and science forbid READ that is some kind of negative trait. You make me laugh.


Most of western Europe is irreligious so the forces of reason are making great progress.


And it's stupid because you applied the thread title to a group it is wholly unsuited for, in your relentless pursuit of every cliche going you forgot what it was you were actually incinuating.


You mean conservative? That isn't even a word.


We aren't talking about conservatives now. We are talking about Christians and have always been taling about Christians.


You claimed the thread title pertains not just to Christians but non-believers as well which no it doesn't, it is a ludacris statement.

Belief: Belief is the psychological state in which an individual is convinced of the truth of a proposition. Like the related concepts truth, knowledge, and wisdom, there is no precise definition of belief on which scholars agree, but rather numerous theories and continued debate about the nature of ...

You too have beliefs, lunchforthesky.

Listen, you gave me three options, "respond properly," admit you're right, or go away. I can already tell, no matter what argument I came up with, you'd have no part in it. You would simply ignore it and continue on with your tirade. What makes you an elitist is your lack of intellectual empathy and your pompous attitude along with an inflated ego. So "responding properly" really isn't something a Christian could do in your eyes.

Ask yourself the following questions:

To what extent do i listen and seek to understand others' reasoning?
To what extent do I accurately represent viewpoints with which I disagree?
To what extent do I accurately represent opponents' views? Would they agree?
To what extent do I recognize and appreciate insights in the views of others and recognize prejudices in my own?
To what extent do I genuinely solicit contrary opinions?

You could really strengthen your argument.

Also, don't be so quick to, in your own self interest, assume that the person you talk to doesn't read or question things. Actually, the comment you made that I first responded to made me do a lot of thinking, and I genuinely appreciate that and thank you for it. The Christian debate has plagued humanity for so long, and I think, from a Christian standpoint, that it can really strengthen someone's faith, and also bring up some very good topics that need to be addressed. I think that's great that you believe so strongly in what you believe, but there are so many better ways to argue it and provoke thought.

[thisdecemberhop]

i'm really not going to get into this. i just want to say that free will is compatable with God. and in my opinion, this is how it works.

If God is all knowing and all powerful, then doesn't know everything we are going to do, even before we do it.

Yes. but just because he knows, doesnt mean he controls.

in my opinion, God knows the ending of the movie already, but he cant change any of the scenes.

i'm not trying to cheapen Gods power or anything, but thats just how i view it. and again thats just my opinion. there are other opinions. i just wanted to throw mine out there about free will.

[Clockwork]

False definition. Belief is support of an idea based on blind conviction as opposed to observable evidence.



What an inane statement.



The theistic position is always illogical and so you're right, Christianity will always be illogical and thus it will never have my respect as an ideological position.



Yet more inane, question dodging. It is not my job to argue the other side, this is not 4th grade where you need to write a balanced argument.



Again you should concentrate and actually make your own argument. You have done nothing to pick apart mine other than appeal to the old if all else fails I'll claim he's being intolerant and therefore I win and Jesus still loves me. Make a case. Prove that free will is compatable with the Christian God, or at least give it a shot.

Sure. You and I can see than man is not perfect in it's current state. We need food, water, sleep, we get injured, etc.. Therefor, we were not created perfect. You said that it does not make sense for humans to apologize for something when they were predestined to fail. Well, the only reason we apologize (notice, i didn't say need to apologize) is because, since we were not created perfect, our inequities can to be atoned in order to reach heaven, a place of perfection. He gave us the free will to "apologize" or not. He certainly doesn't need us to apologize, he just chose to create beings that are not perfect. Why would he create perfect beings?

I read through your posts, and a lot of them make sense, don't get me wrong. Most of the arguments you've brought up have been issues for ages and there's a reason for that. The argument about giving a dog a bone and then punishing it for eating it should be changed to telling a dog (i suppose one that could understand) not to eating a bone and then punishing it if it does.

[Shatter590]

i dunno. evolutionarily we're pretty perfect- there have been no significant changes to human skeletal morphology from the neck down for about...2 million years, if not more.

[Love As Arson]

i dunno. evolutionarily we're pretty perfect- there have been no significant changes to human skeletal morphology from the neck down for about...2 million years, if not more.
There are quite a few "imperfect" things about the way in which the human body was designed. For example, our propensity for back problems; our bodies are more adept at climbing, and other activities, than they are walking.

Leibniz argued that the reason for which there are imperfections in existence is that this is the best of all possible worlds. That is to say, any shift in another direction would be infinitely worse. Kant expanded upon this, arguing that, if the world was perfect, and it was certain that good acts would elicit reward, then virtue no longer exists. If one avoids evil in order to avoid punishment, then one is no longer moral because it is the Truth, rather, they are moral to avoid pain. This has some serious implications for heaven, but we shall leave that aside for now.

[Shatter590]

Sure we are the "greatest" species on earth, whatever that means but perfection is a pretty meaningless term.

lol- the greatest of the great apes.

[Jra1]

i dunno. evolutionarily we're pretty perfect

HIV, Cancer, Hepatitis and the common cold would beg to differ.

When you consider the earliest recorded mentions of cancer are from ancient egypt... surely a perfect being would have evolved past it by now?

The closest thing to a perfect being on this planet is the great white shark...

[Shatter590]

HIV, Cancer, Hepatitis and the common cold would beg to differ.

When you consider the earliest recorded mentions of cancer are from ancient egypt... surely a perfect being would have evolved past it by now?

The closest thing to a perfect being on this planet is the great white shark...

i was referring to the morphology of the human body- it has never changed. physically, morphologically, our current bodies are perfect for what we are. when i said perfect, i meant perfect as unchanging skeletal, musculature and the like.

and yeah, those things will be around forever- them and cockroaches.

[Judge'sDaughter]

i was referring to the morphology of the human body- it has never changed. physically, morphologically, our current bodies are perfect for what we are. when i said perfect, i meant perfect as unchanging skeletal, musculature and the like.


We could still be evolving, though. When you look at the stages of human development, the changes were drastic and far spread.

[Clockwork]

No he created us all and knows whether we would sorry, so when creating us he created us all and we were always going to pick a side and God always knew which one so when he did create us he created us destined to choose to apologise or not and therefore as we have always been on one side of this fence it is a result of Gods involvement not our own, since the decision was already made the minute the universe sprang into existence.

This stems much from Calvinism, which, quite frankly, I'm not really familiar with. Most other rebuttals come down to God's glory but really, I feel like this conversation could go on forever. You and I are polar opposites, and I don't think there's anything either of us could say to really change each others' hearts and minds. Like I said, it's a great debate and I'm glad there are people on the other side to really provoke thought. See you around Ben.

[Jra1]

i was referring to the morphology of the human body- it has never changed. physically, morphologically, our current bodies are perfect for what we are. when i said perfect, i meant perfect as unchanging skeletal, musculature and the like.

and yeah, those things will be around forever- them and cockroaches.

The human has evolved pretty dramatically tbh.. Although linking to a wikipedia page about evolution on a christian thread could bring up some interesting replies haha.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_evolution

As for the other post... Great White sharks are the closest thing to perfect because they have survived as a species for millions of years without needing to evolve at all, they continue to be a ferocious predator even as all their prey evolves around them.

[Shatter590]

The human has evolved pretty dramatically tbh.. Although linking to a wikipedia page about evolution on a christian thread could bring up some interesting replies haha.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_evolution

As for the other post... Great White sharks are the closest thing to perfect because they have survived as a species for millions of years without needing to evolve at all, they continue to be a ferocious predator even as all their prey evolves around them.

We could still be evolving, though. When you look at the stages of human development, the changes were drastic and far spread.

most of the evolution that the human body has undertaken since the Homo split has been cranial. As far as walking upright, and the general construction of the human body (ie lumbar and cervical curves, valgus angle and limb proportions), those havent changed in several million years. From the neck down, our bodies and those of say...Homo erectus or Homo rudolfensis are skeletally virtually identical.

Sharks have only changed in size, their basic makeup is still the same with the modern great white as it was with the charcarodon.

[SubrosaSeductiv]

Off topic.

Get back on it, if you have some relevant possible explanation for predestination vs. free will, or any other christian poli. views.

[Jra1]

most of the evolution that the human body has undertaken since the Homo split has been cranial. As far as walking upright, and the general construction of the human body (ie lumbar and cervical curves, valgus angle and limb proportions), those havent changed in several million years. From the neck down, our bodies and those of say...Homo erectus or Homo rudolfensis are skeletally virtually identical.

Sharks have only changed in size, their basic makeup is still the same with the modern great white as it was with the charcarodon.

Yes, but if you look at the time scale of human development, it has occured in a very brief amount of time as regards to the overall development of the planet.
Cranial development is a huge part of our evolution, infact its probably the biggest, above even the thumb... Development of the cranium is the major difference between humans and the creatures we evolved from.

And Humans are still evolving, surely a perfect being wouldnt still be evolving? because any change, however minor, to a perfect being would surely render it imperfect...

Off topic.

Get back on it, if you have some relevant possible explanation for predestination vs. free will, or any other christian poli. views.


This is a Christian politics thread, evolution vs creationism would be considered on-topic, surely?

[Shatter590]

Yes, but if you look at the time scale of human development, it has occured in a very brief amount of time as regards to the overall development of the planet.
Cranial development is a huge part of our evolution, infact its probably the biggest, above even the thumb... Development of the cranium is the major difference between humans and the creatures we evolved from.

And Humans are still evolving, surely a perfect being wouldnt still be evolving? because any change, however minor, to a perfect being would surely render it imperfect...




This is a Christian politics thread, evolution vs creationism would be considered on-topic, surely?

well, here's where it gets weird (at least as far as a lot of my colleagues in the bio anthro dept think):

as far as lower body morphology, most of them are agreed that were not changing. every major development in skeletal morphology of the lower body stopped 2 million years ago. aside from changes in dimorphism, as it comes to interacting with our environments, we havent had any selective pressure to adapt the lower body. since the switch to Homo genus, all pressures have been cranial based.

Our cranial structure has changed in regard to encephalization, and it always will, that wasnt what i was arguing anyway.

they key component for evolution, however, is selection. without selection, there can be no evolution since there are no pressures forcing humanity to evolve. Many evolutionary biologists think that we have no significant selective pressures (i agree with this), since our technology has advanced to the point where natural selection has been counteracted by technological evolution. the passing on of genes to the next generation has become almost a given thanks to medicine and other technologies, thus depriving one of the major catalysts for evolution. if we are still evolving now, its at a very slow place, and will likely take much longer than before.

and yeah, this fits, given the current debate over evolution vs intelligent design

[Jra1]

well, here's where it gets weird (at least as far as a lot of my colleagues in the bio anthro dept think):

as far as lower body morphology, most of them are agreed that were not changing. every major development in skeletal morphology of the lower body stopped 2 million years ago. aside from changes in dimorphism, as it comes to interacting with our environments, we havent had any selective pressure to adapt the lower body. since the switch to Homo genus, all pressures have been cranial based.

Our cranial structure has changed in regard to encephalization, and it always will, that wasnt what i was arguing anyway.

they key component for evolution, however, is selection. without selection, there can be no evolution since there are no pressures forcing humanity to evolve. Many evolutionary biologists think that we have no significant selective pressures (i agree with this), since our technology has advanced to the point where natural selection has been counteracted by technological evolution. the passing on of genes to the next generation has become almost a given thanks to medicine and other technologies, thus depriving one of the major catalysts for evolution. if we are still evolving now, its at a very slow place, and will likely take much longer than before.

and yeah, this fits, given the current debate over evolution vs intelligent design

Yes, humans havent evolved much recently, but intelligent design says that humans were created perfect... so when you look back at the overall development of the humans, its pretty vast, which much render them imperfect now...

Tbh i'm losing track of the overall argument here, not used to discussing things with such a huge amount of time inbetween posts :S

EDIT: and the way i've worded that makes it sound like im not human... nevermind, its funny.

[Shatter590]

Yes, humans havent evolved much recently, but intelligent design says that humans were created perfect... so when you look back at the overall development of the humans, its pretty vast, which much render them imperfect now...

Tbh i'm losing track of the overall argument here, not used to discussing things with such a huge amount of time inbetween posts :S

EDIT: and the way i've worded that makes it sound like im not human... nevermind, its funny.

lol. i just ignore everything except what youve posted.

lol, intelligent design and evolution arent compatible at all unless you use the "theistic evolution model"

[Jra1]

lol. i just ignore everything except what youve posted.

lol, intelligent design and evolution arent compatible at all unless you use the "theistic evolution model"

Yea I know, which makes me wonder what the hell the discussion was about in the first place ><

[Shatter590]

Yea I know, which makes me wonder what the hell the discussion was about in the first place ><

the relatiive evolutionary perfection of the human body. IE how it hasnt changed much in 2 million years from the neck down.

[Jra1]

the relatiive evolutionary perfection of the human body. IE how it hasnt changed much in 2 million years from the neck down.

Oh yea, I got side tracked by the guy saying it was offtopic...

If you take a snapshot of human evolution now, we are relatively perfect (if you consider lack of evolution a sign of perfection), however that's just what it is... with a word so powerful as 'perfect' you cannot really afford to just take a snapshot.

Homo Erectus survived as an unchanging form for over a million years, but we couldn't say it was 'perfect'... Which is why im reluctant to accept the current state of the human body is perfect after only a fraction of that time.

[Shatter590]

Oh yea, I got side tracked by the guy saying it was offtopic...

If you take a snapshot of human evolution now, we are relatively perfect (if you consider lack of evolution a sign of perfection), however that's just what it is... with a word so powerful as 'perfect' you cannot really afford to just take a snapshot.

Homo Erectus survived as an unchanging form for over a million years, but we couldn't say it was 'perfect'... Which is why im reluctant to accept the current state of the human body is perfect after only a fraction of that time.

well, what im sayign is this:

from the neck down, our bodies are identical to that of homo erectus. all evolution in the last 2 million years has been cranial. our lower bodies are, in an evolutionary sense, perfect for what they are.

[Jra1]

well, what im sayign is this:

from the neck down, our bodies are identical to that of homo erectus. all evolution in the last 2 million years has been cranial. our lower bodies are, in an evolutionary sense, perfect for what they are.

Ill admit that point, but the cranial development is such a pivotal issue in the overall development of humans as a species. Even though the lower body is identical, the fact that the cranium has developed in ways we cannot even fully comprehend the magnitude of yet, renders that pretty secondary.

[Shatter590]

Ill admit that point, but the cranial development is such a pivotal issue in the overall development of humans as a species. Even though the lower body is identical, the fact that the cranium has developed in ways we cannot even fully comprehend the magnitude of yet, renders that pretty secondary.

all depends on selection. cranial selection still hasnt even been fully explained yet, so we have no idea where its going.

[Jra1]

all depends on selection. cranial selection still hasnt even been fully explained yet, so we have no idea where its going.

But we do know it has gone a loooong way... haha

[SubrosaSeductiv]

Yes, but if you look at the time scale of human development, it has occured in a very brief amount of time as regards to the overall development of the planet.
Cranial development is a huge part of our evolution, infact its probably the biggest, above even the thumb... Development of the cranium is the major difference between humans and the creatures we evolved from.

And Humans are still evolving, surely a perfect being wouldnt still be evolving? because any change, however minor, to a perfect being would surely render it imperfect...




This is a Christian politics thread, evolution vs creationism would be considered on-topic, surely?

Christian politics involve the enforcement of creationism and their beliefs upon society. Christianity is directly associated with discrediting evolution, take for example, Underoath. Christian views flood the media and political masses. It shouldn't. End of story.

[Shatter590]

Christian politics involve the enforcement of creationism and their beliefs upon society. Christianity is directly associated with discrediting evolution, take for example, Underoath. Christian views flood the media and political masses. It shouldn't. End of story.

and yet it does. i always thought separation of church and state was part of our national fabric...

[Rock]

I think your "key" has some major flaws. God allowed us the "gift" of free will. While doing this he must have had knowledge on the acts we would commit with the gift.

1. This is an impossibility. If we are already predestined there are no choices to be made. Christian believers in an all knowing being might as well be fatalists. With ultimate destination and pre-destined realities, we don't have free will.

I think God knowing what choices one is going to make and predestination are two entirely different things. Predestination is equivalent to fate, something with Christians don't believe in.

[SubrosaSeductiv]

I think God knowing what choices one is going to make and predestination are two entirely different things. Predestination is equivalent to fate, something with Christians don't believe in.


Hahahah WHAT?!

Fatalism and Christianity go hand in hand. It is impossible for a plan to already be set forth and somehow still choose.

LOOK EVERYONE FOR FUCK'S SAKE.

Predestination is the ultimate fate of one's soul and how it achieves that fate. God according to Christians is all-knowing. HE THEN KNOWS EXACTLY WHAT WILL TAKE PLACE IN EVERYONE'S LIVES. Therefore we are bound to this knowing and we cannot fucking alter that.

Fuck.

[Rock]

Hahahah WHAT?!

Fatalism and Christianity go hand in hand. It is impossible for a plan to already be set forth and somehow still choose.

LOOK EVERYONE FOR FUCK'S SAKE.

Predestination is the ultimate fate of one's soul and how it achieves that fate. God according to Christians is all-knowing. HE THEN KNOWS EXACTLY WHAT WILL TAKE PLACE IN EVERYONE'S LIVES. Therefore we are bound to this knowing and we cannot fucking alter that.

Fuck.
I guess there are different schools of thought within the realm of Christianity. I don't believe in fate/predestination, and I don't believe that you have to believe in fate/predestination to be a Christian.

[Rock]

People responding to the pre-destination thing are making such pathetic vague arguments, cause they know they are wrong but don't want to accept it cause well pre-destination is uncomforting.
I don't believe in pre-destination.

[awakeohsleeper]

Christian politics involve the enforcement of creationism and their beliefs upon society. Christianity is directly associated with discrediting evolution, take for example, Underoath. Christian views flood the media and political masses. It shouldn't. End of story.

Just out of interest, what's Underoath got to do with evolution?

This is my ignorance speaking, I just haven't seen anything from Underoath to do with trying to discredit evolution. I'd like a quote or a link or something.





This debate has been rather intriguing I must add. I've enjoyed reading it. I won't make any further comments because I don't think I could contribute anything further to either arguments.

I have actually ordered a book called 'Jesus and Politics' by Alan Storkey, which may make an interesting read for those that are inclined to research. I don't know if it is any good yet though...

[SubrosaSeductiv]

Just out of interest, what's Underoath got to do with evolution?

This is my ignorance speaking, I just haven't seen anything from Underoath to do with trying to discredit evolution. I'd like a quote or a link or something.





This debate has been rather intriguing I must add. I've enjoyed reading it. I won't make any further comments because I don't think I could contribute anything further to either arguments.

I have actually ordered a book called 'Jesus and Politics' by Alan Storkey, which may make an interesting read for those that are inclined to research. I don't know if it is any good yet though...

Underoath directly stated in an interview that they don't believe in dinosaurs or evolution. Look it up on like google.

[thetrueblood]

Underoath directly stated in an interview that they don't believe in dinosaurs or evolution. Look it up on like google.

Dinosaur bones were put here by god to test our faith.

[Love As Arson]

Capitalism entails money lending, and it is forbidden by Christian doctrine.

[SubrosaSeductiv]

Dinosaur bones were put here by god to test our faith.

God likes guys.

I hope you are kidding. If not its understandable. You are from florida where most of its inhabitants come from Cuba and Mississippi.

[bossman calling]

Capitalism entails money lending, and it is forbidden by Christian doctrine.
Actually, despite the words against them in the Old Testament, in the New Testament, Jesus affirmed banking and lending instiutions...see the parable of the talents/minas, Matthew 25:14-30 and Luke 19:11-27.