Love is perfectly logical, it assists in the bonding of tighter familial groups, which is a survival advantage.
Beauty is also perfectly logical, it’s a method of judging the health and fitness of a mate.
Fine dining is simply the enjoyment of food, and the pleasure of taste is an evolutionary adaption to allow organisms to choose foods that have some health benefit, like higher calorie content (which was a plus for most of our evolution, but not so much now).
Sex after reproductive age is at best related to love (see above…) and at worst people twanging their pleasure centers because it feels good. All perfectly logical.
I understand that it is just a myth, but Genesis answers this. God did not create a world with the intent to put people in it. He created it with the intent of us living with Him in paradise. We are the ones who ruined that. As a consequence, we now have sin, which is the result of a less than perfect relationship with the Lord.
i have posted what i call theological axiom number one and i haven’t noticed anyone trying to refute it yet. it is simply:
GOD CANNOT BE STUPID!
from that i conclude any religion promoting an eternal suffering version of the afterlife is illogical because it violates the above axiom. to create the universe God must know physics, chemistry, biology, neurophysiology and every other ology we haven’t discovered yet. so an entity that smart would come up with something more intelligent than HELL.
therefore most versions of christianity are illogical.
of course i’m going to hell since i’ve never been baptized.
—God did not create a world with the intent to put people in it. He created it with the intent of us living with Him in paradise. We are the ones who ruined that.—
Here’s an interesting conditional line of questioning:
Is god always and ever perfectly good? If yes then:
Does god have free will? If yes, then:
It would seem that it is true that a being can both have free will AND never choose to do evil.
So why aren’t humans that sort of being? How could the fact that humans are not that sort of being be anyone’s responsibility but the claimed god’s, since we have seemingly eliminated the excuse that a being such that it never chooses evil would somehow compromise free will?
If some choose correctly on an issue (for instance, salvation), and some not, how is the difference explained, if all the people are acting on their “free will?” What would even distinguish my choices from yours, if our choices are “free”?
Then in the context of that myth, wouldn’t the fact that his intent was thwarted indicate that he is either not omnipotent or made a mistake?
I suppose this is where people usually say “free will!” Of course, then I say how an omnipotent and all-knowing God is incompatible with free will, because if God knows how a human will choose, especially an omnipotent one, then the human doesn’t actually have free will.
The counter-argument often used at this point is that even though God knows what choice a particular human makes, it was still that human’s choice.
Then my response is that by creating the universe and that human with the knowledge of that human’s choice already known to Him, it was more God’s choice than the human’s.
There may be more back-and-forth after this, but of course it ends with “God works in mysterious ways.” In other words, it’s illogical.
—I suppose this is where people usually say “free will!” Of course, then I say how an omnipotent and all-knowing God is incompatible with free will, because if God knows how a human will choose, especially an omnipotent one, then the human doesn’t actually have free will.—
This isn’t a very strong arguement, because it never really comes out and states what it’s major complaint is. It seems to essentially be the argument that full omniscience (including knowledge of how everyone chooses) would imply determinism, and determinism seems to imply incompatibility with free will. Of course, the problem is that it might NOT imply determinism, given some fiddling with the nature of god.
What the arguement avoids is asking any hard questions about what “free will” is and what role it could plays in ANY sort of universe, deterministic or non. Simply put, the concept seems to try and explain what is NOT true about the will (that it is constrained or determined by anything… external… at all, including itself?): dodging entirely the question of what IS true about the operation of the will, and how one choice actually gets made instead of a possible alternative.
—There may be more back-and-forth after this, but of course it ends with “God works in mysterious ways.” In other words, it’s illogical.—
That isn’t illogical, per se (unless it’s claimed as a REASON to think the defense is true): it’s just not a very convincing defense.
Christianity is supremely logical in its mechanism,
Anything that supports Christianity supports Christianity.
Anything that ignores Christianity supports Christianity.
Anything that contradicts Christianity supports Christianity - test of faith.
Anybody who criticizes Christianity is thereby demonstrated unfit to judge.
The omnsicient, omnibenevolent, omnipotent Creator of the Universe is perpetually short of pocket change. Pay up, and pay up some more, and more still or you will burn in Hell for all eternity.
Ya gotta love the Inquisition, the Crusades, the 30 Years War, Pope Pius XII getting all snuggly with Adolph Hitler, Northern Ireland, East Timor, and all those other entertaining bumps along the road.
As for content, they steal it (the Borg Collective of religions) or make it up as they go (Tommy Aquinas) along like Scientific Socialism, Scientology, and economics. “God does things in His professional capacity that in His personal capacity He loathes.” You cannot condemn a religion just because 900 of God’s chosen representatives were exposed as sexual and mostly homosexual predators upon children with the full knowledge and acquiescence of their employer.
Look, do you want post mortem escrow of Paradise or not? Yaweh can’t promise you 72 black-eyed virgins like Allah sweetens the pot, but you do get an eternity of…, ah, well it’s a lot and for a long time whatever it is. Maybe Mother Theresa will do you a long languid lap dance. Albanian dwarves can be really hot once they get going.
The Wicked Witch of the West died for Uncle Al’s sins. Let’s hear it for Sterculius and Mammon, the gods of the 21st century!
I am quickly becoming a fan of yours. Although we disagree on many points, I’ve come to respect your positions as honestly held and intellectually tenable. I misjudged you early on, and owe you a heap of apologies. Your mind is a thing of beauty, and I just want you to know that I appreciate you.
With respect to the topic, there are many kinds of logic. Classical first order logic is not the be-all and end-all of reason. A thing might be true in K5 but not in S3, or valid in KT45 but invalid in B. If any of the logics apply here, it is most likely Doxastic logic.
I find my own (admittedly renegade) understanding of Christianity to be eminently logical. And yet, that isn’t the source of my faith. Lots of things are prima facie logical that I don’t trust (bungy jumping is safe), and there are lots of things that are prima facie illogical that I do (photons emerge as probability fields).
Oh Ben, didn’t your parents ever tell you not to answer a question with a question?
If you read the OP, you will see that I quoted your assertion that Christianity is illogical. Since it was your assertion, the burden of proof lies with you. It is not my responsibility to prove otherwise.
Besides, I could go on a long rant about why I believe Jesus to be the Jewish Messiah, but not only would it take forever, it is irrelevant to the discussion. If you wish to poke holes in my reasoning, all you will be doing is proving my beliefs to be illogical, not Christianity in general.
I’d say it’s you who have no freaking idea. The Bible is quite clear that faith in Jesus is the only path to salvation and that just being good isn’t good enough. If you deny God, He will deny you I’m going to need a cite that atheists can get into Heaven from at least one major denomination; UUs don’t count.
Ben-I’m not trying to point a finger here, but why didn’t you answer the OP’s question? He opened the debate to everyone, but he also questioned you. Your only response as far as I can tell was
qoute
“Lord Ashtar, on what grounds do you believe Jesus to be the Jewish Messiah?”
I read your previous posts and I’m curious about why YOU find it illogical.
Sinning has nothing to do with whether a person is “good” or “evil.”
No, we suffer because we all are sinners.
Yes, but the fact that I sinned is between me and my God. I still have to request forgiveness from Him. The cool part is that once I have asked for it, I am forgiven.
We are all separated from God due to Original Sin. This is the reason we are constantly dealing with “all the bad crap”. Sounds like you’re asking why good things happen to bad people. Wish I had a concrete answer for that one. I wonder about that all the time. I just have to have faith in God that He will never allow something to happen to me that I can’t handle (see the story of Job).
All sins are equal in the eyes of God. Be it the little white lie you told your wife (“You do not look fat in those pants, honey.” ) to cheating on said wife, to murder. All sin separtes us from the Lord.
BTW, eating meat on Friday is an old Catholic tradition to which I personally do not hold, as I am not Catholic. Also, it is not my responsibility to convince people that they are living in sin by having sex outside of marriage or whatnot.
Once again, you ask why good things happen to bad people. All I can say is check out the story of Job. My belief is that God will not let something happen to you which you can not handle. It’s not a matter of God “punishing” us, it is simply a fate which we brought upon ourselves.
Again, I would like to qualify my above response that my answers are based on my beliefs and do not represent the views of every Christian on the planet.
Catechism of the Catholic Church, paras 846 and 847:
*“. . . they could not be saved who, knowing that the Catholic Church was founded as necessary by God through Christ, would refuse either to enter it or to remain in it.
This affirmation is not aimed at those who, through no fault of their own, do not know Christ and his Church: Those who, through no fault of their own, do not know the Gospel of Christ or his Church, but who nevertheless seek God with a sincere heart, and, moved by grace, try in their actions to do his will as they know it through the dictates of their conscience - those too may achieve eternal salvation.”*
(“Know”, in this context, doesn’t mean “have heard of” or “be aware of”; it means “accept the truth of”.)
An atheist, as I understand it, is someone who has considered whether there is a God and has either (a) concluded that there is not, or (b) not concluded that there is. Either way, he has sought God, and on this view he can attain salvation.
What is quite clear is that only those who, knowing that there is a God, have rejected him, who are stated to be excluded from salvation. That certainly does not cover atheists.
It is therefore quite wrong to say of the Catholic Church that it holds the view that atheists are necessarily condemned, and it is a gross travesty to say that “according to Christian doctrine, Dr. Asimov is even now writhing in agony in the hottest pits of Hell”.
Why am I under any obligation to participate in this thread at all? I’m getting increasingly tired of Lord Ashtar’s rude behavior. If I wanted to get into a lengthy debate over whether Christianity is illogical, I would have started my own thread. And if I don’t want to, then Lord Ashtar has no right to force me into the hot seat by making a thread which breaks the rules of this forum.
“Jesus, why don’t you answer the question? As far as I can tell, your only response was to ask the Pharisees whose picture is on the coin.”
) to cheating on said wife, to murder. All sin separtes us from the Lord.