Which version of the Old Testament are you referring to?
Have you read the entire Koran, in what language, and how long did it take you?
Perhaps you haven’t had a chance to peruse the Big Ending in Revelation 20:
*“11 And I saw a great white throne, and him that sat upon it, from whose face the earth and the heaven fled away; and there was found no place for them. 12 And I saw the dead, the great and the small, standing before the throne; and books were opened: and another book was opened, which is the book of life: and the dead were judged out of the things which were written in the books according to their works. 13 And the sea gave up the dead that were in it; and death and Hades gave up the dead that were in them: and they were judged every man according to their works. 14 And death and Hades were cast into the lake of fire. This is the second death, even the lake of fire. 15 And if any was not found written in the book of life, he was cast into the lake of fire.” *
OTOH, under the (reasonably common) theologic construct that everyone makes it in, the best strategy is for us all to commit mass suicide, bail out of our earthly bonds, be excused for such behaviour (we are all saved, so no biggie) and start heaven right NOW.
As with all overly-neat constructs, yours breaks down as soon as you get under the covers. Will Satan and his pards also be joining us in heaven? They are also children of God. If so, what was the point of the whole shebang? Why not just start with heaven and eternal perfection? Or am I being seduced by Satan’s cunning again?
To a true Christian, isn’t Revelation kind of a spoiler? I mean, it’s like reading the last page in a crime novel, just takes the fun right outta the whole thing…
You are ignoring children of the devil. May I suggest the parable of the wheat and tares.
If so you are taking control instead of submitting to God.
Jesus speaks of children of Satan, He calls the Pharisees that exact term.
So…the unsaved, then, are the children of Satan?
And God is powerful enough to save his own children but not the children of Satan?
And I agree suicide would be taking control and not submitting, but so what? The goal is to be saved–not perfect–right?
Can you just be clear about one single point, please:
Who is saved, and who is not, and about what percent of all beings who ever existed fall into the “saved” category?
That way we can figure out if your statement that “God has already won” has any merit or if it has no basis even under your own theologic construct.
I can’t give you percentages, but perhaps this will give you some insight as to my thoughts on this (but I am just saying this as opinion, not scripturaly backed), that God will save 100% of His children, likely 100% of the nephilum children (hybrid children), perhaps He is willing to reform some of the children of Satan (you reaped where you did not sow) and maybe save some of them too.
Most of us would call kanicbird’s method for arriving at truth “faith”. There’s a lot that bothers me about the track record of faith as a method of knowing. It seems to me the ancient Greeks believed their religious doctrines for pretty much the same reasons as Christians do now. So did the Romans, the Norse, the Babylonians, the Egyptians, the Aztecs and so many others. They were all wrong. Today the Hindus believe what they do because of faith. So do the Jews and the Muslims and the Buddhists and many other groups. Apparently they all got it wrong but the Christians got it right. Except for the Christians we disagree with, perhaps the Catholics or the Orthodox or the Mormons or the Christian Scientists or the Jehovah’s Witnesses who also believe based on faith but get important things wrong. I guess all these groups are doing faith wrong. Surprising since it’s so easy. All we have to do is let God into our hearts and BINGO we are enlightened. How could these others all mess this up? I guess it’s because we’re so morally superior to all of them.
As to science, it is really just an extension of how we know everything else. A baby figures out how a crayon tastes by putting it into its mouth. We learn to hammer a nail by observing someone else and trying it ourselves. We experiment and test and check and see what works. Science is just doing that in a particularly careful way because a lot of people are concerned about the results. You won’t figure out how a crayon tastes or how to get from Philadelphia to Chicago or how to move a rock using a lever by faith.
For every problem we have in life other than religion we use observation and reason because faith doesn’t work. In fact faith doesn’t work for anything that can actually be checked.
Faith didn’t work historically. It doesn’t work for most religions now. It doesn’t work for anything practical.
Well, there are some advantages to faith:
First there’s laziness. You don’t have to think to believe something because of faith. You don’t have to spend a lot of time considering alternative possibilities and investigating evidence trying to figure out what’s right. Just download Truth from God.
Often it makes you feel good. You’ve got powerful friend who you don’t think will let you down. You can look forward to an afterlife of bliss where you’ll be reunited with lost loved ones.
Then there’s ego: You think the fact that you’ve gotten religion right and everybody else has gotten it wrong is because you have superior strength of character. You’re enlightened where most other people aren’t. Good for you!
Alas, none of these benefits have anything to do with whether what we believe by faith is true. I’m looking for truth myself.
You could reasonably assume that human beings actually have all of the adaptations on that list. On the other hand you could, in most cases, assume the opposite, and it would be equally reasonable. Some people think that empathy is a beneficial adaptation. Others think that empathy is a bad thing, and that evolution favored those who pursue self interest. Are we evolved to love others? Hate others? Be apathetic towards others? All three views have their proponents. None are backed by actual evidence.
In fact, empathy is a learned trait. Small children have basically no awareness that anyone but themselves has a consciousness. As they grow up, adults teach them that other people have feelings, wants, and rights. If adults don’t teach them, then they don’t learn it. Many societies existed without a trace of human rights or respect. The Mongols were quite content to ride roughshod across Asia, slaughtering millions of people without a second thought. Did they simply lack the empathy gene? Of course not. They created a society that promoted brutality, rape, and murder. Children raised in that society were taught to behave that way. That’s all there is to it.
Likewise, just about any trait you name could be argued in either direction. Since evolutionary psychology proceeds by making up fictional traits and then making up fictional explanations for those fiction traits, it’s no surprise that we often see one group insisting that we’re evolved for “A” while another group is evolved for “not A”.
Read your own post. You said:
Consider this evidence that it was a response to your post, and that I was accusing you of saying things you did say (as usual).
I can see why you would want to pretend that you never said it, though, because it is an astoundingly stupid statement. Unfortunately for you, though, your old posts are kept around, preserving such statements against claims that you never actually said them.
If you can’t give percentages, then stop saying “God has already won.”
The Great Cosmic Game is: Who’s The Boss? Lots of sub-games, of course, such as joy v suffering for Beings of All Kinds.
If the Boss is God, and if it’s God’s desire that none should perish, then one keeps score by figuring out if that happens or not, or at least to what degree it happens.
If Satan is allowed to create beings, and those beings (plus some percentage of hybrids) perish, then it follows that:
- God can’t save any but his own, and is therefore only Boss of his own kingdom
and
- Satan has already won the muck-up-creation game, appears to be winning the net-suffering v net-joy game, and may even win the total-souls-destination game, depending on how many nephilims and hybrids he’s managed to create.
Some construct you have there, KB.
You are carefully clipping up portions of my post and presenting parts while leaving out others, in an dishonest attempt to misrepresent me. Here’s what I actually said.
I can see why you would want to pretend that I never said it, since your distortion of my post is an astoundingly stupid statement. Unfortunately for you, though, my old posts are kept around, preserving them against just such distortions.
The hypothetical experiment that I described would test for the “genes for organized religion” asserted by alterego. This is utterly, completely, totally, and blatantly obvious. Consequently I felt no need to be pedantic about it, because it never occurred to me that any poster would be desperate enough to try making the distortion that you made. I’m more used to people who want to debate the substance of arguments, rather than clinging to desperate and dishonest attacks.
If you want to continue this desperate attempt at distortion, go right ahead, but I will not respond any more. You’re not fooling anybody, except possibly yourself.
Good day.
No desperate attempt at distortion. The slicing was for emphasis; if you think there’s any serious difference in motivation (genetic or otherwise) between trying to indoctrinate your children in a religion that you believe to be essential, and trying to teach them morals and other life lessons (and especially if you think this difference is sufficient to be tested for), then, well, that’s your opinon. I persist in the belief that’s full-on batshit-crazy, and that that fact destroys that entire post.
But it’s a post that’s a day old now, so once we get past the bit where you’re calling me a ‘distortioner’, who really cares, right?
I suppose you could glean this from your reading of Scripture – after all, believers manage to get more flavors out of the Bible than Baskin-Robbins will ever imagine. But if you posit your belief in a lying god, how, exactly, do you know he/she/it is not lying to you as well?
So, if I move my legs forward in a scissor-like pattern, it is not a fact that that I am indeed moving? :dubious:
As for “finding Him,” I am afraid you are going to have to narrow down this search quite a bit. As in providing a detailed list of “who, what, why, when and how.” And then proceed to ascribe the responsibilities of both parties, i.e. searcher and subject of same. Because I would hate to play hide-and-go-seek with a liar – as per your own prior description of this entity.
– bolding mine.
Well sure, if we ignore all facts and evidence, cape does insure user can fly. Just in case though, I’d advice you not to try that beyond, oh, a second story window or so.
Beyond that, would you please explain to me as if I was a child of two, what these “fallen” and “unfallen” worlds you speak of are?
The unfallen world is the world that God created for mankind to live in, related to the Kingdom of God. It is a place where God meets our needs in miraculous ways so we just overflow with praise to Him.
The fallen world is where mankind must dwell after he got involved with following Satan, sort of a underworld where man is seperated from God and must provide much more for his basic needs, while Satan is getting worshiped for the very hardship his deception has caused us.
The first part of this sentence, at least, is something we can both agree on. If we want to study human genetics, we need to study human genetics. That’s the only way to find out what genes humans have. Merely making up genes and making up stories about the origin of those made-up genes is not good enough. Genetics is only a science when it involves actual strands of DNA.
As for the second part of the sentence, I’m afraid I can’t be so agreeable. Right now, the human genome is shouting a resounding “no!” to the claim that cognitive processes are determined by genes. For example, in Scientific American last November, there was an article about the latest research trying to match genes with intelligence in children. The finding was that all 5,000 of the genes studied accounted for less than 1 percent of total variation in intelligence. Facing results like that, it’s unlikely that genes will ever tell us anything about the mental functioning of our ancestors.
You face the same problem here as previously. You claim certain things are “plausible”. Sure, but anything else is equally plausible. “Our ancestors were in competition”? Why? “Religion brings people together”? Compared to what? (And why do so many dopers tell me that religion leads to violence?) “It allows people to manipulate each other”? People manipulate each other just fine without religion. “It provides explanations for naturally curious brains!”? Again compared to what?" And where is the evidence that any of this leads to survivability?
I am very disappointed by the outcome of this thread, although I realize I shouldn’t have expected anything different. There are a variety of posts I would like to reply to regarding evolutionary cognitive neuroscience. Perhaps someone can start a new thread that focuses on just those issues so that we can maintain a high level of conversation.
“Other people’s dreams are dreadfully wearisome.”
And by that I mean just how utterly dull it must be in this “unfallen world” of yours where you spend your time eternally praising some – by your own description I hasten to add – insecure and lying deity. I think I’d rather watch paint dry. Or better yet, just die and be done with it.
First thing that sticks out in the above (fantasy) quote is: The POE. Riddle me that one and then we can continue.
Meanwhile, and with all due respect, your posts to this thread read like bad copy of the magical tales of sorcerers, knights and damsels in distress I used to enjoy when I was a kid. I remember just how vivid those “worlds” were in my mind’s eye, just as I also remember how quickly a curt “Red! Come and do such and such…” shout from one of my parents would bring me back to reality.
I’ve long ago put down those books and confine myself to doing the shouting. Especially when doing my bills.
Believe you me, those are real enough.
With apologies to alterego, my work is done here. Be well.
What is POE, point of entry?
God uses stories to tell us about our real condition, those magical tales are more real then your bills are, but as your pointed out, mainly our parents grounded us in this physical world, we lost sight of the spiritual reality.
Right. Science can be said to be the study of the works of God, while religion is the study of the opinions of man.