quote:

---

Originally written by ben12C8:

quote:

---

Originally written by Ephesos:

quote:

---

Originally written by Semodius:

Eep! Christians! Run away!!!

---

I tend to feel the same way, but only when they're preachy. But then again, that goes for anybody of any group who thinks that they're right and nobody else is. Closed-mindedness gets on my nerves, as well as people who offer to try to convert me or "pray for me" (with the intent of getting me saved). I too am an atheist hippie nature-lover with a semi-liberal political stance, so I tend to be irked by the more uptight neo-fundamentalist types.

Generally, I'm fine with christians, and they're fine with me. As long as nobody tries to "save" anyone, everything's fine. :D

For instance, I get the feeling that I'd be intensely annoyed by any of the people who pay for their shows to air.

---

However, what if you were to die today and God asked you if you'd been faithful on your stay on Earth? Would you change your mind about being "saved"?

---

quote:

---

Originally written by Slartucker:

you're describing a very confused God, there.

---

quote:

---

Originally written by Synergy:

quote:

---

Originally written by Thuryl:

That sounds an awful lot like a threat.

---

It is of course. Seems like it's harder to scare people into the faith than it once was when people were less educated, more superstitious, and less acquainted with other spiritual beliefs in other parts of the world.

---

quote:

---

Originally written by Ephesos:

quote:

---

Originally written by ben12C8:

However, what if you were to die today and God asked you if you'd been faithful on your stay on Earth? Would you change your mind about being "saved"?

---

In the event of a god, specifically the traditional christian one (omnipresent, -potent, and -benevolent), I think I'd be fine. Such a god would see that I'm basically a good person, unlike the people who frequently carry out questionable acts in his name (just saying that there are people who do so, not pointing at anyone).

In fact, I've had staunch Catholics say that your God would probably let me in. That was almost a heartwarming moment for me.

And yes, it kind of sounds like a threat...

(In the event of a god similar to the ones pined for by neo-fundamentalists today, I'm sure I'd burn. I joke about it a lot... but I took the test, and I'd only be in the first circle anyway.)

---

quote:

---

Originally written by Prometheus:

quote:

---

Originally written by Ephesos:

In the event of a god, specifically the traditional christian one (omnipresent, -potent, and -benevolent), I think I'd be fine.

---

I wouldn't be. Any god who sees all and is all-powerful who doesn't immediately change the world for the better by ending the massive amounts of strife in it does not deserve my esteem.

quote:

---

Originally written by Synergy:

I simply wonder how many people love God because they know God and find God irresistibly warranting their love and admiration, not out of craven fear of punishment or avarice for heavenly reward.

---

Okay, here. Let's assume that god is good, and let's assume that (like in the real world) it does not manifest itself in the real world.

If such a god is not omnipotent, he becomes worthy of love, but to love it would essentially be to fetishize an abstract concept- history is filled of examples of when this will lead you astray. Nationalism, classism, racism, et cetera. There is no example, however, of when worshipping an abstract concept will lead you towards good. For example- let's take King. He was a baptist and helped fight against racism. He would certainly lay claim to say that his religion has helped fight intolerance, but not only did he study under the Muslim, Hindu and Bahá'í followers of Ghandi; his fellow baptists on the other side of the racial line were radically against abolishing the Jim Crow lines. Christianity was not in-and-of-itself the motivation for King's actions.

Now, you might want to argue that there is a "greater force" or a "true god" motivating folks like King, but at the point where their main focus is the helping of actual people, why bother attributing it to a higher force anyway? (At this point, believing in a god is proven worthless. But I'll go on in case you're not convinced.)

If it is the work of a higher force, than are you implying that humans aren't going to be the ones to save humans? If that's your grand conclusion, then you're encouraging humans to accept the status quo as the will of god. ("If it hasn't changed yet, god hasn't willed it yet.")

And assume that your belief is that people coming together and doing good independent of a god is still influenced by a god. At that point, belief in god is humorously vaccuous. What point is there in believing in a god if the world is already fixed and the god is ultimately not the miserable, insecure, hate-mongering being followed by the majority of christo-cults nowadays? Do you really need to be convinced that there's something greater than humanity?

Is humanity itself not enough of a goal for you? That itself is where I find objection with the notion of worshipping. People should be the ultimate achievement of people. A maybe-existant deity should not be the concern of people, lest they be distracted from the main issue at hand- one another.

---

quote:

---

Originally written by 7 per day keep the doctor away.:

Ephesos: Lyrics are part of aesthetics. There are songs that would be damaged by having their lyrics turned into gibberish. There are songs that might benefit from lyrics. It just demand lyrics that aren't thrown in at the expense of the music. Then again, I dislike lyrics in general. Give me instrumentals or give me peace and quiet.

Helping people provides tangible good to people, and God approves. Helping God, as it were, doesn't help people and doesn't help God either, although He apparently likes it. When given a choice to help nobody or somebody, I'll take the latter.

I can see three divine qualities that need addressing: omnipotence (and omniscience, to some degree), benevolence, and ineffability. If God is omnipotent but not benevolent, well, that explains some things. If God is benevolent but not omnipotent, I feel sorry for him. God can't be both, though, unless he is also ineffable, as TM pointed out.

The problem with TM's logic is that it assumes we can understand what God wants or is doing. He could just be screwing with us or he could be helpless or incompetent, but he could also have some reason for the way things are that is entirely beyond our puny mortal minds.

No, I can't think of one, but that's because my mind is puny and mortal.

—Alorael, who can say to God that he lived his life in a reasonable approximation of how he believes God would want his life to be lived, although not in accordance with rewritten, translated, re-rewritten, and retranslated books that profess to speak for God. He'd just have to hope for some forgiveness for little errors here and there. Pedestrians come to mind. Fortunately, his God doesn't have any hellfire even for the truly awful people, so he's not terribly at risk either way.

---

quote:

---

Originally written by Synergy:

I think you’ve made some excellent points, TM.

I don’t see a greater God behind humanity. I see a great God expressing through and as humanity in a tightly-knit relationship. The difference is humanity is still in its spiritual childhood and hasn’t learned to put aside selfish and foolish things yet. I see it growing up though, as the law of life and growth demands. Children do grow up, and you can’t hurry the process.

quote:

---

Originally written by TM:

Any god who sees all and is all-powerful who doesn't immediately change the world for the better by ending the massive amounts of strife in it does not deserve my esteem.

---

How does one grow muscles if one never exercises against opposing forces? Does a wise parent want to raise weak, spoiled, passive, untried, ignorant children to grow up and take over the family business? Dad doesn’t fix everything for us as children and make it all better. It wouldn’t serve our interests or help us hack it as adults. He wants us to master ourselves and our environment and learn to get along with our siblings and learn how to esteem each other properly. We won’t fail ultimately though, because we are made out of the heart and nature of God at our deepest core, a place I think nothing can touch or displace. That is the claim and promise He has on us as His creation.

I think the point in loving God is that it can only truly be done in context of having some sort of personal experience/knowing of Him in relationship, rather than by knowing about Him. This is by definition an internal personal experience demonstrable to anyone else only by the manner in which it effects change in us and expresses outward from us, as us. God expresses as us, not as something moving in to possess us.

My understanding of man as God’s creation, is that there is something of the spirit of God in the core of man which is not corruptible, and it carries something of a sense, essence, desire, and purpose akin to the “will of God,” which really is just the expressed nature of God. This strives for expression and fulfillment in any of us, so I don’t care what someone has adopted as their belief system—there is still a connection with God by virtue of being His spiritual creation with His spiritual genetics.

I believe a man like Martin Luther King does what he does because he has connected with that spiritual nature and vision in some way. I see it as incidental to his intellectual belief system about God, because I don’t see God as being known by the head so much as by the spirit which is something even deeper. The head may be much more astray than the spirit/heart.

quote:

---

If it is the work of a higher force, then are you implying that humans aren't going to be the ones to save humans?

---

I am not. Much the opposite. God has chosen to express Himself—His character to physical creation through and as physical creation, which means us. The only God I ever see is witnessed in my fellow human being, and I see and hear God in people all the time. This has little to do with their belief about God or their perfectness. This is what makes me much akin to a humanist. The humanist has the attitude without the underlying reason to regard fellow man as he does. Both the reason and the attitude together is all the more potent and meaningful. Unlike the existentialists, with whom I also relate in numerous ways, I do see an inherent absolute meaning underlying our existence.

God has committed ultimate responsibility for the physical creation into our hands which is precisely why it is so important that we grow up spiritually to learn to wisely govern first ourselves and then the rest. We have to learn the principle of love which involves deference to our sisters and brothers and our differences. When I look at Muslim/East vs. Christian/the West at present, I see something like two children bickering over toys and rules. The toys and rules are going to get broken in the process. But it’s not about the toys or the rules in the long run, but they are of present concern to children until they outgrow them and put away childish things.

We, as the living agents of our Father will be the ones to save ourselves from ourselves because of the resources at our disposal through our connection to the Father and within ourselves as the offspring in the nature of the Father. How can we separate the two? The very nature of being human is to be of the divine family with its capacities as we grow into them. We can’t do it as independent children who have departed from the resources and protection of the Father. We have to learn to work as family.

If we seek to usurp authority which we are not yet mature enough to wield, Father does have ways to keep heady children from getting too far ahead of themselves. Children ruling anything is a frightening prospect. Fathers more and more relinquish discipline and persistant direction as children grow into capable adults.

quote:

---

Is humanity itself not enough of a goal for you? That itself is where I find objection with the notion of worshipping.

---

I see what you’re saying. My heart tells me humanity is my goal and worthy of all my love and concern. My spiritual experience and understanding furthermore give me the framework of why humanity is of intrinsic value and worthy of the work. Because I know God in my fellow human being, to love another person is showing love, deference, even “worship” to our Father. “As you have done it them, you have done it to Me” is the principle. “God” doesn’t need what we have to give. Our fellow man does, but that is the seat of God. God gets it after all.

I also have problems with the notion of worship as it is typically understood and practiced. God doesn’t need sycophantic, slathering adulations to validate Himself any more than a good father needs his son or daughter to bow down three times daily and say, “I praise thee for thy goodness and wisdom toward me. Oh how great thou art.” The father’s heart does desire close relationship, love, respect, and appreciation from the child. He also desires obedience to His instructions, appropriate to the age of the child. The father knows the rules are for the protection of the child, but the child chafes at the boundaries, seeing them only as something to get in the way of his self-centric desires and whims.

The rules and boundaries change and dissolve as we mature. It never was about the rules for their own sake. Maturity means being self-governed, and spiritually speaking, that means being ruled by a heart of love toward our fellow man. Some children get too hung up on rules and resist growing up into greater liberty and responsibility. There is safety in rules. There is safety in the crib too. I see the present state of Christianity as needing to get a move on and keep growing up. It’s pitched camp for a long time.

When we really really admire and love someone, we sometimes say we worship them. We talk about their merits. We seek to emulate them. We do a lot to be with them if we can. This is true worship from the heart, and that’s all I think God as a Father desires...to be adored sincerely for recognition of His qualities. And we are to see and celebrate them in each other, not as a concept out there. I think it does the heart of God good when I praise and admire and encourage and nurture and comfort and take delight in another person. We all desire to be loved and admired and appreciated by others. I think these three simple things are the most basic universal needs we each have, and where these are frustrated or denied is where we get unhealthy and hurtful.

---

quote:

---

Originally written by Khoth:

quote:

---

Originally written by Synergy:

How does one grow muscles if one never exercises against opposing forces? Does a wise parent want to raise weak, spoiled, passive, untried, ignorant children to grow up and take over the family business? Dad doesn’t fix everything for us as children and make it all better. It wouldn’t serve our interests or help us hack it as adults

---

I agree that people can't grow much if everything is done for them. However, I also believe that people also can't grow much if if they die of starvation after a short life of hard labour due to forces out of their control. There is surely a middle ground.
(The argument that this is something humans can/should sort out is irrelevant, since the people who can do something about it not the people suffering. If I was a parent I wouldn't let some children die to prove a point to the others.)

quote:

---

When I look at Muslim/East vs. Christian/the West at present, I see something like two children bickering over toys and rules. The toys and rules are going to get broken in the process. But it’s not about the toys or the rules in the long run, but they are of present concern to children until they outgrow them and put away childish things.

---

I see a lot more than two people, and they're killing each other. It's not just toys and rules that are getting damaged here.

Also, I suspect that thinking of a society as an individual like that is both a drastic oversimplification, and the cause of a huge amount of conflict. Looking at it as East vs West or whatever ignores both the massive diversity of viewpoints within each group, and also hides the fact that the vast majority of concerns of the vast majority of people are family, friends and day-to-day living.
And without seeing a society as an individual, the common justification for ongoing conflict becomes "Someone who is not you killed someone who is not me, so I am justified in killing you". Worded like that, more people might realise how silly it is.

---

quote:

---

Originally written by Synergy:

[b]

quote:

---

Originally written by Khoth:
If I was a parent I wouldn't let some children die to prove a point to the others.

---

Perhaps we are fixated on physical suffering and physical death as the worst (and permanent) experiences and fates to be had, and that nothing could make such suffering worthwhile. Is either actually true? The nature of God suggests it cannot be true or it negates the nature of Love, Wisdom, being a good Father, and many more things.

There is somewhere we are all heading toward through all of this wretchedness which is a much more hopeful and joyful and fulfilling end than we have yet known. The way this can be said with any surety is by knowing by experience something of the nature and faithfulness of God and believing the rest of His promises yet unfulfilled. But the promises aren’t even necessary when you come to understand what the character of love does.

I didn’t mean to negate any of the fine points you made about the diversity of peoples in both the east and west and practical nature of the conflicts. I agree with your points. There are many layers to pretty much anything, and I was painting the picture from a very general level. Maybe it wasn’t a good analogy.

...

quote:

---

Originally written by So Incredibly Sad:

Synergy, I think I understand your position, having seen worse inferred from luke 17:21 and such…

---

“nor shall they say, Lo, here; or lo, there; for lo, the reign (Kingdom) of God is within you.'

Are looking for an earthly kingdom with an earthly king as the Jews were, or a celestial valhalla in the sky as the Christians and Muslims anticipate? What good is the rule of God/Love if it is not first within us? If it is not within us, then it is the compulsion of an external law, as in the Old Testament, and we shall forever fall upon its blade.

quote:

---

Growing ? You will need to back that up for the discussion.
As a sidenote, you can hurry the process.

---

I mean that because humanity is growing in its spiritual experience and understanding, it doesn’t have to go back to a Mosaic law or earlier baby steps like black/white thinking and rewarder/punisher views of God which were instrumental in their time and served their purpose. I’m speaking from the Christian perspective primarily, because I am most acquainted with knowing God through it, but I don’t discount any other spiritual way God has communicated Himself to and in humanity in other times and places. I think everyone’s on to something, some part of the truth and knowing. The typical error is to assume someone’s something is to be everyone’s everything.

The natural world is seen to parallel spiritual principle and realities. We understand something of God’s role as “Father” by knowing earthly fathers. We know something of how spiritual growth is to proceed by observing the laws of natural growth. The universe is ordered this way to be specifically instrumental to our understanding of spiritual qualities invisibly behind all things. Things grow up according to the blueprint within them and the nurturing/nutrients to enable it.

[quote]

quote:

---

Originally written by Synergy:

We won’t fail ultimately though, because we are made out of the heart and nature of God at our deepest core, a place I think nothing can touch or displace. That is the claim and promise He has on us as His creation.

---

And what if we aren't ? As for the rules and teaching, which source(s) should we favor ? Promises engage only those which believe in them.

---

quote:

---

From observation, three emotions drives humanity : lust, greed and hate. If that is anything like your "God" I will continue striving toward being a logical biological machinery.

---

quote:

---

Originally written by Slartucker:

TM, to your post replying to me: I'm not sure I understand all of your logic. In fact, I'm sure some of it evades me. However, by and large, I agree with your conclusions in that post.

quote:

---

People who live past infancy tend to have a sense of trust due to providers and caretakers: It is a necessity. (It is my hope that this point isn't particularly difficult to prove...

---

*nod* certainly true. I just want to point out that the operative word is "tend to"; many people have this sense of trust violated and dismantled due to various forms of neglect, abuse, or victimization, either in childhood or in later life.

Synergy: I think theologizing the debate makes it much harder to come to a point of understanding.

(The following quotes are all from TM's reply to Synergy)

quote:

---

The notion of humanity is growing is as Hegelian as it is absurd. We've been regressing so steadily that it's mind-boggling.

---

Of course. But certainly growth and regression can take place side by side.

quote:

---

So He has Righteously Decapitated His Arm and Hoped for It to Turn into a Magnificent Bicep of Righteousness?

---

Quoted for making me laugh my ass off.

quote:

---

You have so many images of this deity; it's mind-boggling... It's like a roller-coaster.

---

But I think that's the point. I don't have the level of faith (philosophically, even) that Synergy appears to have. However, the point of religion is not that it's common sense and it's logically provable. The point is that it's not. "Credo quia absurdum," said Tertullian. Whether or not you like that justification for believing in God, it's a justification that logic can't touch.

(Synergy)

quote:

---

We all desire to be loved and admired and appreciated by others... I think these three simple things are the most basic universal needs...

---

Honestly, this does sound more like a description of an ENFJ than of humanity ;)

quote:

---

the paradigm shift that began when Christianity first spread. The ground typically has to be ploughed to plant new crops. I think it can be argued, that despite the horrible mixture and many offenses and harms that the institution of Christendom has inflicted in the world, it has also improved the lot of many over the last 2000 years

---

Paradigm shift??? The idea that Christianity is drastically different from from religions that predate it is an idea that obviously appeals to Christians. Many religions push similar ideas. I'm sorry, but that's a very subjective thing to say and I don't buy it. So is the argument Christendom has "improved the lot of many." The historical record simply doesn't support that. It's not as if other religions don't include the idea of charity. It's not as if the Romans/Saxons/whoever else were horrible savages before being Christianized, though that idea obviously appeals to some Christians.

Synergy, I think what you've forgotten to reiterate here, and what is making people jump on you, is that you are just stating your opinion, not presenting a logical case, and you don't expect everyone else to agree with you. At least I hope that's the case. If not, OY.

quote:

---

You shouldn’t until you do. When you do, you’ll know why, and I’ll be delighted to hear about it. I can’t tell you why, and yours will not look quite the same as mine anyway. It’s not based on merit. It largely has to do with just how many people are growing up in their spiritual maturity enough to get into gear more effectively expressing God

---

Do you have any idea how patronizing this sounds? It's awful, man. Particularly given that fully 50% of this massive page has become the Synergy Theology Manifesto...

I have to agree with TM that your spirituality appears to be "emotionally-fueled." There's nothing wrong with that... HOWEVER, trying to explain it using logic is not a good idea.

---

quote:

---

Originally written by Prometheus:

First observation:

I WILL SAY THIS AGAIN. GOD IS NOT MALE. GOD IS NOT A FATHER BECAUSE IT IS NOT MALE. GOD IS NOT MALE. GOD IS NOT MALE.

====

From So Incredibly Sad:

quote:

---

From observation, three emotions drives humanity : lust, greed and hate. If that is anything like your "God" I will continue striving toward being a logical biological machinery.

---

I'm not sure if you're using this as hyperbole to counter Synergy; if so, I agree. If not, then consider yourself a victim of liberalism.

quote:

---

Perhaps we are fixated on physical suffering and physical death as the worst (and permanent) experiences and fates to be had, and that nothing could make such suffering worthwhile. Is either actually true?

---

1. Nobody said that physical pain is the worst type of pain. I used the "hand getting burned on a hot stove" example because it was easy.
2. YES. Nothing can make suffering worthwhile. Suffering is ultimately bad. It is suffering. Perhaps there are times when one person's suffering is superior to an alternate outcome, but it is already a loss when anyone has to suffer at all.

quote:

---

The nature of God suggests it cannot be true or it negates the nature of Love, Wisdom, being a good Father, and many more things.

---

If your notions of these rationalize suffering, then to hell with all of them.

I am not saying that suffering cannot be included in the best-case scenario quite often. All I'm saying is that if you ever see suffering as part of the good, then you're wrong.

quote:

---

There is somewhere we are all heading toward through all of this wretchedness which is a much more hopeful and joyful and fulfilling end than we have yet known.

---

You still had to back this up before, and you still have to back it up now.

quote:

---

The way this can be said with any surety is by knowing by experience something of the nature and faithfulness of God and believing the rest of His promises yet unfulfilled. But the promises aren’t even necessary when you come to understand what the character of love does.

---

This says absolutely nothing.

quote:

---

I mean that because humanity is growing in its spiritual experience and understanding, it doesn’t have to go back to a Mosaic law or earlier baby steps like black/white thinking and rewarder/punisher views of God which were instrumental in their time and served their purpose.

---

The Mosaic law? You mean that wretched and vile set of chauvinist, racist propaganda for the jewish male? It should have been burned before it was made. It was a mistake, now and forever.

quote:

---

I’m speaking from the Christian perspective primarily, because I am most acquainted with knowing God through it, but I don’t discount any other spiritual way God has communicated Himself to and in humanity in other times and places. I think everyone’s on to something, some part of the truth and knowing. The typical error is to assume someone’s something is to be everyone’s everything.

---

This is saying nothing (again).

quote:

---

The natural world is seen to parallel spiritual principle and realities.

---

So you're saying that it's a spiritual reality that it's okay for people to get massacred randomly? Or that it's somehow just for people all around the world to get butchered because of the mistakes of rich white folks?

quote:

---

We understand something of God’s role as “Father” by knowing earthly fathers. We know something of how spiritual growth is to proceed by observing the laws of natural growth. The universe is ordered this way to be specifically instrumental to our understanding of spiritual qualities invisibly behind all things. Things grow up according to the blueprint within them and the nurturing/nutrients to enable it.

---

So your argument is that we understand god by understanding the status quo? That makes a very good case for calling your "god" a cultural artifact more than anything else. Or are you arguing for some sort of "archetypal" understanding? (And let it be known that if I ever meet Plato's zombie, I will relish in mutilating it.)

quote:

---

Well, the cool thing I know about God is He keeps His promises even when we don’t believe into them.

---

I'm glad that your god has such a marvelous caveat.

quote:

---

He does stuff on behalf of His children ultimately despite themselves.

---

You know, you're doing an excellent job of contradicting your saying "god isn't above us" before. Good going.

quote:

---

Kids are immature, foolish, selfish, and wayward in so many ways. Any good parent does many good things on their behalf despite what the kid thinks or believes about any of it. God doesn’t expect us to act like more than kids while we’re still kids. Spiritually speaking, part of our immaturity has been imagining all kinds of false and simplistic things about Dad and why He does what He does.

---

So you're saying it's immature to imagine why your deity allows genocide?
If your god exists to discipline people, then there are countless million dead who sincerely wish that he might have been more prompt and decisive about it.

Your god is sounding more and more like a douche, by the way.

quote:

---

As for what we are to follow, I could only say listen to your deepest heart and see where that leads.

---

Onanism.

quote:

---

As for a stated law, we know it’s “Love God with all your heart, and love your neighbor as yourself.” The rule is to be from within, and not from without by external law.

---

But weren't you just getting done saying how humanity needed that barbaric and sub-human Mosaic law? You mean jewish hearts were spiritually defunct and didn't have the code of morality in them?
...

quote:

---

We have our bounds, even when they are invisible to us. The child knows his bounds when he runs into them. It usually hurts.

---

THEN THE CHILD SHOULD BE TOLD. TO AVOID THE PAIN.

quote:

---

It’s okay to be an ascetist and it has its rewards and virtues I’m sure.

---

I disagree so hard, it ain't even funny- they're founded on the notion that humanity just ain't good enough, and to that, I say- "and screw you too."

quote:

---

Of course. But certainly growth and regression can take place side by side.

---

Probably true. I just don't see that happening in the status quo.

quote:

---

But I think that's the point. I don't have the level of faith (philosophically, even) that Synergy appears to have.

---

Neither do I, and nor do I want to.

quote:

---

However, the point of religion is not that it's common sense and it's logically provable. The point is that it's not. "Credo quia absurdum," said Tertullian. Whether or not you like that justification for believing in God, it's a justification that logic can't touch.

---

A god that does not appeal to my sense of ration is not worth anything but my loathing.

quote:

---

It's not as if the Romans/Saxons/whoever else were horrible savages before being Christianized, though that idea obviously appeals to some Christians.

---

I disagree- the Romans/Saxons/etc. were horrible savages before being christianized, and continued to be horrible savages afterwards as well. (Horrible savages just like us.)

quote:

---

Do you have any idea how patronizing this sounds? It's awful, man. Particularly given that fully 50% of this massive page has become the Synergy Theology Manifesto...

---

The Synergy Theology Manifesto? More like Synergy's Evening with the Pastor.

quote:

---

I'm not sure how often any good parent lets scenario one happen or the child lets scenario two happen (at least, not the first several times). I'm thinking there needs to be a third scenario.
3. Parents tell child not to touch a hot stove because it wil burn. Child grows curious, touches hot stove, and gets burned. Child realizes exactly what parent meant.

---

Way to totally miss the point.

I don't know about the rest of you, but when I was told not to touch a hot stove, I did not touch a hot stove. I did touch a hot curling iron, but I did not know that it was not, nor was I ever told to not touch it. If the rest of you are so stupid that you need to get murdered to know that death is bad, let me know- I'll take pleasure in disembowling each of you in turn.

---

quote:

---

Originally written by Slartucker:

(Quotes from TM)

quote:

---

A god that does not appeal to my sense of ration is not worth anything but my loathing.

---

Maybe I'm misinterpreting here, but isn't this a little harsh? Okay, maybe said god wouldn't be worth your love and adulation. But the natural world doesn't always make sense to us -- even if science suggests that it follows logical rules on some underlying level. Do you hate anything you don't understand?

quote:

---

I disagree- the Romans/Saxons/etc. were horrible savages before being christianized, and continued to be horrible savages afterwards as well. (Horrible savages just like us.)

---

Okay, okay, good point.

(Ephesos)

quote:

---

because otherwise there would be some sort of cosmic conflict between the major religions' gods

---

What is this, Marvel Comics does Religion?

---