omnipotent beings discussion

[Kevinward777]

We

I'm unsure of your original point then. Why are you concerned (and think I should be the same) that science is helping people make weapons?
Obviously I'm concerned that people are making weapons to blow each other to kingdom come....but why is the science part relevant?

Edit: I would probably be concerned if people were using interpretive dance to make weapons....but not because I was worried about the weapons.

Well your logic seems to imply that us “religious types” are pretty much all tarred with the same brush, so I assumed you would also apply a similar reasoning towards the scientific community. Oppenheimer, Hahn, Strassman and Meitner were all scientists after all.

Perhaps you need to converse with a few people who are a better example of what a Christian is than I am. I can put you in contact with a few of them if you like. They give freely of their time, money and resources in feeding, assisting and loving the kind of people that the world has forgotten about. You won’t see them on any news site talking about how much money they donated to any cause though, it just ain’t their style.

I don’t imagine they would identify as religious types either, and they certainly don’t reside in palatial homes or work out of donation funded million dollar building’s.

 

[MuzztheEagle]

We

Well your logic seems to imply that us “religious types” are pretty much all tarred with the same brush, so I assumed you would also apply a similar reasoning towards the scientific community. Oppenheimer, Hahn, Strassman and Meitner were all scientists after all.

Perhaps you need to converse with a few people who are a better example of what a Christian is than I am. I can put you in contact with a few of them if you like. They give freely of their time, money and resources in feeding, assisting and loving the kind of people that the world has forgotten about. You won’t see them on any news site talking about how much money they donated to any cause though, it just ain’t their style.

I don’t imagine they would identify as religious types either, and they certainly don’t reside in palatial homes or work out of donation funded million dollar building’s.

Not what I meant to imply in my original post. Rather that; as many religious people have implied (on this site) I cannot understand the word of god as an atheist. Therefore I thought I should seek the advice of someone religious to prevent to poor interpretation of what Manase was trying to convey.

 

[Kevinward777]

Not what I meant to imply in my original post. Rather that; as many religious people have implied (on this site) I cannot understand the word of god as an atheist. Therefore I thought I should seek the advice of someone religious to prevent to poor interpretation of what Manase was trying to convey.

Sorry about that Muzz... I misinterpreted your initial post.

 

[MuzztheEagle]

Perhaps you need to converse with a few people who are a better example of what a Christian is than I am. I can put you in contact with a few of them if you like. They give freely of their time, money and resources in feeding, assisting and loving the kind of people that the world has forgotten about. You won’t see them on any news site talking about how much money they donated to any cause though, it just ain’t their style.

I don’t imagine they would identify as religious types either, and they certainly don’t reside in palatial homes or work out of donation funded million dollar building’s.

This is a very interesting statement. I'm guessing the people you are referring to do identify as Christian.
If these people had a different religion or no religious beliefs do you think they would be any less generous with their charity?

 

[Kevinward777]

This is a very interesting statement. I'm guessing the people you are referring to do identify as Christian.
If these people had a different religion or no religious beliefs do you think they would be any less generous with their charity?

I don’t know of any Hindu, Buddhist or Muslim services in the form of soup kitchens, addiction centres or overseas orphan care programs. That’s not to say there aren’t any. So any opinion I may have on the subject would be pure speculation.

I only quoted those four religious faiths because when you lump all of the remaining religions together including Mormonism, Jehovah’s Witness, Scientology, Folk Religions,Judaism etc it makes up less than 7% of the worlds population.

 

[MuzztheEagle]

I don’t know of any Hindu, Buddhist or Muslim services in the form of soup kitchens, addiction centres or overseas orphan care programs. That’s not to say there aren’t any. So any opinion I may have on the subject would be pure speculation.

I only quoted those four religious faiths because when you lump all of the remaining religions together including Mormonism, Jehovah’s Witness, Scientology, Folk Religions,Judaism etc it makes up less than 7% of the worlds population.

You didn't really answer my question. And I'm not trying to compare different religions.
Is was instead asking; if you think identifying as Christian leads to an increase in charity?
An in the example you game earlier. Imagining those people were to give up (or change) their faith, do you think their level of charity would also change?

Edit: For some more info on the charity of other religions you can look up zakat for an Islamic perspective and Tzedakah for a Jewish one.

Edit 2: I will make it easier for you - there are 3 options: Yes, No and I don't know.

 

[Kevinward777]

You didn't really answer my question. And I'm not trying to compare different religions.
Is was instead asking; if you think identifying as Christian leads to an increase in charity?
An in the example you game earlier. Imagining those people were to give up (or change) their faith, do you think their level of charity would also change?

Does identifying as a Christian lead to an increase in charity? Well, that would depend upon whether or not the individual followed the teaching of Jesus or not, and whether they have experienced a lasting change in their lives. Just because a person identifies as a Christian doesn’t necessarily mean they are going to behave any differently to anybody else.

As @mozgrame has already pointed out multiple times, Jesus turned everything on its head in terms of how he instructed his followers to treat people. Eg Love your enemies, pray for your enemies, feed the poor, endure persecution, don’t repay evil with evil, give to those who ask, don’t think too highly of yourself, elevate others above yourself, don’t judge, forgive, visit those in prison, care for the sick, share your wealth, obey the authorities etc.

Lasting change is a process and the rate at which it occurs is different with each individual. But the heart is key. For example, a person can donate a stack of cash to charity, yet it is only a very small percentage of what they have in the bank. Then they plaster their good deed all over Facebook, or post it in a thread on Silvertails for everyone to see. Another may donate a very small amount to the same cause, yet it is half of what they own and they tell nobody about the act. Who’s heart is more charitable?

 

[MuzztheEagle]

Does identifying as a Christian lead to an increase in charity? Well, that would depend upon whether or not the individual followed the teaching of Jesus or not, and whether they have experienced a lasting change in their lives. Just because a person identifies as a Christian doesn’t necessarily mean they are going to behave any differently to anybody else.

As @mozgrame has already pointed out multiple times, Jesus turned everything on its head in terms of how he instructed his followers to treat people. Eg Love your enemies, pray for your enemies, feed the poor, endure persecution, don’t repay evil with evil, give to those who ask, don’t think too highly of yourself, elevate others above yourself, don’t judge, forgive, visit those in prison, care for the sick, share your wealth, obey the authorities etc.

Lasting change is a process and the rate at which it occurs is different with each individual. But the heart is key. For example, a person can donate a stack of cash to charity, yet it is only a very small percentage of what they have in the bank, and they plaster their good deed all over Facebook, or post it in a thread on Silvertails for everyone to see. Another may donate a very small amount to the same cause, yet it is half of what they own and they tell nobody about the act. Who’s heart is more charitable?

You still haven't answered my question. Do you think it is Christianity and the belief that Jesus was the messiah that drives an individual's charity? If an individual was to give up on the belief that Jesus was the messiah, would they also give up (some portion) of their charity towards others?
OR to use your last statement:
Does an individual need to "have experienced a lasting change in their lives" thanks to the individual teachings of Jesus to be charitable?

 

[Kevinward777]

You still haven't answered my question. Do you think it is Christianity and the belief that Jesus was the messiah that drives an individual's charity? If an individual was to give up on the belief that Jesus was the messiah, would they also give up (some portion) of their charity towards others?
OR to use your last statement:
Does an individual need to "have experienced a lasting change in their lives" thanks to the individual teachings of Jesus to be charitable?

I can’t answer that question because I have never encountered the situation in which you are putting forward. I have seen many lives transformed when people have come to the cross, but I have never encountered any individual who was engaged in the kind of charity I am referring too, suddenly walk away from their faith and continue or elevate their nature in that regard.

 

[MuzztheEagle]

I can’t answer that question because I have never encountered the situation in which you are putting forward. I have seen many lives transformed when people have come to the cross, but I have never encountered any individual who was engaged in the kind of charity I am referring too, suddenly walk away from their faith and continue or elevate their nature in that regard.

Would would be your expectation though? Would you expect it to drop off or stop entirely?
Keeping in mind that: "I don't know" is a perfectly valid answer

 

[MuzztheEagle]

Maybe let's go back to this:

Well, that would depend upon whether or not the individual followed the teaching of Jesus or not, and whether they have experienced a lasting change in their lives. Just because a person identifies as a Christian doesn’t necessarily mean they are going to behave any differently to anybody else.

When you say it depends on following the teachings of Jesus, does this mean the idea of charity or the idea that Jesus was (the son of) God? Or are the two mutually inclusive?
Can someone retain their ideas of charity if they give up the belief the Jesus was (the son of) God?

 

[Kevinward777]

Would would be your expectation though? Would you expect it to drop off or stop entirely?
Keeping in mind that: "I don't know" is a perfectly valid answer

The people I am referring to are truly remarkable individuals who have dedicated their lives and finances to the service of others. (certainly not me) They do this Not because they just want to be kind, it actually comes from a place of complete love and gratitude for Jesus. You would need to ask them yourself, or I can if you’d like. I’ve got go out Muzz, I’ll check in later on. Good chatting mate.

 

[MuzztheEagle]

The people I am referring to are truly remarkable individuals who have dedicated their lives and finances to the service of others. (certainly not me) They do this Not because they just want to be kind, it actually comes from a place of complete love and gratitude for Jesus. You would need to ask them yourself, or I can if you’d like. I’ve got go out Muzz, I’ll check in later on. Good chatting mate.

Please do. Or you could even answer it from your own perspective if you wanted (assuming you do some level of charity yourself) and feel free to ask me my opinion as well.
It might be hard to imagine - but if someone offered you undeniable proof that the idea Jesus was not true (let's say time travel to the past where you saw Jesus wasn't all that was said), would you change your views to others.
I find it interesting, as I consider myself to be a charitable/altruistic person. But, as I have never been saved by Jesus, so I do not attribute my actions to him.

I'd also ask what it is that Jesus teaches us about charity and selflessness and why are they so unique? And how do you apply these ideas to modern life?

 

[MuzztheEagle]

I don’t know of any Hindu, Buddhist or Muslim services in the form of soup kitchens, addiction centres or overseas orphan care programs. That’s not to say there aren’t any. So any opinion I may have on the subject would be pure speculation.

These examples have been rattling around my head all afternoon and then I had a thought.
How about the possibility that they are all flawed (if not bad) ideas.
Yes the intention is clearly to help people and people do get help from them. But I wouldn't support or advocate for any of the three, unless they were significantly different from the traditional models that have existed.they started from. I'm happy to give my logic (and evidence) on each one individually but there is one big flaw with all three: they only look to treat the symptoms of a given problem. Treating symptoms is still helping people but, if it's neglecting to
treat or even address the underlying cause, is it really the best solution to make the world a better place?

 

[mozgrame]

Religious people are more charitable than non religious people. That's a fact. Some would put that down to...a fool and his money are easily parted... but that would be atheistic mockery at its lowest. Another undeniable fact...you don't have to be a religious person to be charitable...but reports show that religious people are more so.

Can charities solve the world's problems? No. But then again...that isn't really their aim. They are there to alleviate suffering in the people as best they can.

Political leadership of a given country would be a fairer target for scrutiny when it comes to solving the root problem...not the charities that help the victims.

Then again...some countries treat their citizens very poorly without concern in the belief that it is for the country's good...even in these times.

Atheistic Nth Korea for example...

Revealed: The gas chamber horror of North Korea's gulag.

Witnesses have described watching entire families being put in glass chambers and gassed. They are left to an agonising death while scientists take notes. The allegations offer the most shocking glimpse so far of Kim Jong-il's North Korean regime.

Kwon Hyuk, who has changed his name, was the former military attaché at the North Korean Embassy in Beijing. He was also the chief of management at Camp 22.

'I witnessed a whole family being tested on suffocating gas and dying in the gas chamber,' he said. 'The parents, son and a daughter. The parents were vomiting and dying, but till the very last moment they tried to save kids by doing mouth-to-mouth breathing.'

Hyuk has drawn detailed diagrams of the gas chamber he saw. He said: 'The glass chamber is sealed airtight. It is 3.5 metres wide, 3m long and 2.2m high_ [There] is the injection tube going through the unit. Normally, a family sticks together and individual prisoners stand separately around the corners. Scientists observe the entire process from above, through the glass.'

He explains how he had believed this treatment was justified. 'At the time I felt that they thoroughly deserved such a death. Because all of us were led to believe that all the bad things that were happening to North Korea were their fault; that we were poor, divided and not making progress as a country.

For more grizzly details in this report Revealed: the gas chamber horror of North Korea's gulag

These types of atrocities continue today. So...could a charity stop the Nth Koreans?? No. But can organisations such as, Helping Hands Korea...North Korean Freedom Coalition and Liberty In North Korea help people in North Korea?? I think yes.

Why ask the question in the first place? Is it wrong to offer help to those that need it? Should we also promote the idea that giving money to cancer charities is a lost cause...based on the logic that cancer charities (historically) have not cured cancer?

Nonsense!

 

[Woodsie]

Atheistic Nth Korea for example...

In practical terms .... what is the nett difference between a religion ... and the 80 year mass brain washing of a population to unconditionally worship the Kin Il friutloop family ..??? ....

Is the presence or absense of a "GOD" immaterial to the outcome .... one could argue that the Kims are a religeous sect .... and not atheist .....

 

[mozgrame]

I wish I had the time on my hands that Muzz and Woodsie seem to have...so I could post way more often...lol.

Anywho….

War. Are religious people more prone to it?

Non religious people (let's not mistake non religious for atheists as atheists like to do) would tell you...YES! Why? Because most people that don't have an affinity with something tend to gravitate to the negative opinions of that subject. But what does history tell us??

A non religious person will tell you that conflicts such as that that we see in Sri Lanka, Northern Ireland, Chechnya and Palestine are 100% religion based...but investigate them and you will find out they're wrong.

Only an insane person would declare religion has nothing to do with warfare. In fact...it has been the cause of its fair share of bloodshed. But how much? How can we get to some figures on the number of wars that are truly related to religion and not politics and power struggles?

In 2005, Charles Phillips and Alan Axelrod published...Encyclopedia Of Wars...a three volume set. It's a huge 1502 page compendium compiled by nine reputable professors of history, including the director of the Centre of Military History and former head of the Centre for Defence Studies. It amounts to a very significant percentage of all the wars that have taken place throughout recorded human history.

I'll speed things up here for time's sake...

The Encyclopedia of Wars contains a history of 1763 wars. Of those...123 are attributed to religion specifically.

So...let's look at the stats. 123 wars out of 1763 comes out as 6.98 percent. It's also interesting to note (if you're a Christian or hold to another religion other than Islam) that more than half of these 123 wars were waged by Islamic nations...66 in all. That is surprising in itself when you consider that the first war Islam took part in was almost three millennia after the first war chronicled in the encyclopedia...Akkad's conquest of summer in 2325bc!

In light of all this evidence...and taking into account that one specific religion is currently causing conflict around the world..and that by removing this one religion from the data shows that that would drop the percentage of all the other religions of the world's stats to 3.23 percent in relation to humanity's wars.

Regardless...the historical evidence is conclusive. Religion is not a primary cause of war.

 

[mozgrame]

In practical terms .... what is the nett difference between a religion ... and the 80 year mass brain washing of a population to unconditionally worship the Kin Il friutloop family ..??? ....

Is the presence or absense of a "GOD" immaterial to the outcome .... one could argue that the Kims are a religeous sect .... and not atheist .....

In the same way the Catholic church has argued that atheism is a religion (?)

The entire population of Nth Korea is not brainwashed. A very large proportion are living in abject fear.

As the old joke goes...I was talking to a bloke in North Korea the other day. I asked him if things are as bad as they say....he said, "Oh...I can't complain".

 

[MuzztheEagle]

I wish I had the time on my hands that Muzz and Woodsie seem to have...so I could post way more often...lol.

Maybe you should spend less time trawling the dark corners of Reddit to find your "evidence" based posts and instead actually discuss things rationally
But, I guess your posts do make one very good point.

 

[mozgrame]

Science vs the Bible. (food for thought)

Atheist bumblers like Sam Harris will tell you "the Bible In fact, does not contain a single sentence that could not have been written by a man or woman living in the first century".

Christians with some scientific knowledge say that shows a tremendous ignorance of what the Bible says and what science has discovered.

Has anyone ever considered that Genesis 1 is actually pretty spot on...in regards to marrying up with modern day science beliefs? Considering the ancient Hebrew language only had a bout 9000 words...let's have a look at Genesis 1.

1. In the beginning God created heaven and earth. The ancient Hebrew had no word for universe so they used the word pair heaven and earth to indicate all things. Big bang cosmology says that the universe had a definite beginning from nothing...so it was created. Science can't say if that creation was conscious or unconscious.

2. The earth was without form... After the creation (big bang) there was none of the cosmic structures we see today...certainly no earth.

3. and empty. The universe was empty after the big bang. Only the energy of quantum fluctuations existed.

4. with darkness on the face of the depths. The universe at that time would have been extremely dark and cold

5. But God's spirit moved on the surface. A scientific theory called inflation says that at this time the universe expanded at an exponential rate. The theory is not well understood by modern physics...it was a one off event...much like a miracle or divine intervention lol. It's interesting that physics and the bible say something unique happened at this point of creation.

6. God said, ‘There shall be light,’ and light came into existence. Up until this point photons of light were trapped in a cosmic fog by repeated collisions with free electrons. Once the universe was cool enough to allow electrons to combine with atomic nuclei to form neutral atoms, photons become free to roam the universe.

7. God divided between the light and the darkness. The Bible is saying that ‘darkness’ is a thing in and of itself. Modern astrophysics now agrees that darkness is more than just shadows or the absence of light. Modern physics is striving to understand this with concepts such as dark matter and dark energy.

It goes on.....there are 26 significant steps listed in Genesis that could be argued are entirely compatible with our current understanding of the origins and development of the universe...and that the steps in the development of our universe as listed in Genesis are in the correct scientific order.

It doesn't prove anything...but what would the odds be that a people from so long ago could have simply guessed what modern day science teaches?

Well...consider the following exercise in probability. Imagine that you were to take twenty-six uniform strips of paper, number them 1 through 26, place them face down on a table, mix them up, and then attempt to turn them over in the right order. Your chances of doing so would be one out of 26!. The number 26! is read as 26 factorial and simply means 26 x 25 x 24 x … x 3 x 2 x 1 .

Written out in normal decimal form, the chances are...

1 out of 403,291,461,126,605,700,000,000,000.

Read in English, the probability of turning all of the slips over in the right order by sheer luck would be

1 out of 403 septillion, 291 sextillion, 461 quintillion, 126 quadrillion, 605 trillion, 7 billion.

Hmmm.....