From the TDWTF Google+ feed
-
But can you create a single celled organism that does everything we can do? Walk, talk, think, etc
No, And that is exactly my point.
How do you get from a single cell, to a bunch of cells, and to an actual meaning.
-
God made us in his image, the spiritual way. meaning he gave us the ability to even wonder what we are wondering.or doubt what we doubt.
So if we take this and say we look how we look and have the capacity that we have because God made us in his image, but this does not imply that our internal workings are in any way similar to God's.
The fact that it is so complicated and still works, show you that god is the almighty. anyone can create a single cell and call it a day.
So are you saying we're as complicated as we are solely as evidence that God exists: "We're so complicated we could have only been created by God"?
It seems to me that the counter-argument would also hold true: "We're so simple (a bag of red gloop) but the fact we can walk, talk and compose symphonies means we could have only been created by God".
-
-
A pig got all those nice organs we have, what is the difference between you and the pig?
I taste better.
No, wait.
-
Finally, someone with sense in this thread!
-
-
-
-
Finally, someone with sense flavor taste in this thread!
your link does't work (on left click) I guess it is not that important and discourse knows that.
test
<aside class="quote" data-post="107" data-topic="5274">
</aside>Finally, someone with sense flavor taste in this thread!
-
it's just people yelling at each other about things that don't matter.
Welcome to the Internet.
-
But ok, let's discuss this idealized notion of christianity too: if all of the implementations of a standard are problematic and incompatible, how can we say that the standard itself is good? If PR is such a problem, why did Jesus not give us better tools for identifying and neutralizing our own natural tendencies toward that kind of thinking?
People are still people. We're all sinners. Shit happens and we should do all that we can to fix it. Honestly, this sounds like another stab at theodicy.
-
So what is this thread about? Is Larry Page God? Or is God Larry Page?
-
As you've discovered, there's more than one way to ask it.
-
I'm not upset that christianity is imperfect, except as far as it claims to be perfect; all I'm saying is that it is not as good as the alternatives.
-
I'm not upset that christianity is imperfect, except as far as it claims to be perfect; all I'm saying is that it is not as good as the alternatives.
There's a lot to unpack there, but see Mark 10:18 and, for example, http://www.gotquestions.org/good-God-alone.html. Churches are, of course, fallible, being human creations.
I'd be interested in hearing what alternatives you think are better than Christianity.
-
I'd be interested in hearing what alternatives you think are better than Christianity.
Which kind of Christianity? What does "better" mean? What value does Christianity hold that you think an alternative has to be better at? What does "better" mean for that value?
-
Which kind of Christianity? What does "better" mean? What value does Christianity hold that you think an alternative has to be better at? What does "better" mean for that value?
- What does Which mean?
- What does kind mean?
- What does of mean?
-
Churches are, of course, fallible, being human creations.
What is infallible, then? Are rabbits infallible because they aren't built by humans? Does that mean humans can be infallible if they aren't built by fallible humans? How did a fallible human originally get built if there were no fallible beings before the big bang?
-
Ok, @frostcat was asking that in response to something I said, and I haven't finalized my answer yet so for now I'm going to answer your questions with what I was thinking at the time.
Which kind of Christianity? What does "better" mean? What value does Christianity hold that you think an alternative has to be better at? What does "better" mean for that value?
- Biblical christianity
- Provides a better set of principles to organize a healthy community around
- Responsiveness to societal changes
- Ability to engage people on their own terms, rather than according to prevailing values
-
I'd be interested in hearing what alternatives you think are better than Christianity.
Personally, out of current belief systems, I am partial to intersectional feminism, particularly the focus on ‘lived experience’ and accepting other people's realities even if they appear to contradict one's own.
More abstractly: any system that is able to amend its own values as its needs change and willing to accept that other groups with different needs will have different values. And I realize that christianity is able to reform itself, and change does happen in the church, but in my opinion, the necessity for all christian beliefs to be based on the bible slows things down too much, such that the church always seems to be about a generation out of phase with reality, as it means that any observed change in church dogma will always bring accusations that people are reinterpreting the word of God.
-
Biblical christianity
Clarify. There are hundreds of "Biblical Christian" churches.
Responsiveness to societal changes
Why does a religious organization need to respond to societal changes? Does a religion's morals need to change just because society says so? Are all societal changes for the better?
Provides a better set of principles to organize a healthy community around
Most Christian churches teach excellent principles for organizing healthy communities. The problem comes from people not adhering to those principles (as the bible puts it "they draw near to me with their lips, but their hearts are far from me".)
As one example, there have been several articles in Times magazine, WSJ, and other sources, in the past year or two addressing the question of why there seem to be so many Mormons1 popping up in the news in the past decade. From sports, to business, to politics, even helping with cleanup efforts after natural disasters: Mormons seem to be everywhere. Why is that the case when there are less than 20 million Mormons worldwide? One conclusion that seems to be common among all of the articles: the principles embraced by Mormons encourage excellence and service. With heavy focus on the family first, the community second, followed by a strong desire to strengthen any innate skills, every article of this type that I have seen has included this one conclusion: it is no surprise that Mormons are prevalent in the news. The Mormon faith and culture indirectly encourages it.
Seems like a pretty sound basis for organizing a healthy community around.
1 For any who are unaware, Mormons are members of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. The term "Mormon" comes from The Book of Mormon, which Mormons consider to be a scriptural companion to the Holy Bible. Mormons are also referred to as Latter-day Saints, or LDS for short. As the name of their church implies, Mormons believe in the divinity of Jesus Christ, and consider themselves Christian.
-
Why is that the case when there are less than 20 million Mormons worldwide?
There was a temple across the street from my high school (I assume it's still there, but I haven't been back in a while). I knew a lot of mormons, both students and teachers. What amazed me the most were some of the people who converted. I never would have predicted most of them. I suspect it turned their lives around, because they're generally pretty decent people now (and weren't particularly, back then).
-
There was a temple across the street from my high school (I assume it's still there, but I haven't been back in a while)
I guarantee it is. We haven't taken down any temples, just built more.
-
Indeed. It was the only one within...maybe 20 miles (possibly more, but that's as far as I'd certify) and there are several more that I'm aware of (this is at least decade old information, and I live on the opposite coast now) within 10 miles.
-
What is infallible, then?
God, and the Pope speaking ex cathedra. I believe that latter's only happened a handful of times ever, though. From what I can tell from Wikipedia, there are about 9 things that probably fall under this, including things like "the dual nature of Christ" and the dogma of Immaculate Conception.
The answer to the rest of your questions is "of course not, of course not, and obviously God created them."
-
God, and the Pope speaking ex cathedra. I believe that latter's only happened a handful of times ever, though.
Yes, it's a very rare thing and quite limited in scope. Not at all what most jokes make it out to be.
-
-
Only if you're Catholic.
Is there someone who might have thought I meant the Buddhist Pope?
-
Is there someone who might have thought I meant the Buddhist Pope?
No, I'm just saying that non-Catholics wouldn't consider the Pope speaking ex cathedra to be infallible. Keep up with the conversational context.
-
No, I'm just saying that non-Catholics wouldn't consider the Pope speaking ex cathedra to be infallible. Keep up with the conversational context.
That doesn't mean he isn't infallible.
-
That doesn't mean he isn't infallible.
I don't consider ex cathedra Papal statements to be infallible. Is that better?
-
I don't consider ex cathedra Papal statements to be infallible. Is that better?
Just a similar way of being wrong.
-
No, I'm just saying that non-Catholics wouldn't consider the Pope speaking ex cathedra to be infallible. Keep up with the conversational context.
i'm catholic. or was at any rate. not sure what to call it anymore.
anyway:
ex cathedra: infallible? no. Ineffable? sure, ok, i can live with that.
-
No, I'm just saying that non-Catholics wouldn't consider the Pope speaking ex cathedra to be infallible.
Duh?
Keep up with the conversational context.
Sure thing, blakey.
-
Just a similar way of being wrong.
There are so many ways I could dispute the Papal inheritance, just by going through history. But I don't have the time. Or the inclination. Instead, I'll propose this one question:
When Christ set up a Church, he ordained 12 apostles. Obviously Judas Iscariot lost that role when he betrayed Christ and then hung himself. After Christ's ascension into heaven, Judas was replaced, through the casting of lots, by the apostle Matthias. This apparently continued, as others - such as Saul/Paul - who were not part of the original twelve apostles were later referred to as apostles when it became necessary to replace other apostles. Why are there no apostles in (most) modern Christian churches?
-
ex cathedra: infallible? no.
As a Catholic, you would be required to agree. "When, in the exercise of his office as shepherd and teacher of all Christians, in virtue of his supreme apostolic authority, he defines a doctrine concerning faith or morals to be held by the whole Church."
-
There are so many ways I could dispute the Papal inheritance, just by going through history.
Fortunately, that issue is irrelevant to the matter at hand.
-
-
Papal truther, eh?
That's only a small part of it. I believe that there was a general apostasy after the death of the apostles (circa 100 AD). As a result, all authority to speak in God's name was lost on the earth. (I have mentioned that I'm Mormon, right?) This necessitated a restoration of Christ's church. The process for that was started in 1820, in a grove of trees near Palmyra, NY. This led to the translation (through divine means) and publication of The Book of Mormon, many divine revelations, and the legal (according to the laws of the United States of America) organization of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.
Edit: changed some wording for clarification.
Edit: Corrected an incorrect year. Guess I'm fallible. ;)
-
As a Catholic, you would be required to agree
hmm well that clinches it then. Ex-catholic doesn't count then.
ok i can scratchy one label off the list of things i could be religiously.
-
ok i can scratchy one label off the list of things i could be religiously.
The Immaculate Conception is the thing you can't agree with the Church on?
-
The Immaculate Conception
i have no strong opinion on that one....
i mean... what of it?
-
i have no strong opinion on that one....
i mean... what of it
I just went back and re-read what you wrote and now I'm not sure I even know what you meant. I thought you meant you couldn't get behind the PI doctrine. Are you saying you can't call yourself an ex-Catholic, or something else?
-
This post is deleted!
-
I just went back and re-read what you wrote and now I'm not sure I even know what you meant. I thought you meant you couldn't get behind the PI doctrine. Are you saying you can't call yourself an ex-Catholic, or something else?
ex cathedra: infallible? no. Ineffable? sure, ok, i can live with that.
As a Catholic, you would be required to agree. "When, in the exercise of his office as shepherd and teacher of all Christians, in virtue of his supreme apostolic authority, he defines a doctrine concerning faith or morals to be held by the whole Church."
based on your quote i took your comment to mean you must disagree (it seems to support the infalible: yes argument than the infalible: no position i made).
then based on your statement that you said required to agree with quote that seems to oppose my position i can scratch a label off my list of things i can call myself.
or did i miss a hairpin turn on the logic train back there a ways?
-
I think you made a hairpin turn (not necessarily one of logic) and lost me.
All I ever meant was that you are required to believe things the Pope infallibly says with which you must agree, e.g., Immaculate Conception.
-
oh. i see. i lost it at the whole "because a guy with a funny hat said it i must believe it as truth"
The Pope: important person. possibly can speak to God (or a god), but not infalible.
I'll go with ineffable, but i won't just believe something because a guy in a funny hat said i should.
i guess i never was a good catholic, even before i left the church over policy decisions.
Ineffable => Unknowable, Inexpressible
-
oh. i see. i lost it at the whole "because a guy with a funny hat said it i must believe it as truth"
That's an oversimplification by a gal with an avatar with a funny hat.
-
That's an oversimplification by a gal with an avatar with a funny hat.
well you shouldn't believe what i say just because i say it either!
-
i guess i never was a good catholic, even before i left the church over policy decisions.
Apparently not.
No fault implied or stated, with that agreement.
Of course, he's not just "some guy with a funny hat", he's--theoretically, anyway--the lineal replacement for the guy hand-picked by God to be the head of the church. If you're not going to buy into that, then the whole rest of it doesn't work well.
Buddy:
