SPLIT: From The terrifying afterlife thread

[Achronos]

This is the legacy of Abraham, who would have butchered his own son because the voices in his head told him to.  Alive today he would have been prosecuted and put away in an asylum for the criminally insane.  His followers number in the billions.  Consider that.

If you ask me, I don't think that's a real story, but a fictional one with prophetic allegory. It's quite obvious any father with a right mind will reject a God who asks him to go kill his own son. Where are these "billions" of followers?

And the Epicurean quote that was quoted. It consists of two answers. Man's free will and God's incarnation. In fact, I remember reading from a Church father, "without sin, there is no salvation." Truly, we take our lives for granted.  Sometimes we need a little nudge in life to make us stronger, and the mistakes we do now help us to avoid them later.

If you give any example of whatever evil goes on in this world, there's always a Christian answer to it.

[LegendarySandwich]

This is the legacy of Abraham, who would have butchered his own son because the voices in his head told him to.  Alive today he would have been prosecuted and put away in an asylum for the criminally insane.  His followers number in the billions.  Consider that.

If you ask me, I don't think that's a real story, but a fictional one with prophetic allegory. It's quite obvious any father with a right mind will reject a God who asks him to go kill his own son. Where are these "billions" of followers?

That's a liberal view you have, and I commend you for it, but you hold a fringe position; most believes hold the bible as inerrant, and believe the story of Abraham to be a literal historical event. Billions of people are in the three Abrahamic religions (Christianity, Islam, and Judaism), so most of them are followers of Abraham.

By the way -- are you going to ignore my post, or what?

[Achronos]

This is an axiom. Without it, we wouldn't be able to learn anything.

That's fine, as long as you realize that you're not starting from any more of a "reasonable" place than a theist.

Why shouldn't I?

Because, as you've said before, you demand good reasons to believe something and this worldview is laughably unreasonable.  You have absolutely no grounds to say that you can trust your beliefs and experiences knowing full well that they're "nothing more" than the firing of neurons in the brain.  Unguided, random firings.  I mean, by all means, believe them.  But don't pretend that it's a reasonable position to do so.

Yeahhhhhhhhhh...whatever you say, buddy.

Nice retort.

God made us in his image. Why would he not want us to understand the world? Doesn't he want us to use the logic and rationality he gave us?

Sure.  Did I imply otherwise?  Unless of course you think "understanding the world" amounts to no mystery whatsoever and having every single answer.

And Epicurus isn't asking why pointless evil exists, he's asking why evil exists at all. If God is perfect and can do anything, why couldn't he make things happen the way he wants them to without using evil? The answer: he can.

The answer:  he did.  And from the Christian point of view, man mucked it up, not God.  If you're asking why God couldn't create a world where man never chose evil, well, you're getting into a different question altogether, one with a pretty obvious answer.

But it's pretty good evidence that there isn't one.

I would agree if it weren't for Jesus of Nazareth.  If we ask the question, “Why does God allow evil and suffering to continue?” and we look at the cross of Jesus, we still do not know what the whole answer is.  However, we now know what the answer isn’t.  It can’t be that he doesn’t love us.  It can’t be that he is indifferent or detached from our condition.  God takes our misery and suffering so seriously that he was willing to take it on Himself.

Again, the "belief" that logic and rational thinking are correct is an axiom. Without it, we wouldn't be able to do anything meaningful. And since your god doesn't exist, we can't trust him to help with anything.

Again, that's fine as long as you realize that it's a groundless claim with no more reasons to believe it than a belief in God would merit.

[Achronos]

This is the legacy of Abraham, who would have butchered his own son because the voices in his head told him to.  Alive today he would have been prosecuted and put away in an asylum for the criminally insane.  His followers number in the billions.  Consider that.

If you ask me, I don't think that's a real story, but a fictional one with prophetic allegory. It's quite obvious any father with a right mind will reject a God who asks him to go kill his own son. Where are these "billions" of followers?

That's a liberal view you have, and I commend you for it, but you hold a fringe position; most believes hold the bible as inerrant, and believe the story of Abraham to be a literal historical event.

One needs to look that the view I hold is no new view, but an ancient one held by the Alexandrian Church, and even before Christianity, by Philo the Jew of Alexandria, who we have received influence from.

http://tertullian.org/fathers/origen_ph ... 2_text.htm

So, I'm keeping with an Orthodox tradition of the Church

This is not a fringe position within Orthodoxy for we do not hold the Bible to be inerrant.

Billions of people are in the three Abrahamic religions (Christianity, Islam, and Judaism), so most of them are followers of Abraham.

And you still believe you're applying logic and reason?  What does it even mean to "follow Abraham"?

[Sophus]

Blah.... Byzantine Empire icon Jesus. You should go with something more accurate like this.  

[Achronos]

I love the "Sinai" Jesus Icon, it's my favorite picture of him. That "accurate" photo is funny, I've seen it before.

[LegendarySandwich]

This is an axiom. Without it, we wouldn't be able to learn anything.

That's fine, as long as you realize that you're not starting from any more of a "reasonable" place than a theist.

Not all axioms are created equal.

Why shouldn't I?

Because, as you've said before, you demand good reasons to believe something and this worldview is laughably unreasonable.  You have absolutely no grounds to say that you can trust your beliefs and experiences knowing full well that they're "nothing more" than the firing of neurons in the brain.  Unguided, random firings.  I mean, by all means, believe them.  But don't pretend that it's a reasonable position to do so.

I don't trust all my beliefs and experiences -- our brains are good at making things up (like religious experiences), but I think it's generally easy to separate fact from fiction when you apply a little logic and rational thinking.

Our brains aren't random. And what else do you suppose I trust, then? If I can't trust my brain, what can I trust? Oh, yeah, right. A magical sky fairy. Uh huh. I think I'll stick with my brain, thanks.

Also, again: not all axioms are created equal. The axiom that we can generally trust our brains with a reasonable amount of certainty is a much more reasonable one than...well, whatever you want to put in its place.

Yeahhhhhhhhhh...whatever you say, buddy.

Nice retort.

Nice retort to my nice retort.

God made us in his image. Why would he not want us to understand the world? Doesn't he want us to use the logic and rationality he gave us?

Sure.  Did I imply otherwise?  Unless of course you think "understanding the world" amounts to no mystery whatsoever and having every single answer.

Why would God make us think he was a cruel one by making evil appear pointless to us when we think logically and rationally?

And Epicurus isn't asking why pointless evil exists, he's asking why evil exists at all. If God is perfect and can do anything, why couldn't he make things happen the way he wants them to without using evil? The answer: he can.

The answer:  he did.  And from the Christian point of view, man mucked it up, not God.  If you're asking why God couldn't create a world where man never chose evil, well, you're getting into a different question altogether, one with a pretty obvious answer.

I feel like you ignored what I just said. God can make anything -- ANYTHING -- happen the way he wants it. He could have changed logic and physics. Why couldn't he have made us have free will why still never choosing evil? Why does he punish us for one sin that Adam and Eve committed? And such questions like that.

But it's pretty good evidence that there isn't one.

I would agree if it weren't for Jesus of Nazareth.  If we ask the question, “Why does God allow evil and suffering to continue?” and we look at the cross of Jesus, we still do not know what the whole answer is.  However, we now know what the answer isn’t.  It can’t be that he doesn’t love us.  It can’t be that he is indifferent or detached from our condition.  God takes our misery and suffering so seriously that he was willing to take it on Himself.

So, God sending his son, which was also himself, to sacrifice himself on a cross to "pay" for the sin of simply being born human because our first ancestors ate a piece of fruit from a tree he forbade them to eat from, even know he knew full well that they would still eat it because he's omniscient and all?

Hopefully, I don't need to point out all the problems with this theory. Hint: there's a lot.

Again, the "belief" that logic and rational thinking are correct is an axiom. Without it, we wouldn't be able to do anything meaningful. And since your god doesn't exist, we can't trust him to help with anything.

Again, that's fine as long as you realize that it's a groundless claim with no more reasons to believe it than a belief in God would merit.

We must believe that logic and rational thinking are correct. We don't have to have belief in God. Again, not all axioms are created equal. The axiom that god exists is baseless and useless.

[LegendarySandwich]

What does it even mean to "follow Abraham"?

To follow the religions he started.

[Achronos]

I don't trust all my beliefs and experiences -- our brains are good at making things up (like religious experiences), but I think it's generally easy to separate fact from fiction when you apply a little logic and rational thinking.

You're missing the larger point.  I'm not talking about fact versus fiction, I'm talking about the very fundamentals of how the brain works and the problems that creates for those who hold a materialistic worldview.

Our brains aren't random. And what else do you suppose I trust, then? If I can't trust my brain, what can I trust? Oh, yeah, right. A magical sky fairy. Uh huh. I think I'll stick with my brain, thanks.

What do you mean our brains aren't random?  How else could they be from a purely materialistic viewpoint?  I'm not sure what a magical sky fairy is but it sounds cool.

Your "logic" continues to astound me...

Also, again: not all axioms are created equal. The axiom that we can generally trust our brains with a reasonable amount of certainty is a much more reasonable one than...well, whatever you want to put in its place.

Again, that's fine as long as you realize it's a faith position.  Your faith that our senses and our memories are (usually) reliable, rather than being hallucinations induced by some unknown outside source; your belief that our short-term thought processes are (usually) reliable (that is, that we are sane at all); your belief that the entire universe didn't whisk into existence a second ago (including all of us, with a complete set of fake memories), and won't whisk out of existence a second later; your belief that other bodies which act like ours contain conscious awarenesses like our own (and that the "intensity" with which they feel sensations and emotions can be judged by the complexity of their behavior); so on and so forth.

These little puddle-jumps of faith are the foundation for your reason. I think they are justified. But that reason is really a belief, an act of faith, an acknowledgment that, as humans, we have no "contingency-free" place from where to start at all and no "contingency-free" place on earth to end up at.

Why would God make us think he was a cruel one by making evil appear pointless to us when we think logically and rationally?

He wouldn't.  

I feel like you ignored what I just said. God can make anything -- ANYTHING -- happen the way he wants it. He could have changed logic and physics. Why couldn't he have made us have free will why still never choosing evil?

Because...that wouldn't be free will.  Are you serious?

Why does he punish us for one sin that Adam and Eve committed? And such questions like that.

I'm not sure who'd believe such a thing but it sounds atrocious.

So, God sending his son, which was also himself, to sacrifice himself on a cross to "pay" for the sin of simply being born human because our first ancestors ate a piece of fruit from a tree he forbade them to eat from, even know he knew full well that they would still eat it because he's omniscient and all?

Hopefully, I don't need to point out all the problems with this theory. Hint: there's a lot.

I'm afraid the only thing that needs to be pointed out is how someone like yourself can spend this much time on a Religion board, have discussions with me, and still have absolutely no idea what an Orthodox actually believes. Truly, it's impressive!

We must believe that logic and rational thinking are correct.

Those neurons of yours must be firing randomly again.

[Achronos]

What does it even mean to "follow Abraham"?

To follow the religions he started.

This must be that dizzying "logic" of yours at work.

[LegendarySandwich]

I don't trust all my beliefs and experiences -- our brains are good at making things up (like religious experiences), but I think it's generally easy to separate fact from fiction when you apply a little logic and rational thinking.

You're missing the larger point.  I'm not talking about fact versus fiction, I'm talking about the very fundamentals of how the brain works and the problems that creates for those who hold a materialistic worldview.

And I said that I believe that our experiences are usually generally reliable. If I didn't believe so, life wouldn't be worth living.

Our brains aren't random. And what else do you suppose I trust, then? If I can't trust my brain, what can I trust? Oh, yeah, right. A magical sky fairy. Uh huh. I think I'll stick with my brain, thanks.

What do you mean our brains aren't random?  How else could they be from a purely materialistic viewpoint?

How are our brains random? A stimuli happens. My brain responds. That's not random.

I'm not sure what a magical sky fairy is but it sounds cool.

Oh, it is.

Your "logic" continues to astound me...

Thanks, I'm glad my logic astounds you with its brilliance.

Also, again: not all axioms are created equal. The axiom that we can generally trust our brains with a reasonable amount of certainty is a much more reasonable one than...well, whatever you want to put in its place.

Again, that's fine as long as you realize it's a faith position.  Your faith that our senses and our memories are (usually) reliable, rather than being hallucinations induced by some unknown outside source; your belief that our short-term thought processes are (usually) reliable (that is, that we are sane at all); your belief that the entire universe didn't whisk into existence a second ago (including all of us, with a complete set of fake memories), and won't whisk out of existence a second later; your belief that other bodies which act like ours contain conscious awarenesses like our own (and that the "intensity" with which they feel sensations and emotions can be judged by the complexity of their behavior); so on and so forth.

These little puddle-jumps of faith are the foundation for your reason. I think they are justified. But that reason is really a belief, an act of faith, an acknowledgment that, as humans, we have no "contingency-free" place from where to start at all and no "contingency-free" place on earth to end up at.

I wouldn't call axioms "faith positions", but call them whatever you want, as long as you realize how necessary they are.

Why would God make us think he was a cruel one by making evil appear pointless to us when we think logically and rationally?

He wouldn't.

But yet he does, assuming he exists and all.

I feel like you ignored what I just said. God can make anything -- ANYTHING -- happen the way he wants it. He could have changed logic and physics. Why couldn't he have made us have free will why still never choosing evil?

Because...that wouldn't be free will.  Are you serious?

AGGGGGGGHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH. You are ignoring what I'm saying.

Why does he punish us for one sin that Adam and Eve committed? And such questions like that.

I'm not sure who'd believe such a thing but it sounds atrocious.

Most people in your religion believe it, actually. Of course, I keep forgetting you don't believe the basis of your religion.

So, God sending his son, which was also himself, to sacrifice himself on a cross to "pay" for the sin of simply being born human because our first ancestors ate a piece of fruit from a tree he forbade them to eat from, even know he knew full well that they would still eat it because he's omniscient and all?

Hopefully, I don't need to point out all the problems with this theory. Hint: there's a lot.

I'm afraid the only thing that needs to be pointed out is how someone like yourself can spend this much time on a Religion board, have discussions with me, and still have absolutely no idea what an Orthodox actually believes. Truly, it's impressive!

Do you not even believe in the story of Jesus then?

We must believe that logic and rational thinking are correct.

Those neurons of yours must be firing randomly again.

Sandwich is not amused.

[Stevil]

Sandwich is not amused.

Sandwich, I am not sure why you spend so much time debating with Achronos. Based on his statement that you refer to in your footer it seems apparant that Achronos does not think as he believes that thinking is an affliction of the devil. He is purley based on faith. If you want to know what he thinks read the bible and then read some transcription of that written by the Orthodoxy Church.
If you want to open up Achronos's mind you would have to get your ideas published in the bible or the transcription of that written by the Orthodoxy Church. Achronos does not afford himself the luxioury of thinking.

[LegendarySandwich]

Sandwich is not amused.

Sandwich, I am not sure why you spend so much time debating with Achronos. Based on his statement that you refer to in your footer it seems apparant that Achronos does not think as he believes that thinking is an affliction of the devil. He is purley based on faith. If you want to know what he thinks read the bible and then read some transcription of that written by the Orthodoxy Church.
If you want to open up Achronos's mind you would have to get your ideas published in the bible or the transcription of that written by the Orthodoxy Church. Achronos does not afford himself the luxioury of thinking.

Eh, maybe you're right -- but I think I have to prove something to myself. And about his intelligence: I don't actually think he's stupid. Certainly, I disagree with a lot of his stances and opinions, and I think that his religion has a nasty grip over his brain, but I think that he's probably fairly intelligent. I also don't think that he practices what he preaches -- that this, that he doesn't think.

It's obvious I'm not going to change his mind, but maybe...I don't know. Eh.

[Stevil]

He seems very intelligent however his logic seems illogical. I like that he tries to introduce the concept that logic and reasoning are simply beliefs, however I don't agree on this. I do get a bit frustrated with regards to my conversations with him because his responses with regards to his stance do often get mixed up with the stance of his Orthodoxy. I would like to view him as an individual but he does not afford me that luxioury.

I was surprised with regards to his stance on thinking so have posted something that I was hoping would get a reaction, I was hoping he would backtrack and suggest that he does engage his own brain towards thinking things through rather than strictly adhere to what he is told by his spiritual advisors. I am sure he is a thinker so maybe he has a little bit of devil in him.

If he doesn't think then it seems to be a waste of god's gift (his intellect and reasoning capacity) to him.

[LegendarySandwich]

He seems very intelligent however his logic seems illogical. I like that he tries to introduce the concept that logic and reasoning are simply beliefs, however I don't agree on this. I do get a bit frustrated with regards to my conversations with him because his responses with regards to his stance do often get mixed up with the stance of his Orthodoxy. I would like to view him as an individual but he does not afford me that luxioury.

I was surprised with regards to his stance on thinking so have posted something that I was hoping would get a reaction, I was hoping he would backtrack and suggest that he does engage his own brain towards thinking things through rather than strictly adhere to what he is told by his spiritual advisors. I am sure he is a thinker so maybe he has a little bit of devil in him.

If he doesn't think then it seems to be a waste of god's gift (his intellect and reasoning capacity) to him.

Illogical logic....

Yeah, he seems keen on reminding us often that he has no individual opinions and that his stance on everything is directly aligned with the standard Orthodox view. He almost seems proud that he has no free will or thoughts.

He's probably already answered this, but I would like to know how he knows that all the Greek Orthodox views are correct.