Newgrounds.com — Everything, By Everyone.

bope, i don't remember it from Catholic school.

Ah well. Either my memory is faulty, or I got a heretic for a high-school religion teacher (I'm leaning towards the latter).

At 5/30/08 10:42 PM, HorseloverFrost wrote: Ah well. Either my memory is faulty, or I got a heretic for a high-school religion teacher (I'm leaning towards the latter).

That makes 3 then. MicktheChampion and I also had heretical religion teachers in Catholic schools.

I think we used the Annotated Bible, but we used whatever we had available......and I don't even remember using my bible all that frequently anyways......

Religion class tended to revolve more around philosophy and morality experiments/discussions rather than bible study......

either way i don't remember any real talk about the creation of the universe and the Bible so i have no idea. but it wouldn't make much sense to simply ignore something.

At 5/30/08 10:55 PM, SolInvictus wrote: either way i don't remember any real talk about the creation of the universe and the Bible so i have no idea. but it wouldn't make much sense to simply ignore something.

There might not have been.....

Creation only seems to be a real hot-button issue for Creationists. I'm pretty sure the Catholic stance is "What a lovely story".

Which actually raises a question:
Does anyone know if Jews believe in 7 day creation? I mean it's their friggin book for fuck's sake.....

My guess is no, because I've never heard them make a point about it like Creationists have.

but its not literalism that is confusing. its where God's work in creation began. the Bible says he created everything while, supposedly, Catholics believe he shaped an already existing but shapeless heaven and earth.
but ya, literalism isn't really a Catholic stance considering the fact that the Vatican accepts what science has had to say about how things came to be.

At 5/30/08 11:43 PM, Imperator wrote: My guess is no, because I've never heard them make a point about it like Creationists have.

Jews tend not to raise as big a stink about religious issues as Christian creationists do. While due in large part to the extensive oppression jews have suffered, there's also the belief in Judaism that non-jews shouldn't convert, and are only required to obey the seven Noahide laws.

As to whether modern jews believe in the seven-day creation story, my guess would be that the belief varies, like in all religions. However, I do remember one occasion, where I casually made mention of people living shorter lives in the distant past, and an orthodox jew who was part of the conversation said "no, people in the past lived for hundreds of years." I would imagine that if this much more minor part of the torah is still considered valid in the orthodox jewish community, the seven-day creation would still be considered valid as well.

At 5/30/08 11:56 PM, HorseloverFrost wrote: Jews tend not to raise as big a stink about religious issues as Christian creationists do. While due in large part to the extensive oppression jews have suffered, there's also the belief in Judaism that non-jews shouldn't convert, and are only required to obey the seven Noahide laws.

good points. I have a problem with talking about Jews though, because I find it hard to distinguish where stereotypes and persecutions stem from the ethnic identity rather than the religious identity.

I mean, most people cite the Holocaust as a religious persecution, but Hitler cited things like economics as a reason, and persecuted other ethnic groups, so I'm not convinced it was entirely religious based, if any.

It also makes it hard to pin down anything concrete for me because I again don't know where to distinguish from the religious and ethnic identity.

But yeah, good points.....I don't know why Christians are so loud about this shit, although we've been doing it pretty much since Christianity became the leading ideology under the Romans......

As to whether modern jews believe in the seven-day creation story, my guess would be that the belief varies, like in all religions. However. . .

I wonder if he was a more on the fundamentalist side of the orthodox faith, or if that's a mainstream view. Have to agree that if there are people who think people actually lived for 100s of years when the life expectancy in the Roman Empire was like 35 then yeah, the 7 days thing would be a given......

At 5/30/08 11:49 PM, SolInvictus wrote: but its not literalism that is confusing. its where God's work in creation began. the Bible says he created everything while, supposedly, Catholics believe he shaped an already existing but shapeless heaven and earth.
but ya, literalism isn't really a Catholic stance considering the fact that the Vatican accepts what science has had to say about how things came to be.

Sorry Sol, but you took the words right out of my mouth......
I've really got nothing to add, you seemed to have covered it all already.....

Damn you for killing the debate, I'm not gonna sacrifice even an ass let alone tits unless you produce something to continue the thread!

At 5/31/08 12:19 AM, Imperator wrote: good points. I have a problem with talking about Jews though, because I find it hard to distinguish where stereotypes and persecutions stem from the ethnic identity rather than the religious identity.

I mean, most people cite the Holocaust as a religious persecution, but Hitler cited things like economics as a reason, and persecuted other ethnic groups, so I'm not convinced it was entirely religious based, if any.

It also makes it hard to pin down anything concrete for me because I again don't know where to distinguish from the religious and ethnic identity.

I was referring to religion and religious persecution, but the point holds for racial discrimination as well. Since Judaism has a pretty strict no conversion rule, most people who are jews religiously speaking are also jews ethnically speaking (though the reverse is not true, naturally).

Someone needs to create a specific term to refer to jewishness as a religion as opposed to jewishness as an ethnicity. I propose 'iysh etzel el', hebrew for "person at the house of god", IEE for short.

But yeah, good points.....I don't know why Christians are so loud about this shit, although we've been doing it pretty much since Christianity became the leading ideology under the Romans......

Christianity and Islam are, as far as I know, the only two major religions with "it's my way or the highway" policies.

I wonder if he was a more on the fundamentalist side of the orthodox faith, or if that's a mainstream view. Have to agree that if there are people who think people actually lived for 100s of years when the life expectancy in the Roman Empire was like 35 then yeah, the 7 days thing would be a given......

I'll have to ask some of my reform jew friends the next time I see them.

At 5/31/08 01:42 AM, HorseloverFrost wrote: Someone needs to create a specific term to refer to jewishness as a religion as opposed to jewishness as an ethnicity. I propose 'iysh etzel el', hebrew for "person at the house of god", IEE for short.

You sir have won one (1) internets for your smarts.

Christianity and Islam are, as far as I know, the only two major religions with "it's my way or the highway" policies.

Ditto.

Maybe that 'my way or the highway' attitude says something to their survivability though.....Judaism has especially been around for quite some time.

I'll have to ask some of my reform jew friends the next time I see them.

I'm always lookin to learn somethin new. I wouldn't mind if you do happen to ask next time.

At 5/31/08 12:24 AM, Imperator wrote: Damn you for killing the debate, I'm not gonna sacrifice even an ass let alone tits unless you produce something to continue the thread!

but this shaping of an already existing world is still confusing as hell, regardless of literalism.

At 5/31/08 02:12 PM, SolInvictus wrote:

You should check out some posts by LastSpartan.

A bit of research shows that I was wrong. Apparently buddhism also has an exclusivity policy as well:

"This is the way, there is no other that leads to the purifying of intelligence. Go on this way! Everything else is the deceit of Mâra (the tempter)." Dhammapada 274

I'm not sure how strictly this policy is held to in modern buddhism, though, since many non-monastic buddhists today (or at least the ones I've encountered) don't actually read the original scriptures, but instead follow abridged versions (understandable, since the original is wordy, long, and at times obtusely phrased).

At 5/31/08 02:12 PM, SolInvictus wrote:
but this shaping of an already existing world is still confusing as hell, regardless of literalism.

Agreed, and if I had any better answer for it I'd be sure to give it.

There are some logical paradoxes in Catholicism that just make the mind reel.....

At 5/31/08 08:38 PM, HorseloverFrost wrote: A bit of research shows that I was wrong. Apparently buddhism also has an exclusivity policy as well:

"This is the way, there is no other that leads to the purifying of intelligence. Go on this way! Everything else is the deceit of Mâra (the tempter)." Dhammapada 274

I'm not sure how strictly this policy is held to in modern buddhism, though, since many non-monastic buddhists today (or at least the ones I've encountered) don't actually read the original scriptures, but instead follow abridged versions (understandable, since the original is wordy, long, and at times obtusely phrased).

I could probably ask my best friend, who's Buddhist.

New question:
Why do people care so much about who's what religion? Seriously, why is it even an issue?
I think the entire power of religion stems from the fact that people GIVE it power through their words and actions, and then when they complain about the dangers of religion they act like they didn't have a hand in creating the devil.

It's like Dr. Frankenstein creating his monster and then blaming the monster for coming into existence the way he did, it's absurd!

My proposal:
Just stop making religion an issue to begin with.

I don't give a shit what religion a politician is.
I don't give a shit what Catholicism says, what Islam or Judaism say about "killing this or that."

I don't care what you believe in. What does it matter? Just stop making it matter and it becomes a non-issue!

Outside of NG I have never, EVER encountered a situation where religion was an issue or a factor in ANYTHING, which tells me that #1: Newgrounds is indeed full of idiots who have some fucked up perspectives on reality, and #2: That it's only an issue if you MAKE it one.

So tell me good people of heathenry:
Do you care about religion?
What makes you care?
WHY does religion even matter?
How's it affect you?
How do you affect it?

And finally, are humans logical, or are humans rational (for a change of pace and different discussion)?

Here's my theory of why they're not:

The next sentence is true.
The last sentence is false.

What does logical reasoning say about that?

http://www.world-mysteries.com/illusions /sci_illusions3.htm

For entertainment only.

At 5/30/08 11:43 PM, Imperator wrote:

Which actually raises a question:
Does anyone know if Jews believe in 7 day creation? I mean it's their friggin book for fuck's sake.....

My guess is no, because I've never heard them make a point about it like Creationists have.

Personally I don't.
However many people in my synagogue do.
And they look at it as heresy that I don't as well.
Among the Modern Orthodox there is a kind of cognitive dissonance about the subject, but as you get more and more right wing, to the haredi and hassidic communities, you are less and less likely to find someone who doesn't believe in six days of creation.

At 5/31/08 08:38 PM, HorseloverFrost wrote: I'm not sure how strictly this policy is held to in modern buddhism,

probably also depends on the branch.

At 5/31/08 11:44 PM, therealsylvos wrote: Personally I don't.
However many people in my synagogue do.
And they look at it as heresy that I don't as well.
etc cut for space

Huh, learn somethin every day......thanks for the info.

Just so I'm not one of the many who dared to read, but not discuss.

At 5/31/08 09:11 PM, Imperator wrote: So tell me good people of heathenry:
Do you care about religion?

To a degree, but not because I have a drive to judge people on their beliefs, but more because I want to understand their beliefs, and what drives them to them. I have a good friend who subscribes to one of the literalist christian churches, and I'd really like to talk to him about why, and a good way to get to that is my discussions with him about the details of his church. The fact I'm not very religious, and I can't understand why people are drives me to try to learn as much as possible. Then again, maybe its just because I like a good story, which would explain my relatively high knowledge of the Aesir. It's not like I know anyone who worships the Norse Pantheon, although, the concept of the gods being younger than their demons is an interesting one, plus you know, the whole giant ice cow being the first being in the universe.

What makes you care?

Covered above

WHY does religion even matter?

Because people do judge others on their beliefs, religious or not. And with such clear rules being outlined in each religion, its an easy bias to distinguish. I find it weird that my literalist friend was chuckling when I was saying being a generally good person should be enough to gain passage to heaven, rather that strictly conforming to arbitrary rules, he said I sounded like I was part of the Uniting Church.

How's it affect you?

It doesn't really, just a point of interest in life to investigate.

How do you affect it?

I don't... yet.

And finally, are humans logical, or are humans rational (for a change of pace and different discussion)?

Here's my theory of why they're not:

The next sentence is true.
The last sentence is false.

Ahh logical fallacies in language. I take it you're also familiar with Xenu's paradoxes?

I simultaneously have high regard for the human race, whilst simultaneously having little faith in it. I suppose this places into your argument very well.

LOL

"Xenu's paradox" Damn scientology in popular culture! You're ruining my brainspace!

Zeno's paradoxes!

ZENO.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zeno%27s_pa radoxes

A personal favorite of mine i.e. the one that drives fucking nuts:
Is the word heterological, autological or heterological

At 5/31/08 09:11 PM, Imperator wrote: So tell me good people of heathenry:
Do you care about religion?
What makes you care?
WHY does religion even matter?
How's it affect you?
How do you affect it?

My answer will have to be divided between my actions towards my own religious beliefs, and my actions as they relate to the religious beliefs other people.

My personal beliefs:
I base my everyday actions on my religious beliefs. Though many would not consider my beliefs 'religion' per se, because they are missing the factor of worship, I consider them to be so.

Other people's beliefs:
For starters, knowing the beliefs of the people I'm dealing with provides hints of where to find leverage for successful negotiation.

Additionally, discussing religion is entertaining. I sometimes enjoy pointing out the flaws in the beliefs of others, not because it will help change their beliefs (it probably wont), but to watch their reaction. Religious beliefs are prime targets for this activity, and the more religious the person, the more entertaining their reaction is likely to be.

If, for some reason, I actually want to change someone's belief, I use the socratic method rather than direct debate. It's much more likely to be successful.

Lastly, I enjoy other peoples religions for the amount of art they have inspired over the years (and hate them, for the amount of art they have destroyed over the years). Can't have "Ride of the Valkyries" without Odinism, now can you?

And finally, are humans logical, or are humans rational (for a change of pace and different discussion)?

Here's my theory of why they're not:

The next sentence is true.
The last sentence is false.

What does logical reasoning say about that?

Humans are rational, but not logical (just as computers are logical, but not rational). Pure logic leads to some real crazy shit.

Heathenry is not just Odinism it is also Asatru.

I was thinking about theodicy the other day, and I came up with a question that I don't think has been raised before.

If God is omnipotent, couldn't he, if he wanted to, create humans that have free will and don't do evil? I mean, if God is omnipotent he can do anything, and could therefore cause two mutually exclusive things to exist simultaneously (like a square with three sides).

At 6/4/08 07:08 PM, HorseloverFrost wrote: I was thinking about theodicy the other day, and I came up with a question that I don't think has been raised before.

If God is omnipotent, couldn't he, if he wanted to, create humans that have free will and don't do evil? I mean, if God is omnipotent he can do anything, and could therefore cause two mutually exclusive things to exist simultaneously (like a square with three sides).

No of course he can't.
This isn't a limit on god.
A 3 sided square is a very common very infantile argument.
Usually its called the square circle.
This is a contradiction in language.
"create an object that has 180 degrees, while it has 360 degrees."
So the answer is no.

But by Aquinas' definition of God's omnipotence, if the question of "can God do x" is ever raised, the answer must always be "yes".

(Source here, if you want to confirm)

Aquinas' writings are considered by the Roman Catholic church to be only one step below Biblical cannon (tied with the Pope, in fact, since they are based on the teachings of Socrates). This would seem to imply that, at least according to Catholic doctrine, God could create a three-sided square (or a square circle, if you'd prefer).

At 6/4/08 09:54 PM, therealsylvos wrote: So the answer is no.

Unless God, and thus the universe, is not governed by logic...

But then isn't that the bigquandary with an omnipotent, omniscient, eternal (read: un-caused) "god" figure. It must, be definition, break logic... and by doing so, it must break logic for the universe, as well, meaning anything, quite literally, is possible.

In such a universe, faith becomes logic, because anything you have faith in, must be true because it can be true.

Then the question becomes: Why does our universe seem to follow logic perfectly?

At 6/5/08 04:25 AM, Ravariel wrote:

At 6/4/08 09:54 PM, therealsylvos wrote: So the answer is no.

Unless God, and thus the universe, is not governed by logic...

Or not governed by logic 100% of the time.. which would be the same thing as not being governed by logic, really... but would that ever be observable>?

But then isn't that the bigquandary with an omnipotent, omniscient, eternal (read: un-caused) "god" figure. It must, be definition, break logic... and by doing so, it must break logic for the universe, as well, meaning anything, quite literally, is possible.

Agree.

In such a universe, faith becomes logic, because anything you have faith in, must be true because it can be true.

It has the possibility of becoming true. Unless the future is certain, indeed anything is possible.

Then the question becomes: Why does our universe seem to follow logic perfectly?

Foregone conclusions? In other threads the term perfect has caused problem in the past. I would say any perfect system has a fail-safe. Strict logic disallows 'imperfect' designs because logic requires reasoning. Some events defy reasoning, or at least reasons percievable by us.

At 6/5/08 04:25 AM, Ravariel wrote:
Unless God, and thus the universe, is not governed by logic...

Well since faith itself is not dictated by logic, it stands a good chance that a deity (to open up the discussion for more than just the Judeo-Christian stance on the divine) would not necessarily act on that logic either, right?

Moreover, if faith stems from a certain area of the brain, and that area has little other purpose, and if the world stands in logic yet this single part of our brain operates outside that framework, what the hell's it doing there and why hasn't evolution wiped it out?

Then the question becomes: Why does our universe seem to follow logic perfectly?

Sort of makes one wonder if there's some sort of Pandora's Box answer that will both answer all of our most prominent questions and at the same time unfold many of our certain truths about things.

We know the sky seems blue because of reflections from the sun and the size of wavelengths. We know grass is green because of chlorophyll.

We know animals behave certain instinctive ways, and as such, humans behave instinctively sometimes as well......but not always.

We don't know what the hell Hitler was really thinking. We don't know why certain things were written in Homer. We don't know if Caesar's true aim was to restore the Republic (I say no, anyone as arrogant as to write entirely in 3rd person is too much of a dick to engage such an endeavor).

We still haven't resolved the "Black Box" problem of the mind. We know the input (electric charges/neurons, chemicals), we know the output (behavior resultant from input).......and that's about it. It's entirely possible we will never unlock the Black Box.

I think the inherent problem with discussing the nature of God is that language (maybe English, maybe other languages, maybe ALL languages, maybe/maybe not math) is problematic. Humans haven't developed enough psychic ability, telepathic or otherwise, to know what's the best medium for thinking/communicating on the divine.

I used to have an article that talked about a psych study showing which parts of the brain were active when people meditated or thought about God or some shit, but I fuckin lost it......and I'm tired of doing google searches to re-locate it......

I mean, could we talk about god in math terms? The higher up you go in math, the fewer numbers you use anyways right?

Which reminds me of another omnipotent question I've heard before:
"Can God divide by zero?"

So far the "best" answer I've heard to this has been:
"To solve the problem, God wouldn't even have to".

I think the inherent problem with discussing the nature of God is that language (maybe English, maybe other languages, maybe ALL languages, maybe/maybe not math) is problematic. Humans haven't developed enough psychic ability, telepathic or otherwise, to know what's the best medium for thinking/communicating on the divine.

Heh.....

What I mean by that is that language is inherently imperfect in communicating our true thoughts. We always lose something in translating what we're thinking into spoken/written speech.

If one needs "proof" for this:
I just gave it by finding a necessity to clarify my previous post.