Religion among Premeds

[WhippleWhileWeWork]

That's not the point. Animals do spontaneous things for random reasons, sometimes. If some guy randomly slaps a kid, the cop across the street doesn't pull out his service revolver and kill him, he arrests him and the man is given a psych evaluation. I shouldn't be surprised, I suppose. Most religions, including Christianity are grossly anthropocentric. I'll leave it at that. Carry on.

What the....
Did you just blame dog bite laws on Christianity?
Did you compare assault by a person with a dog attack?
Did you fail to read the rabies part of the explanation? That's not "random", it's the opposite of random.


You're really going off the rails here.

---

Members don't see this ad.

 

[The Buff OP]

Just passing by again. What's the update on this thread?

 

[WillburCobb]

Welp it took 9-10 pages but this thread hit its projected trajectory

 

[deleted407021]

Just passing by again. What's the update on this thread?

Danger; here be people ignoring science.

What the....
Did you just blame dog bite laws on Christianity?
Did you compare assault by a person with a dog bite?

Did you fail to read the rabies part of the explanation? That's not "random", it's the opposite of random.


You're really going off the rails here.

You injected rabies into the topic. The discussion wasn't about rabies, it was about the amorality of killing a dog because it bit someone. No reason. Just a bite. Could have been caused by anything. That's not the point. Additionally, people are ready to up and kill some dogs who misbehave and bite, but human assault warrants a lighter sentence. Again; anthropocentrism.
The thread has been derailed enough, and I apologize.

 

[WillburCobb]

Just passing by again. What's the update on this thread?

 

[WillburCobb]

The thread has been derailed enough, and I apologize.

Please, leave the derailing to me.

 

[WhippleWhileWeWork]

Danger; here be people ignoring science.


You injected rabies into the topic. The discussion wasn't about rabies, it was about the amorality of killing a dog because it bit someone. No reason. Just a bite. Could have been caused by anything. That's not the point. Additionally, people are ready to up and kill some dogs who misbehave and bite, but human assault warrants a lighter sentence. Again; anthropocentrism.
The thread has been derailed enough, and I apologize.

Exhibit A on the subjective nature of morality.

No reason? I gave you one of many rationals behind euthanizing animals after they bite someone.
You can't separate the act of a dog bite and the implications and/or reasons of a dog bite. A dog can't tell us why it bit someone, you're comparison to an adult human is baffling.

 

[The Buff OP]

Danger; here be people ignoring science.

Well, in my opinion medicine and religion should never mix together. /Thread

Like those stories of people who have died because their religion doesn't let them get blood transfusion. I had a patient like that once, it sucked knowing a blood transfusion can help her out, but her religion denies it.
I was raised Roman-Catholic and it has been about 3 years since I decided to become Agnostic or Agnostic Atheist whatever you want to call it.

 

[deleted407021]

Exhibit A on the subjective nature of morality.

No reason? I gave you one of many rationals behind euthanizing animals after they bite someone. You're trying to make your stand against religion on dog bite laws.

Read some of my posts further back. Don't assume I'm opposed to religion.

If you like, I can address these things later, when I'm not restricted to a phone. Please resume your apologetics until that time.

 

[deleted407021]

I do believe morality is objective, but I don't know a good way to argue it deductively. I guess one way could be to study ancient morality texts (such as the scriptures of various religions). In my experience, these very old texts from disparate cultures seem to affirm similar moral values, which would suggest moral constants.

*bringing the thread back on topic so it doesn't get locked.*

I tend to agree here. What a culture agrees is right doesn't necessarily constitute morality, but the idea that stealing, rape, murder and cheating are bad things can be considered fairly universal, as you suggested.

 

[didymus]

I tend to agree here. What a culture agrees is right doesn't necessarily constitute morality, but the idea that stealing, rape, murder and cheating are bad things can be considered fairly universal, as you suggested.

Well, I deleted my post because I thought it failed to keep the thread on track, but thanks for responding. I think you're right on.

 

[WhippleWhileWeWork]

Read some of my posts further back. Don't assume I'm opposed to religion.

If you like, I can address these things later, when I'm not restricted to a phone. Please resume your apologetics until that time.

Don't confuse an assumption with a deduction based off of your snarky comment about Christianity and how you "shouldn't be suprised". The immoral christians want to murder dogs!

 

[EgyPremed34]

Why? Do you expect all lower forms of life to worship you (if they had the ability)? Respect maybe, but not worship.

I don't punish my dog for not saying his blessing before he eats (devours) his food. Do you?

*edit* Also, what defines a god? If aliens were to land on Earth today, would you immediately bow down in worship?



It's hard to have faith in an organization that can't even agree among itself. There are more sects of Christianity than stars in the sky.



I don't think we're arguing that there isn't a possibility that Christianity is the "correct religion", it's just kind of... peculiar to us secular folk, that there are so many different religions, all claiming this same kind of casual certainty that there's is the right one. If it really was the right one, why, after thousands of years, has it not dominated? Why is the predominate religion of the world something has changed multiple times throughout history? How is yours any different? *chin scratch*

Also, *if* you really are doomed to hell for worshipping a different religion (I know you think we're not, but many believe this way), it doesn't seem fair that you would be punished for something you have VERY little control over (i.e. predisposed to a different religion due to something you have no control over - geography). Also, why did God create humans, with a predisposition to sin, and then decide to punish them when they... sin? Or do you not believe in original sin either?



1. You can reap the benefits of employing a Christian-like morality and not be Christian.
2. How do you know the ideas introduced in Christian literature were new? That is, how do you know they didn't build their concept of morality on a pre-existing foundation. You don't.



You act like the Bible / Christianity provides all the answers for these types of problems. It doesn't. Nothing does.



A complex question... Are you saying you think acting with ulterior motives is exactly the same, ethically, as deriving motivation because you think the action is good in and of itself?



They don't exist without God? How can you prove those ideas originated with God / your religion? I don't think you can.

What about Buddhism (who doesn't have a God)?

The way I see it, God is my Creator. Therefore, He deserves my worship and my obedience. Being that He is my Creator, He must know more than I ever will. I did not create my dog, therefore, the dog should not worship me. See the difference? This is just my personal view, I have accepted God as my Creator. It's up to everyone to make that personal decision for themselves as well.

 

[WhippleWhileWeWork]

Well, I deleted my post because I thought it failed to keep the thread on track, but thanks for responding. I think you're right on.

What I meant was, I'd like to see those who don't accept an object (God) demonstrate an argument for the objective nature of morals. But actually, I wouldn't. Sounds tedious and boring for a pre-med forum.

 

[deleted407021]

Don't confuse an assumption with a deduction based off of your snarky comment about Christianity and how you "shouldn't be suprised". The immoral christians want to murder dogs!

The immoral Christians believe humans inherit the universe and have the right to its stewardship which is more often than not turned toward abuse. When your believe is that God made you super special in Jesus' image, I can see how the above notions could be propagated. You are blowing what I said out of proportion, demonstrating a level of obtuseness uncharacteristic of someone as well read and spoken as you seem to be. Let's move this thread back to its original topic(s).

 

[Womb Raider]

I have no such expectation. I also did not fashion the universe. Big difference. Also, how would one demonstrate respect to the God of all universes? The first and unoriginate cause? Somehow you think, "Yo, dawg--respect" cuts it? I guess we just have different thresholds for what induces awe in us. Carl Sagan, Neil Tyson, Richard Dawkins, Stephen Hawking, et al all seem to be in awe over the cosmos itself, and have each expressed in no uncertain terms that it (the cosmos) is what they "worship." Me? The creator of all that inspires my worship.

Yes, you (we) did not fashion the universe, but for all we know our dog probably thinks we did. Sure, the Christian god is probably "more removed" from humans than humans are to dogs, but the point remains. Where you draw the line between what is worthy of worship is arbitrary, and frankly vague since we don't really know what God is. How do we measure these "gaps" between the level of beings?

I somehow get the feeling that those scientists meant different things when they used the term worship. *shrug* Let's not get sidetracked on that, though.

They should expect us to respect him as well as humanly possible. However, I don't think a higher being should/would EVER demand to be worshipped from a lower form of life, especially not when his presence is widely unknown. I can't think of a single scenario where I would ever want someone/something to worship me. Then again, I'm not God so what do I know.

*EDIT* I can think of a scenario. If I ever have a daughter, I fully expect her teenage boyfriend to worship me, and I mean hardcore worship like throwing down his hands Muslim style.

Do the motives matter? Has a good been accomplished regardless?

That is the question, isn't it?!

First, I don't know the answer.

I'm just thinking out loud here, but wouldn't you deem a good act committed intentionally with more praiseworthiness than a good act committed accidentally, or with ulterior motives? Vice versa for evil acts - (murder vs. manslaughter vs. murder to save a life)? Sure, the end result may be the same, but there seems to be some sort of stratification present.

What I'm saying is that if God actually doesn't exist, then morality doesn't either. What we have instead are ever-changing, elusive, culturally-unique concepts about how to interact with others in ways that allow for the sharing of limited natural resources so that our species may continue surviving. That is not morality, though. Morality is something innate to the existence and personness of humans, that is a unifying force for good. They are not concepts that are adaptable, but universal constants that guide all people towards a common goal, frame progress, inform our experiences, and so on, that give us a means by which to understand our existence, role in the universe, and ultimate destination.

Hmm.. I was going to comment on this but I misunderstood what you said, and I really don't see much that needs discussing.

However, I just want to make sure I'm understanding this clearly.

Human morality ≠ absolute morality ≠ morality (the way you use above).

I originally thought you were using morality to mean "absolute morality" (as in, an absolute set of ethics) but now I believe you're referring to something completely different, in which case I don't disagree with you.

 

[WhippleWhileWeWork]

The immoral Christians believe humans inherit the universe and have the right to its stewardship which is more often than not turned toward abuse. When your believe is that God made you super special in Jesus' image, I can see how the above notions could be propagated. You are blowing what I said out of proportion, demonstrating a level of obtuseness uncharacteristic of someone as well read and spoken as you seem to be. Let's move this thread back to its original topic(s).

I was just thinking this same thing about you.

Let's move on, I agree.

 

[WillburCobb]

.

 

[Womb Raider]

The way I see it, God is my Creator. Therefore, He deserves my worship and my obedience. Being that He is my Creator, He must know more than I ever will. I did not create my dog, therefore, the dog should not worship me. See the difference? This is just my personal view, I have accepted God as my Creator. It's up to everyone to make that personal decision for themselves as well.

So this is why so many Christians are against human cloning!

 

[WhippleWhileWeWork]

The immoral Christians believe humans inherit the universe and have the right to its stewardship which is more often than not turned toward abuse. When your believe is that God made you super special in Jesus' image, I can see how the above notions could be propagated.

I'd like to object on some doctrinal grounds.
1. No, humans never did nor ever will inherit the universe. Christians do not believe this, to my knowledge.
2. Christians don't believe they have a right to stewardship, they believe they have an obligation/commandment to be good stewards of whatever it is they have or can influence.
3. Christians believe everyone, man and woman, was made in the image of God, which negates that whole "super special" thing.

 

[WillburCobb]

...everyone, man and woman, was made in the image of God, which negates that whole "super special" thing.

Are you sure about that last part?

 

[Starry]

I actually disagree that morality is objective. While stealing, rape, murder, and cheating are considered fairly universal "bad things" by humans, I don't think it is because of a God. My theory is that these behaviors are dissuaded because the practice of dissuading "bad" behavior is an "evolutionarily stable strategy."

Meaning: Genes are responsible for code something in our brains that give us a sense of right and wrong. These things enforce behavior that makes us hold other people to a higher moral code, and guilt them if they mess up. There are many, many examples of this. Studies on anti-abortion activists who get abortions, Self-serving bias, etc. The saying, "Do as I say, not as I do," is a result of this human tendency.

The reason we have these genes is because thousands of years ago, people who carry these genes were more fit. It is easy to see why - if I can convince people around me to not murder/cheat/lie/steal then it is likely that I won't be murdered/cheated/lied to/stolen from, and therefore can devote more resources to my children.

This can be proven to be evolutionarily stable since even monkeys have a sense of right and wrong. Many other species also show reciprocity and shun cheaters.

It is important to note that the bad behaviors themselves still exist. This is because having some proportion of a willingness to do bad things can still improve the fitness of an individual. From a mathematical model, we can conclude that human beings are coded to be good most of the time and scumbags some of the time. And we all have different levels of goodness/scumbagness that can be affected by nature/nurture/situation.

In conclusion, I think that God serves as a gap-filler for holes in human knowledge. When there is a logical and mathematically sound explanation for why something occurs, then science should take over. For example, I disagree with this article because while I agree there are holes that science can not yet answer, the key word is "yet." Remember that humans used to think the sun was a God. In a few hundred more years, our descendents may look back and laugh. "I can't believe humans used to think the universe was created by a God!"

Anyways, I've digressed quite a bit. Please feel free to PM me. I love the study and application of evolution in mundane matters.

TL;DR - morality is not objective because evolution.

 

[deleted407021]

I was just thinking this same thing about you.

Let's move on, I agree.

Mutual exchange of begrudging compliments. Cool.

I'd like to object on some doctrinal grounds.
1. No, humans never did nor ever will inherit the universe. Christians do not believe this, to my knowledge.
2. Christians don't believe they have a right to stewardship, they believe they have an obligation/commandment to be good stewards of whatever it is they have or can influence.
3. Christians believe everyone man and woman was made in the image of God, which negates that whole "super special" thing.

I don't think you can speak for all Christians. I want to avoid doing the same so I'll say this: As someone who has and currently attend a Southern Baptist church, I have confidence in the accuracy of my above assessment. The sentiments aren't exaggerated nor colored for argumentative effect. Many in that circle legitimately believe they are the supreme life force in the universe short of God him(it)self.

 

[WhippleWhileWeWork]

Mutual exchange of begrudging compliments. Cool.

I don't think you can speak for all Christians. I want to avoid doing the same so I'll say this: As someone who has and currently attend a Southern Baptist church, I have confidence in the accuracy of my above assessment. The sentiments aren't exaggerated nor colored for argumentative effect. Many in that circle legitimately believe they are the supreme life force in the universe short of God him(it)self.

I can't, you're right about that. "To my knowledge" has limits, unfortunately. The sliver of Christianity that is that particular brand of Southern Baptist falls outside of my limits.
To be fair, I don't know what you mean by "supreme life force" but if they believe they are at the top of created order, that is biblically true. But that's true of humans, not Southern Baptists or Christians.

 

[didymus]

I don't think you can speak for all Christians. I want to avoid doing the same so I'll say this: As someone who has and currently attend a Southern Baptist church, I have confidence in the accuracy of my above assessment. The sentiments aren't exaggerated nor colored for argumentative effect. Many in that circle legitimately believe they are the supreme life force in the universe short of God him(it)self.

I won't speak for all Southern Baptists, but my experience of believers from that group has been similar. I'm not sure what that is, and the best I can come up with is the strong linking between Southern Baptist theology and American exceptionalism. There is something about the theology blending with political philosophy that results in a kind of "domination doctrine" over the planet, other countries, religions, etc. I will admit that this is wild speculation, but it is just a sense I get--nothing concrete.

 

[didymus]

In conclusion, I think that God serves as a gap-filler for holes in human knowledge. When there is a logical and mathematically sound explanation for why something occurs, then science should take over. For example, I disagree with this article because while I agree there are holes that science can not yet answer, the key word is "yet." Remember that humans used to think the sun was a God. In a few hundred more years, our descendents may look back and laugh. "I can't believe humans used to think the universe was created by a God!"

I think this is a bit of stretch, though it is a "light at the end of the tunnel" for the New Atheist crowd that is brought up a lot. Look, the Universe is only getting bigger (or denser, or however one defines growth on the cosmic scale); therefore, there are only going to be more questions. Certain particulars about the nature of god(s) in some cultures have evolved over time, as well as the role god(s) play in the universe, but one thing has remained quite constant: that at the foundation of it all--before all of it was any of it, God purposed the start of it. I don't see this ever changing. I do think fewer and fewer people will believe in God as time progresses, for a while anyway; then, like all things, the tides will shift again, and the masses will return. Generally large scale disasters "check" humanity ever few hundred years, and faith in the stability and progress of the human race comes crashing down, and people realize again that we are not gods, and we cannot save ourselves despite our best and most valiant efforts.

 

[deleted407021]

I won't speak for all Southern Baptists, but my experience of believers from that group has been similar. I'm not sure what that is, and the best I can come up with is the strong linking between Southern Baptist theology and American exceptionalism. There is something about the theology blending with political philosophy that results in a kind of "domination doctrine" over the planet, other countries, religions, etc. I will admit that this is wild speculation, but it is just a sense I get--nothing concrete.

Spot on, actually. They almost seem to think that Jesus was an upper-middle class white Republican from Georgia who supports their political stances, in particular. They're right and everyone else are varying degrees of wrong.

 

[didymus]

Yes, you (we) did not fashion the universe, but for all we know our dog probably thinks we did. Sure, the Christian god is probably "more removed" from humans than humans are to dogs, but the point remains.

I'm not sure what to tell you except I don't really give a damn what my dog "thinks." The reality is, dogs don't think, or consider, or rationalize, or abstract--they just react. They can be tamed and anthropomorphized all day long, but they are just plain ignorant. Therefore, the comparison is moot. The only reason this debate is even happening is because we are unlike all other biological organisms in that we can abstract. We are self-aware. Nothing else is (none else are).

So the question remains: Why us and nothing else? It's because of this alone that we can ask, and it is because of this alone that we should wonder.

Where you draw the line between what is worthy of worship is arbitrary, and frankly vague since we don't really know what God is. How do we measure these "gaps" between the level of beings?

I disagree.

I somehow get the feeling that those scientists meant different things when they used the term worship. *shrug* Let's not get sidetracked on that, though.

I think you're right about this, for sure. I wasn't making a semantic argument, I was more pointing out that they are saying the closest they come to "worship" is when they consider the grandeur of the cosmos. I was merely pointing out that considering the One who created it all is what brings me closest to worship. That's it

They should expect us to respect him as well as humanly possible. However, I don't think a higher being should/would EVER demand to be worshipped from a lower form of life, especially not when his presence is widely unknown. I can't think of a single scenario where I would ever want someone/something to worship me. Then again, I'm not God so what do I know.

Worship is something humans do. I don't think it was a posture God commanded from the beginning, or commands from us now. God wants us to delight in Him as He delights in us. I think God created humankind for the sake of sharing goodness. We must all go through the crucible of this life, though, to have something to compare it against. Philosophers have long argued that one cannot know a good without knowing evil also; that light makes no sense without the experience of the dark.

Worship is the posture humans take toward the divine because, for whatever reason, people are drawn to the act of worship. We do it with celebrities, concepts, ourselves (Narcissus), money/stuff, lovers, pets, and our gods (which can be formed from any of the former). So God accepts our worship. None of what we do is for God's good. But God gives us freedom to know and delight in (worship) Him for our own good. This is sometimes related in the argument from ontology: People desire food, and there is food to eat. People desire drink, and we have water. People desire sex, and we can experience sex. People desire to worship, and we have One to worship.

This is all overly simplified, but it's getting late and my mind is wiped.

*EDIT* I can think of a scenario. If I ever have a daughter, I fully expect her teenage boyfriend to worship me, and I mean hardcore worship like throwing down his hands Muslim style.

Yes. This.

I'm just thinking out loud here, but wouldn't you deem a good act committed intentionally with more praiseworthiness than a good act committed accidentally, or with ulterior motives?

What are examples of motives that are pure and not ulterior?

However, I just want to make sure I'm understanding this clearly.

Human morality ≠ absolute morality ≠ morality (the way you use above).

I have no problem with that.

 

[Starry]

Didymus, while I agree that there will always be more questions, I think it's like calculus. A geometric series converges to 1, yet if you look at the details, it never really truly reaches 1. It only reaches 0.999999....infinity. Yet we can still conclude that the model does in fact converge absolutely.

As we find more and more questions that can be answered by science and not God, it is more and more reasonable to conclude that there is in fact not a God.

Of course there are faults with this analogy. I'm just expressing my world view.

Generally large scale disasters "check" humanity ever few hundred years, and all the stability and progress of the human race comes crashing down, and people realize again that we are not gods, and we cannot save ourselves despite our best and most valiant efforts.

Deep. Hopefully "progress" of the human race is more like this than like this.

 

[didymus]

Spot on, actually. They almost seem to think that Jesus was an upper-middle class white Republican from Georgia who supports their political stances, in particular. They're right and everyone else are varying degrees of wrong.

Such a shame, too, since they are so vocal about it, and convince so many people that all Christians think like they do. My church is mostly lower-middle class, racially diverse, and as politically left-leaning as a DNC convention (almost ). Visitors are often quite surprised!

 

[didymus]

I'm just expressing my world view.

I respect and appreciate you doing so. Cheers

 

[deleted407021]

I'm not sure what to tell you except I don't really give a damn what my dog "thinks." The reality is, dogs don't think, or consider, or rationalize, or abstract--they just react. They can be tamed and anthropomorphized all day long, but they are just plain ignorant. Therefore, the comparison is moot. The only reason this debate is even happening is because we are unlike all other biological organisms in that we can abstract. We are self-aware. Nothing else is (none else are).

Okay. Before I retire for the evening (morning?) I have to stop you there, because the above statement is simply incorrect and a bit insulting, to be honest. Neuroscientists have concluded that all mammals and birds as well as some invertebrates including Cephalopoda are conscious and sentient with the capacity to make intentional actions. Just like humans.
Here's the original declaration: http://fcmconference.org/img/CambridgeDeclarationOnConsciousness.pdf

And an article detailing it:
http://m.psychologytoday.com/blog/a...onclude-nonhuman-animals-are-conscious-beings

Give your dog some credit!

 

[Womb Raider]

I have to stop you there, because the above statement is simply incorrect and a bit insulting, to be honest.

Oh Senpai, you crack me up.

 

[Womb Raider]

I'm not sure what to tell you except I don't really give a damn what my dog "thinks." The reality is, dogs don't think, or consider, or rationalize, or abstract--they just react. They can be tamed and anthropomorphized all day long, but they are just plain ignorant. Therefore, the comparison is moot. The only reason this debate is even happening is because we are unlike all other biological organisms in that we can abstract. We are self-aware. Nothing else is (none else are).

This same gap in "understanding" for lack of a better word, is most likely even wider between humans and God. So, just imagine God viewing you the way you just described your dog, but worse.

My idea on how morality should work:

You should treat beings with respect to their level of understanding. E.g. (this is a bad example) you don't punish a dog for licking his wound when he cut it on something. We know it's bad for him to lick it because licking may increase chances of infection, but he doesn't know any better - he's incapable of grasping this concept. As such, punishing him would be malevolent. Obviously there are exceptions, such as when their behavior endangers your own (like your biting example).

This is how I feel about God. He should not punish us for things beyond our comprehension/nature.

Worship is the posture humans take toward the divine because, for whatever reason, people are drawn to the act of worship. We do it with celebrities, concepts, ourselves (Narcissus), money/stuff, lovers, pets, and our gods (which can be formed from any of the former). So God accepts our worship. None of what we do is for God's good. But God gives us freedom to know and delight in (worship) Him for our own good. This is sometimes related in the argument from ontology: People desire food, and there is food to eat. People desire drink, and we have water. People desire sex, and we can experience sex. People desire to worship, and we have One to worship.

I think what you call worship, I call praise.

What are examples of motives that are pure and not ulterior?

Pure motivation = doing something because you know (believe*) the act to be good.

Receiving pleasure from doing the act is merely a bonus. Just because you receive pleasure from doing the act, does not necessarily make you selfish - only if the act is done with selfish motivations. However, this gets complicated, because we like doing things that make us feel good, is this bad? I know this is the way you described doing acts for God, and I believe you - but I don't think many religious people are being honest with themselves in this regard.

Anyway, I'm tired as hell too and I honestly think we agree on most of these arguments that have been presented multiple times this thread. I don't even know what I'm talking about anymore.

 

[Mercurius]

Its all about your ability to utilize everything you know to make decisions for the patient.

 

[touchpause13]

Wait. You didn't side with his position before I joined the debate?

I just like to make it clear that liking his comments makes me feel dirty haha

 

[WhippleWhileWeWork]

Give your dog some credit!

I do and a treat for being conscious!

 

[WhippleWhileWeWork]

As we find more and more questions that can be answered by science and not God, it is more and more reasonable to conclude that there is in fact not a God.

This is really only a problem for the "God of the Gaps" crowd.

Notice, the Jewish people have ascribed happenings in the natural world to works of God for much longer than Christians have. However, the Jewish people don't seem to be wavering in their faith as the progress of science is marching on. It's really just the Christian literalists who have a very poor toolbox for interpreting the scriptures, and who are mostly protestants that place little to no value on the historic interpretations of the Church at large (Catholic + Orthodox), that are struggling to find a place for their worldview as science is ever encroaching on their literalistic explanations of the universe.

 

[deleted407021]

Oh Senpai, you crack me up.

Glad I could be amusing. I don't want to continue derailing the thread , however , I want those reading to know that calling non humans unthinking and non sentient is incorrect and scientifically invalid.

 

[Mad Jack]

The way I see it, God is my Creator. Therefore, He deserves my worship and my obedience. Being that He is my Creator, He must know more than I ever will. I did not create my dog, therefore, the dog should not worship me. See the difference? This is just my personal view, I have accepted God as my Creator. It's up to everyone to make that personal decision for themselves as well.

If you'd seen some of the things I'd seen, you might re-evaluate the reasoning behind your belief in God. People whose every moment is agony from birth to death, in particular.

A God that created creatures to worship him because he created them just sounds sad, especially considering the circumstances he creates many of them in. If you want to worship him for his divine wisdom and goodness, that's cool I guess. But "you made me so I owe you my unwavering devotion and worship" is way too flimsy and childish to hold up to a real challenge of faith.

 

[Mad Jack]

Glad I could be amusing. I don't want to continue derailing the thread , however , I want those reading to know that calling non humans unthinking and non sentient is incorrect and scientifically invalid.

Given the horrific injuries and lost limbs I've seen some dogs inflict upon people, and considering the fact that it was always discovered to have not been the dog's first offense, I cannot in good conscience say we should let violent dogs live. You never know which are going to be the ones that will never do it again versus the one that will chew three limbs off a kid or deglove a guy's face that looked at him wrong.

 

[NorthernMav]

The way I see it, God is my Creator. Therefore, He deserves my worship and my obedience. Being that He is my Creator, He must know more than I ever will. I did not create my dog, therefore, the dog should not worship me. See the difference? This is just my personal view, I have accepted God as my Creator. It's up to everyone to make that personal decision for themselves as well.

I love this. You believe that God is your creator, so you worship him. If dogs were a bit more intelligent, they too might believe that you are their creator and end up falsely worshiping you when in fact you did not create them. So is it possible that you are, in some way, like the dog and mistaken?

 

[Womb Raider]

I just like to make it clear that liking his comments makes me feel dirty haha

TP - just for kicks, give me your run down on how you visualize me IRL muhaha. No hard feelings, I won't be offended I promise.

 

[touchpause13]

TP - just for kicks, give me your run down on how you visualize me IRL muhaha. No hard feelings, I won't be offended I promise.

I'm just assuming you think I'm like fat and have a purple mohawk or something

 

[Womb Raider]

View attachment 180836

I'm just assuming you think I'm like fat and have a purple mohawk or something

Haha I love it. Only thing I"m confused on is mlp:fim?

And no, nothing like that. I picture you walking around the town with a T-shirt on that has a picture of your avatar blown up and TOUCHPAUSE13 blown up underneath it, weird I know.

Anyway, sorry to derail the thread OP, since I know you're still watching it closely.

 

[touchpause13]

Haha I love it. Only thing I"m confused on is mlp:fim?

And no, nothing like that. I picture you walking around the town with a T-shirt on that has a picture of your avatar blown up and TOUCHPAUSE13 blown up underneath it, weird I know.

Anyway, sorry to derail the thread OP, since I know you're still watching it closely.

The mlp stands for my little pony.

Hahaha I love it. Totes ma goats. How else am I supposed to tell everyone about my e peen?

 

[EgyPremed34]

I love this. You believe that God is your creator, so you worship him. If dogs were a bit more intelligent, they too might believe that you are their creator and end up falsely worshiping you when in fact you did not create them. So is it possible that you are, in some way, like the dog and mistaken?

Animals know who created them, and the Bible and Orthodox tradition are riddled with examples of animals who obeyed God. That might seem crazy to you, but I don't care if you're convinced or not. And I don't want you wasting your time trying to convince me either, because I'm firm in what I believe in. If I'm crazy and backward for what I believe in, so be it.

 

[deleted407021]

Haha I love it. Only thing I"m confused on is mlp:fim?

.

I'm confused as well. MLP has actually drawn criticism for being feminist.

@touchpause13. You should have that shirt made. Bring your e cred out IRL.

 

[touchpause13]

I'm confused as well. MLP has actually drawn criticism for being feminist.

@touchpause13. You should have that shirt made. Bring your e cred out IRL.

I've seen a couple episodes (I have little cousins) it seems good to me in regards to positive role models for young girls.

I think grown men watching it is a little weird though.

 

[EgyPremed34]

If you'd seen some of the things I'd seen, you might re-evaluate the reasoning behind your belief in God. People whose every moment is agony from birth to death, in particular.

A God that created creatures to worship him because he created them just sounds sad, especially considering the circumstances he creates many of them in. If you want to worship him for his divine wisdom and goodness, that's cool I guess. But "you made me so I owe you my unwavering devotion and worship" is way too flimsy and childish to hold up to a real challenge of faith.

You're not the only who has seen that. Have you ever visited Egypt? Take a stroll in the streets and you'll see some of the saddest humans in existence. So don't sit there and say, "IF you'd seen what I've seen" cause I have, and probably much worse.

God doesn't want worship only, He wants a loving relationship with those He created. If you want to know more, feel free to PM me, but I'm done with this thread.