I wanna read that paper if you still have it lying around. I wrote a similar paper on Good and Evil as represented in Lord of the Rings (neerd), which I thought was very interesting. It could be interesting to see your perspective on the concept of evil.

In reply to this comment by thepinky:
I appreciate your comment, and I understand what you're saying. I once wrote a 16-page paper on the "Problem of Evil," so I understand it a little bit. It took me at least 16 pages to write a sufficient solution to the Problem of Evil, but I feel that I did it. To me the solution is extremely simple, but I can never seem to convince anyone of this. Frankly, I don't have the time or the energy to try and convince you, but I'll give some highlights.

The first step to determining if any god exists is to clearly define this god. In these times, when someone says 'god', they're probably talking about something which pretty closely resembles the Christian God, but not necessarily.

Some of the defining characteristics of the Christian God I was raised with are:
- Benevolent
- Omnipotent
- Omniscient

(abbreviated "BO&O" below)

There are others, of course, but I can comfortably say that any god definition which includes these 3 is immediately invalid due to the reality in which we live. If God doesn't have the power to end suffering, then he is not omnipotent. If God doesn't have the will or desire to end suffering, then he is not benevolent. If God isn't aware of suffering, then he is not omniscient. It's an old argument, but the only rebuttal I've ever heard is "God works in mysterious ways."

This doesn't have to be taken to the extreme of saying God would create a utopia for us if he was BO&O. The argument can be made that the trials and tribulations of life make us better people. I'm not talking about trials and tribulations, I'm talking about starvation, disease & famine.

Take away any of those 3 attributes and you've got yourself a non-conflicting god definition, at least for this particular problem.

MINK used to rattle on about how retarded everyone was when... actually it didn't matter what the topic was... but in the case of (a)theism, he would generally state that "God is everything" and so all arguments against were futile. Without knowing exactly what he meant by that, no argument can really be made. If he literally meant that God is the sum of all matter then, yeah, I'd have to conclude that God does exist, but that would seem to have zero value scientifically, morally or philosophically.

Speaking of philosophy, questions have been posed as to why a BO&O God would create existence, the universe, life, etc. Any answer is only opinion, but it's worth contemplating.

In reply to this comment by thepinky:
If a god or this "something" did exist, why not God? It couldn't possibly be a personal being who interacts with us? If this were possible, why not the Christian God (not as he is defined by modern Christianity, but as Jesus described him)? Rather, it must necessarily be something that is impersonal, not conscious, or takes no interest in us? I don't know why you so positively reject that definition of the "something."

In reply to this comment by thepinky:
The reason that we have need for a Savior is because we have been given agency and will make mistakes. This agency provides us an opportunity to learn and grow because we are free to make mistakes. (We lived with God before we were given mortal bodies, but we were like children, and God wished to see us progress. This life is a stage in our progression.) God provided a Savior so that we could return to live with him, because no unclean thing can dwell in his presence.

How does sending his son to be brutally executed better equip God to forgive us? Even if it does, how is that a moral thing to do? Did everyone that died before 1AD go to hell? If not, then what made Jesus necessary later?

We are not born on the path to hell. We are born innocent and perfect and are not held accountable for Adam's sin. Only our own. God does require something of us. I'm sorry if you find that offensive. I believe that the faith, repentance, good works, and morality he requires not only lead us back to him, but they make us happy in this life. If God provided proof of his existence, faith and sacrifice (which test us and make us better) would not be necessary.

Does this not seem the slightest bit like jumping through hoops? I agree, on one hand, that we grow as people as we face adversity and obstacles. We can grow as people without faith and worship. Why does God want us to pass a test that he won't tell us we're taking, let alone what the rules are?

I have no forgotten about you. I have just been busy. I will reply.

In reply to this comment by thepinky:
I agree that science, logic, and respect for others are essential to good society, but the right interpretation of Christian doctrine should encourage these things, not reject them.

"Religion" is not synonymous with "Protestant Christian," and your personal bad experiences with religion do not prove that all religion is harmful. It's funny how you just sort of skipped over the second part of my sentence, "However, religion isn't harmful in and of itself, but the watering-down and misuse of doctrine is, yes, extraordinarily evil and damaging to both straight and gay people."

When I refer to the "watering down" of doctrines, I'm verifying what you said. It seems like most Christians today have no concept of the fact that faith does not have to be removed from logic, tolerance, and an open mind. "Faith," for some people, is a word to throw out when someone asks you a hard question. I do believe in faith. You and I both know that there are things that human beings don't and/or can't understand. Whereas you write faith off as belief in the supernatural, I believe that faith is belief in things that follow all of the laws of the cosmos, but that are beyond our power, knowledge, or understanding. Faith is not necessary for the purpose of dismissing science and logic. It is necessary so that we can have choice. People are always arguing with me about choice, saying that a god who threatens damnation is not truly offering choice. Well, that's a discussion for another day.

When religious people think that morality is black and white, when they are hateful, intolerant, or bigoted, they obviously don't understand Jesus Christ AT ALL. So when I say that religion is not inherently harmful, your 37 years of experience, I'm sorry to say, do not exhaust all of the possibilities religion has to offer.

I will get back to you on Monday.

In reply to this comment by thepinky:
I agree that science, logic, and respect for others are essential to good society, but the right interpretation of Christian doctrine should encourage these things, not reject them.

"Religion" is not synonymous with "Protestant Christian," and your personal bad experiences with religion do not prove that all religion is harmful. It's funny how you just sort of skipped over the second part of my sentence, "However, religion isn't harmful in and of itself, but the watering-down and misuse of doctrine is, yes, extraordinarily evil and damaging to both straight and gay people."

When I refer to the "watering down" of doctrines, I'm verifying what you said. It seems like most Christians today have no concept of the fact that faith does not have to be removed from logic, tolerance, and an open mind. "Faith," for some people, is a word to throw out when someone asks you a hard question. I do believe in faith. You and I both know that there are things that human beings don't and/or can't understand. Whereas you write faith off as belief in the supernatural, I believe that faith is belief in things that follow all of the laws of the cosmos, but that are beyond our power, knowledge, or understanding. Faith is not necessary for the purpose of dismissing science and logic. It is necessary so that we can have choice. People are always arguing with me about choice, saying that a god who threatens damnation is not truly offering choice. Well, that's a discussion for another day.

When religious people think that morality is black and white, when they are hateful, intolerant, or bigoted, they obviously don't understand Jesus Christ AT ALL. So when I say that religion is not inherently harmful, your 37 years of experience, I'm sorry to say, do not exhaust all of the possibilities religion has to offer.

"However, religion isn't harmful in and of itself"

I have been going to church for 37 years and I can tell you religion is harmful. It is an oversimplification of decision making and morality. This is right and that is wrong and we have God to back up what we say. This leads to intolerance and an unwillingness to explore different views. Churches and theologians do not rely on scientific advances that help us understand why people do what they do. They know their rights and wrongs. They don't care about hormones, pheromones, cognitive developement, cognitive biases... They already have the answers from God.

A religious upbringing and a religious wife have made my life and sex life more difficult and less happy than it should be. It amazes me that Christians think they get their sexual morality from the Bible. The hypocracy found in the Bible and with Christians is one of the reasons I am no longer a Christian.

Science, logic, reason and respect for others will produce a far better society than religion.


In reply to this comment by thepinky:
Something is wrong with both their religious and sex educations if they think that anal sex is preserving their virginity. It's an oversimplification to say that religion and abstinence-only sex education are to blame. The type of religious parents that shove dos and don'ts down their children's throats, shouting "LOVE JESUS" without bothering to check whether their children have real values, faith, and integrity, are the type of people that are harming their children. The kids aren't truly converted to the teachings of Jesus Christ, and they obviously don't understand them. Perhaps they're addicted to the high that they get when they hear a live band in church. If they're having anal sex, they have a very misguided concept of virginity brought on by parents and church leaders that sensationalize religion to the point that children are confused beyond belief. If this is all that you know of religion, I can understand why you despise it. However, religion isn't harmful in and of itself, but the watering-down and misuse of doctrine is, yes, extraordinarily evil and damaging to both straight and gay people.

Let's not forget that other types of sex education fail, too. However, abstinence-only sex education is bogus. The way I see it, if abstinence isn't being taught in the home, the school will probably be ineffectual, anyway. They might as well do some damage control and educate kids about safe sex and birth control. If parents are teaching abstinence, why should they worry that schools are encouraging teenagers to have sex? Stop expecting the government to fix your problems!

blatant whoring..but..well..you'll see:
http://www.videosift.com/video/the-HUNGER-lakme-les-liens-en-fleurs-the-flower-duet

Thoreau?
oh-oh..
got one of dem "reader" types.
interesting thread you posted a few months back.

http://www.videosift.com/video/Voyager-Record-Valya-Balkanska-Izlel-je-Delyo-Hagdutin

Your avatar always reminds me of an artist I follow on dA that goes by loish. I think it's the smirk. She uses a similar look in quite a few of her drawings.

Not a problem,

Congratulations! Your comment has just received enough votes from the community to earn you 1 Power Point. Thank you for your quality contribution to VideoSift.

Thought you might like this http://www.videosift.com/video/Ex-Porn-Star-Shelley-Lubben-Speaks-Against-Porn

http://www.videosift.com/video/Bulgarian-Choir-Malka-Moma-Little-Girl

Yeah, it struck me along the lines of an old Gary Larson cartoon, where a dog is listening to his master:
"blah blah blah blah blah blah blah Spot blah blah blah blah Spot blah blah blah"

So I just reversed it.

In reply to this comment by thepinky:
This is one of the best comments I've ever seen.

In reply to this comment by videosiftbannedme:
"...and then I said to her 'Wow, what did you do to your hair?!' and she said 'Do you like it?' and I said 'Oh [[Momma]]! Do I ever!' and then she pulled me over to the closet and started to show me all her new clothes. They were fabulous! She had a new summer dress, and the shoes! I never knew you could have so many. So then we went out to lunch, and we took her MG, you know, that kind of car where the motor goes [[buh buh buh buh]].

Yeah, we met Luke and Chloe there, but Chloe was already eating a [[banana]]. I couldn't believe it! I was like 'Chloe! I thought we were supposed to have lunch?!' and she said 'I know, I know!' and started waving her arms like this! Anyways, so then we ......"

In reply to this comment by thepinky:
(only Sith deal in absolutes).

.. nerd.