If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Slate)   France would like all you Catholics to know that Lord's Prayer you're all so fond of saying is actually a sordid screed of blasphemy   (slate.com) divider line 76
    More: Interesting, Lord's Prayer, Catholics, Christian theology, bibles  
•       •       •

9599 clicks; posted to Main » on 16 Oct 2013 at 9:26 AM (45 weeks ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



76 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest
 
2013-10-16 09:01:48 AM
FTFA: This has long been controversial because of the possibility of interpreting it in a way that suggests God has the power to make people succumb to the temptation of sin -- contradicting most orthodox Christian theology which holds that He is infinitely and unchangeably good.

You know what's actually blasphemous, French bishops? The suggestion that God doesn't have the power to make people succumb to sin - the suggestion that God isn't all-powerful and omnipotent.

That's the blasphemy.
 
2013-10-16 09:03:35 AM
But could God great a sin so tempting that not even he could resist it?
 
2013-10-16 09:06:30 AM
So is Catholicism.
 
ZAZ [TotalFark]
2013-10-16 09:19:16 AM
Say it in Greek and avoid translation.
 
2013-10-16 09:25:02 AM
God. Microwave. Burrito. Too hot.
 
2013-10-16 09:27:29 AM

Pocket Ninja: But could God great a sin so tempting that not even he could resist it?


HA
 
2013-10-16 09:29:26 AM
Dear god, don't know if you noticed, but your name is on a lot of quotes in this book, and us crazy humans wrote it, you should take a look, and all the people that you made in your image still believing that junk is true...
 
2013-10-16 09:30:42 AM
Bullshiat.  One nation under God.  fark you, France!
 
2013-10-16 09:36:21 AM
Actually, I always found that line a little odd, but I assumed it was meant in a general sense, as opposed to being directed at god.  As in "let us not be tempted..."  not "please don't tempt us".
 
2013-10-16 09:36:53 AM
Why is it Americans hate the French so much? They helped the US gain independence and most of it's supposed ideals like democracy are derived from French ideas.

Is it 'cause they talk all funnylike, guhyuck?
 
2013-10-16 09:37:12 AM

Pocket Ninja: But could God great a sin so tempting that not even he could resist it?


The hubris of demanding worship as a perfect entity?
 
2013-10-16 09:37:59 AM
Sounds like they need to go and read about Job again.
 
2013-10-16 09:38:05 AM
I keep hearing that God is good and infallible. God can't be good and infallible.

Two choices:

1. God is good, but not infallible. There's just too much evil out there for him to have not made a mistake or two, but he's really good in the grand scheme of things.

-or-

2. God is infallible, and all the bad shiat that has ever happened was done by him on purpose. So that means he's not always that good.

Three choices, I should say:

3. God doesn't exist.

RexTalionis: FTFA: This has long been controversial because of the possibility of interpreting it in a way that suggests God has the power to make people succumb to the temptation of sin -- contradicting most orthodox Christian theology which holds that He is infinitely and unchangeably good.

You know what's actually blasphemous, French bishops? The suggestion that God doesn't have the power to make people succumb to sin - the suggestion that God isn't all-powerful and omnipotent.

That's the blasphemy.


So in the original text, the French were asking God to follow Wil Wheaton's "dont be a dick" philosophy.
 
2013-10-16 09:43:51 AM
If Wil Wheaton turns out to be part of heaven's grand design, I will be miffed. Seriously miffed.
 
2013-10-16 09:43:55 AM

Literally Addicted: Actually, I always found that line a little odd, but I assumed it was meant in a general sense, as opposed to being directed at god.  As in "let us not be tempted..."  not "please don't tempt us".


The problem is the translation of "peirasmos", which could mean "temptation" but could also just as commonly mean "test". However, somebody, a VERY long time ago, decided that the Latin for "peirasmos" was "tentationem", which means "temptation" in Latin, but it also means "trial" or "proof" (as in "prove yourself"). Okay, no problem, original meaning essentially kept from Greek to Latin. But the meaning of the words descended from the Latin "tentationem" changed to only mean what we mean when we say "temptation". Translations were not updated to keep up with changes in language, so we are left with an archaism that gives embarrassment to the devout and delight to the childish.
 
2013-10-16 09:44:09 AM
This just in:

Some people interpret mythology different than others.

More at 11.
 
2013-10-16 09:46:43 AM

RexTalionis: FTFA: This has long been controversial because of the possibility of interpreting it in a way that suggests God has the power to make people succumb to the temptation of sin -- contradicting most orthodox Christian theology which holds that He is infinitely and unchangeably good.

You know what's actually blasphemous, French bishops? The suggestion that God doesn't have the power to make people succumb to sin - the suggestion that God isn't all-powerful and omnipotent.

That's the blasphemy.


The part you underlined is not a quote from a bishop. In fact, there is not a quote from a bishop, French or otherwise, in the entire article-about-another-article. Perhaps a bishop would not have chosen the word "power," maybe, "Catholic theology states that God is infinitely good, and He would not force people to succumb to temptation." All that's really there is a sentence from a quick article from Agence France-Presse that doesn't even rate a by-line.
 
2013-10-16 09:48:19 AM
This is one thing that the Neo-Charismatics (Fundies without the baggage of the old Pentecostal churches) get right. They won't say "The Lord's Prayer" in church and encourage their members to not say it in private prayers. Not necessarily because of any supposed blasphemy but because when Jesus said it, He was not telling his followers WHAT to pray but teaching them HOW to pray:

Praise for God
Submission to His will
Ask for needs
Ask for forgiveness and deliverance

Prayers delivered by rote are not actual prayers, and won't be heard by God

//I can't believe how much i remember from that church even though I escaped 20 years ago.
 
2013-10-16 09:48:47 AM
well wasn't it God who originally tempts Adam and Eve when he told them Not to eat from the tree ?

Its like telling someone not to push the red button.
 
2013-10-16 09:50:09 AM

here to help: Why is it Americans hate the French so much? They helped the US gain independence


They did fight a war to exterminate the colonies only 12 years before the Revolution...
 
2013-10-16 09:50:10 AM
Translation "errors" are rife in the Bible, in many cases because the original Hebrew doesn't translate strictly into English.  My favorite bit: the very first word in the Bible,  b'reishiat is usually translated "In the beginning", but in the Hebrew the definite article "the" is only implied. I've heard biblical scholars comment that "In a beginning" would also be accurate, but this is a major difference in meaning.   I liked Robert Alter's translation of Genesis where he has the first line as "When God began to create heaven and earth", even though this is probably less perfectly accurate.

/One of the folks who works here is happy to talk to door to door missionaries about the Bible, provided they discuss the original Greek version.
 
2013-10-16 09:50:59 AM

2CountyFairs: I keep hearing that God is good and infallible. God can't be good and infallible.

Two choices:

1. God is good, but not infallible. There's just too much evil out there for him to have not made a mistake or two, but he's really good in the grand scheme of things.

-or-

2. God is infallible, and all the bad shiat that has ever happened was done by him on purpose. So that means he's not always that good.

Three choices, I should say:

3. God doesn't exist.


You are so clever. Amazing. How do you do that? Aquinas and Augustine would like to learn from your infinite wisdom.
 
2013-10-16 09:54:02 AM
Oh boy, here comes another round of Cathar killings.
 
2013-10-16 09:54:14 AM

Silly_Sot: The problem is the translation of "peirasmos", which could mean "temptation" but could also just as commonly mean "test". However, somebody, a VERY long time ago, decided that the Latin for "peirasmos" was "tentationem", which means "temptation" in Latin, but it also means "trial" or "proof" (as in "prove yourself"). Okay, no problem, original meaning essentially kept from Greek to Latin. But the meaning of the words descended from the Latin "tentationem" changed to only mean what we mean when we say "temptation". Translations were not updated to keep up with changes in language, so we are left with an archaism that gives embarrassment to the devout and delight to the childish.


I don't think the confusion lies between the difference of "temptation" or "trial"...they're pretty synonomous in any language...it was in the interpretation of the phrasing.  In a prayer to god, "lead us not into temptation" was being considered as a literal request in the prayer, as opposed to the general beseeching not be tempted.
 
2013-10-16 09:56:23 AM

catmandu: Neo-Charismatics (Fundies without the baggage of the old Pentecostal churches)


My grandmother was a Charismatic.  Grandpa called them "crazy-matics".
 
2013-10-16 09:56:25 AM
www.godsboard.com
 
2013-10-16 09:58:29 AM
oh no!!! say it ain't so!!! a man made book of fiction EDITED BY MAN!!!!!
 
2013-10-16 09:58:36 AM

Pocket Ninja: But could God great a sin so tempting that not even he could resist it?



Like tapping some hot Israeli jailbait poontang?

/ only once, and we'll never hear the end of it.
 
2013-10-16 09:59:21 AM
WHY THE F--K DON'T I LEARN NOT TO CLICK ON SLATE LINKS.

Jesus.  I know Ratzinger changed the wording of it too (or I think so anyway, there were a lot of annoying changes that make it harder for me to blend in on Ash Wednesday when I actually still go to church), but in English it was always "lead us not into temptation", which IMHO is smack inbetween "Do not submit us to temptation." and "Let us not enter into temptation."

And it's the version in place since all of Vatican II apparently so whatever.  It's just comforting to see that even with the new Pope and his continued pleas to get sh-t done to make the world a better place we still have folks fighting over dogma and translation choices.  It's comforting, almost sort of a continuity.
 
2013-10-16 09:59:36 AM
The Lord is my shepherd, I shall not want
He makes me down to lie
Through pastures green He leadeth me the silent waters by.
With bright knives He releaseth my soul.
He maketh me to hang on hooks in high places.
He converteth me to lamb cutlets,
For lo, He hath great power, and great hunger.
When cometh the day we lowly ones,
Through quiet reflection, and great dedication
Master the art of karate,
Lo, we shall rise up,
And then we'll make the bugger's eyes water.
 
2013-10-16 10:00:09 AM

here to help: Why is it Americans hate the French so much? They helped the US gain independence and most of it's supposed ideals like democracy are derived from French ideas.

Is it 'cause they talk all funnylike, guhyuck?


I think it's mostly because we wound up fighting two wars in France and one in Vietnam because they were losing, and Parisian waiters are rude. Also, the French Revolution was sparked by the American Revolution, not the other way around. Rousseau and Descartes were influential, but no more than Thomas Paine or John Locke.
 
2013-10-16 10:00:40 AM

TheWhoppah: [www.godsboard.com image 600x250]


This made me laugh.

Great, now I'm going to hell.  Someone save me a fireside table, will ya?
 
2013-10-16 10:04:12 AM

ZAZ: Say it in Greek and avoid translation.



'Cept He likely said it in Aramaic or Hebrew . . .  .


/ translation-ception.
 
2013-10-16 10:04:40 AM

here to help: Is it 'cause they talk all funnylike, guhyuck?


It's like they have a different word for everything.
 
2013-10-16 10:07:17 AM
Interesting that the Catholics changed many of their prayers recently to reflect a more accurate translation -- but skipped the Lord's Prayer. Maybe this new liberal Pope will get up to speed.

/"liberal", at least compared to other recent Popes.
 
2013-10-16 10:07:35 AM

Boba Chet: Bullshiat.  One nation under God.  fark you, France!


Funny thing; turns out that "one nation"?

Lichtenstein.

Who knew?
 
2013-10-16 10:09:10 AM

Silly_Sot: Literally Addicted: Actually, I always found that line a little odd, but I assumed it was meant in a general sense, as opposed to being directed at god.  As in "let us not be tempted..."  not "please don't tempt us".

The problem is the translation of "peirasmos", which could mean "temptation" but could also just as commonly mean "test". However, somebody, a VERY long time ago, decided that the Latin for "peirasmos" was "tentationem", which means "temptation" in Latin, but it also means "trial" or "proof" (as in "prove yourself"). Okay, no problem, original meaning essentially kept from Greek to Latin. But the meaning of the words descended from the Latin "tentationem" changed to only mean what we mean when we say "temptation". Translations were not updated to keep up with changes in language, so we are left with an archaism that gives embarrassment to the devout and delight to the childish.


Right.  It's a synonym for "jihad."  :)
 
2013-10-16 10:10:22 AM
What's next French bishops, a new series of anti-popes setting up court in Avignon?
 
2013-10-16 10:13:32 AM
Ahh yes. When I need true spiritual guidance, huffpo & slate are where I go.
 
2013-10-16 10:14:36 AM

Old_Chief_Scott: here to help: Is it 'cause they talk all funnylike, guhyuck?

It's like they have a different word for everything.


One of my favorite Steve Martin routines of all time...
 
2013-10-16 10:19:10 AM

2CountyFairs: Two choices:

1. God is good, but not infallible. There's just too much evil out there for him to have not made a mistake or two, but he's really good in the grand scheme of things.

-or-

2. God is infallible, and all the bad shiat that has ever happened was done by him on purpose. So that means he's not always that good.


You either failed your logic class or never took it.  Goodness and infallibility are not related, nor are they complementary.

If you start with a false premise and proceed illogically, you will end up with an erroneous conclusion.
 
2013-10-16 10:24:30 AM
matt 6 is awesome, first it says to avoid vain repetitions, then it dictates the vain repetition you should use to pray. wtf?
 
2013-10-16 10:33:33 AM

utah dude: matt 6 is awesome, first it says to avoid vain repetitions, then it dictates the vain repetition you should use to pray. wtf?


No, it gives the Lord's Prayer as an sample of the correct way to pray. "This then is how you should pray." It doesn't say anything about mindlessly parroting the actual prayer, but using it as a model of succinctness and thankfulness.

As with most scripture, the point is missed completely by the majority of modern practitioners.
 
2013-10-16 10:34:13 AM
they need it translated into english...like it was written in !!!
 
2013-10-16 10:37:30 AM
In Quebec all of the French swear words come from the Bible. (Host, Tabernacle, Chalice)

Attending Catholic Mass in Quebec is one big swearfest.
 
2013-10-16 10:39:01 AM
And Jesus said, pray  notas the heathen do, repeating the same prayer over and over...(Matthew 6:7)
 
ZAZ [TotalFark]
2013-10-16 10:50:27 AM
maxx2112

I looked up the origin before posting. The oldest written record of what became the Lord's Prayer is in Greek. According to Wikipedia, at least one of the gospels was probably written originally in Greek rather than being a later translation.  Probably Jesus and company did not talk Greek among themselves, but we can only speculate as to the exact words they used.
 
2013-10-16 10:55:39 AM

poorcku: 2CountyFairs: I keep hearing that God is good and infallible. God can't be good and infallible.

Two choices:

1. God is good, but not infallible. There's just too much evil out there for him to have not made a mistake or two, but he's really good in the grand scheme of things.

-or-

2. God is infallible, and all the bad shiat that has ever happened was done by him on purpose. So that means he's not always that good.

Three choices, I should say:

3. God doesn't exist.

You are so clever. Amazing. How do you do that? Aquinas and Augustine would like to learn from your infinite wisdom.


Mr. Right: 2CountyFairs: Two choices:

1. God is good, but not infallible. There's just too much evil out there for him to have not made a mistake or two, but he's really good in the grand scheme of things.

-or-

2. God is infallible, and all the bad shiat that has ever happened was done by him on purpose. So that means he's not always that good.

You either failed your logic class or never took it.  Goodness and infallibility are not related, nor are they complementary.

If you start with a false premise and proceed illogically, you will end up with an erroneous conclusion.


Should I have started with "I'm a non-practicing Catholic, and this thought occurred to me"? Probably. But look, simply saying "You're wrong! Neener, neener!" is a not a very good argument. I'd say that, in my opinion, when we are talking about an all-powerful being, logic breaks down a bit (because to me, the logical argument is that there is no God because of the complete lack of evidence. I mean, isn't the logical assumption that if there is zero evidence supporting a claim, then that claim is false?). But, if God is all-powerful, then he has the power to stop evil things from happening. Or even has the power to stop evil from existing in the first place. He either made a mistake by letting bad things happen (so not infallible) but is still "good". Or, he did it all on purpose for his grand design, which can be considered "not so good". Now, can you explain yourselves in a way intended to change my mind on the subject, or will all your comments be ran through the asshole filter?

Another idea that popped into my head. In a sense, predestination is true and free will is an illusion. If God is truly all-knowing, then the moment a person is born, God knows every choice that person is going to make. In that sense, your life choices have already been made for you are your fate is already determined. This assumes "all-knowing" also applies to future events. I interpret it as such because if you don't know the future, then you aren't "all-knowing".
 
2013-10-16 10:56:53 AM
Lol.

Pray to Mary, go to hell!


They left THAT one out of the article.
 
2013-10-16 10:58:22 AM

2CountyFairs: I keep hearing that God is good and infallible. God can't be good and infallible.

Two choices:

1. God is good, but not infallible. There's just too much evil out there for him to have not made a mistake or two, but he's really good in the grand scheme of things.

-or-

2. God is infallible, and all the bad shiat that has ever happened was done by him on purpose. So that means he's not always that good.

Three choices, I should say:

3. God doesn't exist.



4. Free will.

There are much better arguments against god than the problem of evil.

Dawkins, despite what he thinks, does not have a good understanding of philosophy of religion.

/atheist
 
2013-10-16 11:00:16 AM

2CountyFairs: Another idea that popped into my head. In a sense, predestination is true and free will is an illusion. If God is truly all-knowing, then the moment a person is born, God knows every choice that person is going to make. In that sense, your life choices have already been made for you are your fate is already determined. This assumes "all-knowing" also applies to future events. I interpret it as such because if you don't know the future, then you aren't "all-knowing".


He can know what choice you're going to make without forcing you to make it. Free will is completely compatible with an omniscient being, despite what amateur philosophers think.
 
2013-10-16 11:01:04 AM

Pocket Ninja: But could God great a sin so tempting that not even he could resist it?


Yes.
 
2013-10-16 11:06:59 AM
I like how Robert Heinlein interpreted the Lord's Prayer in his book, "Job:A Comedy of Justice". The main character is talking to Satan, complaining about all the trials and tribulations he's been experiencing. Satan tells him that the main character gave God permission to do it. When he doesn't believe it, Satan says:

"My Brother Yahweh, wearing His Jesus face, said: 'After this manner therefore pray ye.' Go ahead, say it."

"Our Father, which art in heaven, Hallowed be thy name. Thy kingdom come. Thy will be done -"

"Stop! Stop right there. 'Thy will be done -' No Muslim claiming to be a 'slave of God' ever gave a more sweeping consent than that. In that prayer you invite Him to do His worst. The perfect masochist. That's the test of Job, boy.  Job was treated unjustly in every way day after day for years - I know, I know, I was there; I did it - and My dear Brother stood by and let Me do it. Let Me? He urged Me, He connived in it, accessory ahead of the fact. Now it's your turn. Your God did it to you. Will you curse Him? Or will you come wiggling back on your belly like a whipped dog?'
 
2013-10-16 11:10:40 AM

grumpfuff: 2CountyFairs: Another idea that popped into my head. In a sense, predestination is true and free will is an illusion. If God is truly all-knowing, then the moment a person is born, God knows every choice that person is going to make. In that sense, your life choices have already been made for you are your fate is already determined. This assumes "all-knowing" also applies to future events. I interpret it as such because if you don't know the future, then you aren't "all-knowing".

He can know what choice you're going to make without forcing you to make it. Free will is completely compatible with an omniscient being, despite what amateur philosophers think.


Perhaps I should elaborate on this. Think of it like this.

You're in a room with another guy. The guy says "You have two choices. Either I can give you $20, or you will give me $1000." Now, I, as the outside observer, know that you're going to chose to have the guy give you $20. That doesn't mean you don't have a choice.

Of course, this isn't a great example, because I'm not omniscient, and you could of course still chose to give the guy $1000. But I hope it serves to illustrate the basic point.
 
2013-10-16 11:17:01 AM

grumpfuff: grumpfuff: 2CountyFairs: Another idea that popped into my head. In a sense, predestination is true and free will is an illusion. If God is truly all-knowing, then the moment a person is born, God knows every choice that person is going to make. In that sense, your life choices have already been made for you are your fate is already determined. This assumes "all-knowing" also applies to future events. I interpret it as such because if you don't know the future, then you aren't "all-knowing".

He can know what choice you're going to make without forcing you to make it. Free will is completely compatible with an omniscient being, despite what amateur philosophers think.

Perhaps I should elaborate on this. Think of it like this.

You're in a room with another guy. The guy says "You have two choices. Either I can give you $20, or you will give me $1000." Now, I, as the outside observer, know that you're going to chose to have the guy give you $20. That doesn't mean you don't have a choice.

Of course, this isn't a great example, because I'm not omniscient, and you could of course still chose to give the guy $1000. But I hope it serves to illustrate the basic point.


Not that I think there is a God, but for argument's sake, why should God be constrained to time (something he ostensibly created)? If he exists outside of time, than all of creation from beginning to end should be visible to him at once. Predestination only makes sense even as a question from our tiny time-constrained perspective.
 
2013-10-16 11:22:18 AM

here to help: Why is it Americans hate the French so much? They helped the US gain independence and most of it's supposed ideals like democracy are derived from French ideas.

Is it 'cause they talk all funnylike, guhyuck?


We don't hate the French, we just don't respect them
 
2013-10-16 11:44:14 AM

grumpfuff: grumpfuff: 2CountyFairs: Another idea that popped into my head. In a sense, predestination is true and free will is an illusion. If God is truly all-knowing, then the moment a person is born, God knows every choice that person is going to make. In that sense, your life choices have already been made for you are your fate is already determined. This assumes "all-knowing" also applies to future events. I interpret it as such because if you don't know the future, then you aren't "all-knowing".

He can know what choice you're going to make without forcing you to make it. Free will is completely compatible with an omniscient being, despite what amateur philosophers think.

Perhaps I should elaborate on this. Think of it like this.

You're in a room with another guy. The guy says "You have two choices. Either I can give you $20, or you will give me $1000." Now, I, as the outside observer, know that you're going to chose to have the guy give you $20. That doesn't mean you don't have a choice.

Of course, this isn't a great example, because I'm not omniscient, and you could of course still chose to give the guy $1000. But I hope it serves to illustrate the basic point.


Thanks for the answer, but that is why I specifically used the word illusion when refering to the free will and didn't say it does not exist at all. God doesn't make my screwed up decisions for me (like, say, posting on Fark about God), but he knows that I'm going to be stupid and make the wrong call.
 
2013-10-16 12:17:13 PM

UrukHaiGuyz: Not that I think there is a God, but for argument's sake, why should God be constrained to time (something he ostensibly created)? If he exists outside of time, than all of creation from beginning to end should be visible to him at once. Predestination only makes sense even as a question from our tiny time-constrained perspective.


What part of that example leaves God constrained by time? The point of the example is simple. An omniscient being can know what choice you're going to make without forcing you to make it.
 
2013-10-16 12:36:25 PM

grumpfuff: UrukHaiGuyz: Not that I think there is a God, but for argument's sake, why should God be constrained to time (something he ostensibly created)? If he exists outside of time, than all of creation from beginning to end should be visible to him at once. Predestination only makes sense even as a question from our tiny time-constrained perspective.

What part of that example leaves God constrained by time? The point of the example is simple. An omniscient being can know what choice you're going to make without forcing you to make it.


I understood your example, but it is based on rational reactions to stimuli, which is not how mankind (Adam and Eve) acted if we're take Genesis at all literally.

What I'm saying is that if God exists outside of time, then he is omnipresent throughout time, and questions of causality become meaningless if all of natural existence was created at once. He/She/It would have forced all eventual outcomes at once at the moment of creation. From that perspective, everything that has or will happen is/was dictated the moment the Universe sprang into being.
 
2013-10-16 12:39:23 PM

Deep Contact: Oh boy, here comes another round of Cathar killings.


images4.wikia.nocookie.netmedia-titanium.cursecdn.com
What did Juhani or Aric Jorgan ever do to you?
 
2013-10-16 12:43:37 PM

Literally Addicted: Silly_Sot: The problem is the translation of "peirasmos", which could mean "temptation" but could also just as commonly mean "test". However, somebody, a VERY long time ago, decided that the Latin for "peirasmos" was "tentationem", which means "temptation" in Latin, but it also means "trial" or "proof" (as in "prove yourself"). Okay, no problem, original meaning essentially kept from Greek to Latin. But the meaning of the words descended from the Latin "tentationem" changed to only mean what we mean when we say "temptation". Translations were not updated to keep up with changes in language, so we are left with an archaism that gives embarrassment to the devout and delight to the childish.

I don't think the confusion lies between the difference of "temptation" or "trial"...they're pretty synonomous in any language...it was in the interpretation of the phrasing.  In a prayer to god, "lead us not into temptation" was being considered as a literal request in the prayer, as opposed to the general beseeching not be tempted.


"But the Lord hardened Pharaoh's heart and he would not listen to Moses and Aaron, just as the Lord had said to Moses."
Exodus 9:12 (New International Version)
 
2013-10-16 12:47:11 PM

PunGent: Boba Chet: Bullshiat.  One nation under God.  fark you, France!

Funny thing; turns out that "one nation"?

Lichtenstein.

Who knew?


static.yify-torrents.com
This guy did.
 
2013-10-16 12:55:29 PM

ciberido: "But the Lord hardened Pharaoh's heart and he would not listen to Moses and Aaron, just as the Lord had said to Moses."
Exodus 9:12 (New International Version)


Sorry, apparently I'm still working on the old international version, the buggy beta one.
 
2013-10-16 12:58:07 PM

UrukHaiGuyz: grumpfuff: UrukHaiGuyz: Not that I think there is a God, but for argument's sake, why should God be constrained to time (something he ostensibly created)? If he exists outside of time, than all of creation from beginning to end should be visible to him at once. Predestination only makes sense even as a question from our tiny time-constrained perspective.

What part of that example leaves God constrained by time? The point of the example is simple. An omniscient being can know what choice you're going to make without forcing you to make it.

I understood your example, but it is based on rational reactions to stimuli, which is not how mankind (Adam and Eve) acted if we're take Genesis at all literally.


I might have found the problem here.

What I'm saying is that if God exists outside of time, then he is omnipresent throughout time, and questions of causality become meaningless if all of natural existence was created at once. He/She/It would have forced all eventual outcomes at once at the moment of creation. From that perspective, everything that has or will happen is/was dictated the moment the Universe sprang into being.

This doesn't change anything. He can still know the choice you're going to make, without forcing you to make it. Using the above example, god would see it before it happens, know that person is a reasonably intelligent person, and therefore know he will chose to take the $20. That doesn't mean he's standing behind the guy going "You will chose the $20!"

The predetermination you're discussing has nothing to do with god. There is a theory in philosophy that, given the exact conditions of the universe at the moment of the Big Bang, you could then predict everything that will happen because physical laws. Of course, quantum mechanics/chaos theory threw a monkey wrench in that idea, but for some reason it still exists in reference to religion.

Then of course there's the argument that God knows everything that has already happened, but does not know the future precisely because of free will. There's also an argument that the Bible never calls god perfectly good, just usually good. And of course, let's not forget the argument that god is not present everywhere, because why the hell would god be watching an area in outer space with nothing going on(basically, he has the potential to be anywhere he wants, but that doesn't mean he's everywhere at once)

And I've ranted enough, because at this point I forget what the hell my original point was. So...yea.

/really should stop discussing religion on fark
//but how the hell else will I put my degrees to use
 
2013-10-16 01:52:09 PM

grumpfuff: 2CountyFairs: Another idea that popped into my head. In a sense, predestination is true and free will is an illusion. If God is truly all-knowing, then the moment a person is born, God knows every choice that person is going to make. In that sense, your life choices have already been made for you are your fate is already determined. This assumes "all-knowing" also applies to future events. I interpret it as such because if you don't know the future, then you aren't "all-knowing".

He can know what choice you're going to make without forcing you to make it. Free will is completely compatible with an omniscient being, despite what amateur philosophers think.


In Christian theology, the distinction is between Predertermination (you decide, but God knew what your decision would be before you made it) and Predestination (God decides before you are born)..  Predetermination is something like the "precrime" department in Minority Report.
 
2013-10-16 01:56:38 PM

ciberido: grumpfuff: 2CountyFairs: Another idea that popped into my head. In a sense, predestination is true and free will is an illusion. If God is truly all-knowing, then the moment a person is born, God knows every choice that person is going to make. In that sense, your life choices have already been made for you are your fate is already determined. This assumes "all-knowing" also applies to future events. I interpret it as such because if you don't know the future, then you aren't "all-knowing".

He can know what choice you're going to make without forcing you to make it. Free will is completely compatible with an omniscient being, despite what amateur philosophers think.

In Christian theology, the distinction is between Predertermination (you decide, but God knew what your decision would be before you made it) and Predestination (God decides before you are born)..  Predetermination is something like the "precrime" department in Minority Report.


That's more or less what I meant. You just stated it better than I.
 
2013-10-16 02:47:47 PM
Oh France, you're forgetting dogmatic law. Checkmate.
 
2013-10-16 02:49:10 PM

Pocket Ninja: But could God great a sin so tempting that not even he could resist it?


He made Mary. He then slept with another man's wife. So, yes.
 
2013-10-16 04:46:54 PM

2CountyFairs: Now, can you explain yourselves in a way intended to change my mind on the subject, or will all your comments be ran through the asshole filter?


Any ability to change your mind is dependent on yourself but I will try not to be an asshole about it.

I made the brief comment I did because I had to leave for a meeting (I thought I was done with that crap when I retired but it barely slowed down).  It wasn't my intention to be nasty but to point out that your argument was illogical.

As to the goodness or not of God, we first have to decide if there is a god.  The argument that we cannot prove God's existence is, in my opinion, a false argument.  You cannot prove that God does NOT exist.  If you try to make an argument that God can't exist because a just God would not permit suffering permit evil, you are not disproving the existence of God, merely that God doesn't exist the way you would have designed him.

I believe that God exists precisely because no one can prove that he does not exist but also because admitting the existence of God allows us to explain the origin of the universe.  I'm not a fundamental creationist sort - I believe in evolution, I believe that carbon dating and fossils and other evidence points to a universe that is billions of years old and an earth that is over 4 billion years.  But no matter how far back one goes, no matter which theory is subscribed to, there is nothing that provides an answer to the origin of matter.  One primary function of religion is to explain the unexplainable.  No matter how many bosons and quarks we can discover (that were not even thought of when I was a kid), nobody can explain where they came from.  If we find sub-particles beyond them, what is the origin of them?  Without some uncaused cause, there is not a plausible explanation for our origin.

I choose to believe in God because that explains the difference between us and animals.  Animals have the capacity for kindness and caring only to perpetuate the survival of the species.  The only animals that seem to have a capacity for malice and evil are a very few domesticated animals - we were probably a bad influence.  We have the Constitution to govern our affairs.  The deer and the antelope have no need of one.  They merely respond to stimuli, we are capable of manipulating the stimuli.  That speaks to some kind of higher order of intelligence, coupled with morality (or lack thereof).  I find it impossible to believe that all of that is merely the result of chance or miraculous combination of random chemicals at precisely the right time and place.  In other words, I believe that humans have a soul and that is what distinguishes us from animals.

I can neither confirm or deny, nor do I spend a lot of time speculating on whether or not there are other planets in the universe with intelligent life; for all I know there may be several other universes.  But on our planet, in our solar system, humans are unique among all life forms.  I cannot help but believe that there is something higher than myself who at least had a hand in creating all of that.  In my opinion, refusing to believe in a god can only be the result of one thinking that he has all of the answers to the existence of the universe.  That seems terribly narcissistic.  I think it was Einstein (but I could be wrong) who said "Every new discovery uncovers hitherto untold realms of ignorance."

As to whether or not God is good, or omniscient or whether predestination or freewill rules, is, in my mind, trying to define God in a way that is not ours to do.  I believe that God is inherently good but that Evil also exists.  I believe that, cosmically, there is a continual struggle between good and evil, just as there is in the minds of most moral humans.  But without pain, we cannot enjoy pleasure;  without hunger we do not appreciate satiety; without fear we cannot know security - so too without evil we cannot recognize good.  I believe that we do have freewill and that God gives us that choice so that the choices remain alive.  I believe that God could vanquish Evil but if he did, there would be no need of him, just as there is no reason for Heaven if Hell does not exist.  Imagining a perfect world can only happen within the framework of imperfection.

Thus, in my opinion, God permits evil; he permits bad things to happen to good people, he permits people both individually and collectively (as in pollution of the planet) to make bad decisions precisely because without that there can be no appreciation for what is good and right.

The end of that belief is that the earth is not the end-all, be-all we would like it to be.  There may be hundreds of other planets with life forms not too dissimilar from our own.  There may be radically different life forms but all with a common element - the existence of good and evil.  Where God exercises his omniscience and omnipotence is not in this world but in the next.  Just as without evil we would not recognize good, so without Hell there would be no reason for Heaven.  And that is where God will sort it all out.  Without the travails of life, existence in heaven would be meaningless.  If one makes a conscious decision to engage in and perpetuate evil, with the full knowledge of the difference between that and good, he will have made his choice and God will exercise his prerogative to put him in Hell.  At least, that's what I believe.
 
2013-10-16 05:35:29 PM

Literally Addicted: ciberido: "But the Lord hardened Pharaoh's heart and he would not listen to Moses and Aaron, just as the Lord had said to Moses."
Exodus 9:12 (New International Version)

Sorry, apparently I'm still working on the old international version, the buggy beta one.


Dude, we're already on version 3.0 of the Bible.
 
2013-10-16 05:38:32 PM

grumpfuff: And I've ranted enough, because at this point I forget what the hell my original point was. So...yea.

/really should stop discussing religion on fark
//but how the hell else will I put my degrees to use


Well, I could really use another half-caff skinny macchiato.  I hear people with degrees in philosophy and religion are good at those.....
 
2013-10-16 05:50:51 PM

ciberido: grumpfuff: And I've ranted enough, because at this point I forget what the hell my original point was. So...yea.

/really should stop discussing religion on fark
//but how the hell else will I put my degrees to use

Well, I could really use another half-caff skinny macchiato.  I hear people with degrees in philosophy and religion are good at those..


WTF is that?

/bartender
//moving to Europe next summer, has a teaching job starting Sept '14
 
2013-10-16 05:57:43 PM

ciberido: Literally Addicted: ciberido: "But the Lord hardened Pharaoh's heart and he would not listen to Moses and Aaron, just as the Lord had said to Moses."
Exodus 9:12 (New International Version)

Sorry, apparently I'm still working on the old international version, the buggy beta one.

Dude, we're already on version 3.0 of the Bible.


I have the same problem with my iPods...I am always two generations behind.
 
2013-10-16 06:45:51 PM

grumpfuff: ciberido: Well, I could really use another half-caff skinny macchiato.  I hear people with degrees in philosophy and religion are good at those..

WTF is that?

/bartender
//moving to Europe next summer, has a teaching job starting Sept '14


'Skinny; and 'half-caff" are terms used in Starbucks (and probably other coffee houses as well)

Macchiato is a beverage made from milk and espresso (caffè macchiato or latte macchiato, depending on the ratio).

Just make sure you prepare it correctly, or you will be punished (nsfw).

/Just making the usual joke about how people with advanced degrees in "soft" subjects like philosophy or religion end up working as baristas in coffee shops.
 
2013-10-16 06:49:57 PM
ciberido:

/Just making the usual joke about how people with advanced degrees in "soft" subjects like philosophy or religion end up working as baristas in coffee shops.

Oh I know, no offense taken. I'm quite used to it. I used to be part of a group on Facebook(when I still used it) called "I majored in something I enjoy, and now I'll live in a box for the rest of my life."

As to the...macchiato..thing. I hate coffee, and I hate Starbucks. I couldn't work as a barista because the smell of coffee literally makes me want to vomit. So there's that.
 
2013-10-16 07:45:16 PM

UrukHaiGuyz: utah dude: matt 6 is awesome, first it says to avoid vain repetitions, then it dictates the vain repetition you should use to pray. wtf?

No, it gives the Lord's Prayer as an sample of the correct way to pray. "This then is how you should pray." It doesn't say anything about mindlessly parroting the actual prayer, but using it as a model of succinctness and thankfulness.

As with most scripture, the point is missed completely by the majority of modern practitioners.


i just Favorited you.
 
Displayed 76 of 76 comments

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report