Religious Freedom Versus Freedom Of Speech, the unstopable force meets the immovable Options

[Phyllis]

I don't think that temptation is a good way of sorting the 'worthy' from the unworthy.

Never said it was a good way...which is one of the (many) reasons I'm not a Christian. I was just trying to say what I think the rationale is. I don't actually agree with it.

I don't like the argument of suffering when talking about the existence of any deity...because I don't think it works to disprove that. But it's a better argument when talking about a perfect God, I'll admit.

[trunks_girl26]

Freedom of will and freedom of choice are the same thing, and they exist in a perfect world. And If I remember correctly, Eden was a perfect world. Look what came out of that.

You do realize what the definition of perfect is, right? That means things not going wrong.

...Unless you mean to say that Eden was perfect until God created man? Or that the perfection was destroyed once they were given freedom of choice?

To perhaps choose to disobey God and eat the forbidden fruit? Thereby having both a right and a wrong choice from which to choose, which would be impossible in a perfect world to begin with?

Darn, there goes that circular logic again.

[artist.unknown]

Freedom of will and freedom of choice are the same thing, and they exist in a perfect world. And If I remember correctly, Eden was a perfect world. Look what came out of that.

You do realize what the definition of perfect is, right? That means things not going wrong.

...Unless you mean to say that Eden was perfect until God created man? Or that the perfection was destroyed once they were given freedom of choice?

To perhaps choose to disobey God and eat the forbidden fruit? Thereby having both a right and a wrong choice from which to choose, which would be impossible in a perfect world to begin with?

Darn, there goes that circular logic again.

Unless you trace both right and wrong back to God, since He, being the creator of life, the universe, and everything, would have need to created evil for it to exist in the first place. In which case, in a perfect world, both good and evil, right and wrong, would be perfect polarities. Which raises some serious questions about the nature of that sort of God. So do we accept that God deliberately created a flawed world or is, Himself, the source of all evil?

[trunks_girl26]

Freedom of will and freedom of choice are the same thing, and they exist in a perfect world. And If I remember correctly, Eden was a perfect world. Look what came out of that.

You do realize what the definition of perfect is, right? That means things not going wrong.

...Unless you mean to say that Eden was perfect until God created man? Or that the perfection was destroyed once they were given freedom of choice?

To perhaps choose to disobey God and eat the forbidden fruit? Thereby having both a right and a wrong choice from which to choose, which would be impossible in a perfect world to begin with?

Darn, there goes that circular logic again.

Unless you trace both right and wrong back to God, since He, being the creator of life, the universe, and everything, would have need to created evil for it to exist in the first place. In which case, in a perfect world, both good and evil, right and wrong, would be perfect polarities. Which raises some serious questions about the nature of that sort of God. So do we accept that God deliberately created a flawed world or is, Himself, the source of all evil?

But by that, our world could be seen as a perfect world, since here (though things like the media tend to highlight bad and ignore good) we have good and evil in perfect polarities. But what does that say about Eden, which is suppossedly the real perfect world?

[believe]

Wow, am I late in posting. What I'm going to say here isn't meant to be 'proof' to convert all of you. Its just some things I've thought of when this comes up. Assuming we're going with the Christian basis enough to debate it, that gives us another bit to work with that. That being that God is as beyond as Einstein is a toddler, more or less. To assume that because our definition of perfect is not met that God is not perfect according to His definition seems illogical. I'm just human and I'm sure that my definition for perfection and dozens of other things will defer completely from Cand's or Calantyr's. Does this mean I'm wrong or that I can never achieve something because someone disagrees about the definition or how it should work?

Presumbly in the Christian.. theories? debate, you're talking about the creator of the world's opinion vs. ours. God would be considered to have a bit more education and a few zillion more degrees. Our definitions may be all we can debate by, but their still just one more opinion. As open and vulnerable to flaw as you consider religion.

As for whether free will could be had with perfection, what is that based on? That it sounds nice and simple? It sounds nice to me too, but I'm not sure I see sounding nice as proof. We don't even know the standards were debating by, if we're debating the Christian version of God. Some glimpses are there in the Bible sure, but its also very clear on the fact that God is beyond us and we're not going to 'get' him. Then again, we have trouble going outside ourselves enough to objectively understand other humans. If we have this much trouble understanding our world, I'm not ready to accept 'this sounds logical to me, so its right' as the only reason to say an 'alien' Being is good, bad or perfect. That shoots the theory of relativity all to hell though, which I'm grateful for. Clearly our cultural and personal opinions decide what God must be to be perfect. ;P

On to the cartoon bits, I was personally disgusted with the newspaper and artists. I didn't expect the violent muslim extremists to behave reasonably. They have shown us repeatedly that they not only won't, but that they will use anything they can to inflame others who might be more reasonable. It doesn't seem quite sensible to be outraged, though I'm generally disgusted. The cartoonists though.. yes, we can -do- a lot of things. It doesn't mean we should do them. Freedom of speech was not protected, there was no glorious victory here. We know people can be jerks or just insensitive and make fun of things up to and including religion. So thats proved all other again to what end? I don't see Muslims being converted to any popular western belief. I don't see free speech being aided in any concrete way. I just don't approve of pointless or hurting people because you -can-. I could be a racist bigot and have an radio show. That has little to do with the fact whether I -should-. I'd like freedom to come with a bit more personal responsibility, especially in situations like this. If there at least seemed to be a point beyond 'can I get away with this', I'd be more impressed.

[Erin]

i was having a talk about religion and evolution with my teacher.

he said "i do not beleive in evolution, so i will not teach it to you."
and i asked "why dont you beleive in it?"
he replys.."becuz it isnt true."
i say...."it could be true, you werent there."
he says..."it is not true, i didnt need to be there, now shut up."
i reply.."then how could god have created all of this shit?"
he says..."god created it, and thats all there is to say."


i think thats pretty crazy..i mean..if hes so sure of it..then why cant he explain it? and why does he get mad when i ask?

also..i went to a church lecture thingy with a friend, becuz she asked me to give god a chance. so i said sure, i will.
when i get there..there is a 20 year old man, who is obviously very ignorant, standing on stage telling us there is no true way of life..unless your with god. and i asked him some questions after the lecture..he couldnt explain even one. he just kept telling me god is real. and he wouldnt give me proof and he ended up calling me a skeptic anyhow...wow..people are stupid lol.