Do themes such as Satanism or Anti-Christianity Affect Your Metal Preferences?

[Zhou Tai 04]

Free will is a direct contradiction to the traditional Christian interpretation of God btw.

Actually, it's not. Without free will, we would just be robots fulfilling a duty to obey and praise God merely out of obligation, which would make Christianity pointless. Predestination is not biblical.

 

[swizzlenuts]

That's like me saying "alright, explain to me how the world came to be without using evolution/the Big Bang and all that shit". Hell, evolution isn't even a law, and Darwin himself wasn't entirely sure of his own conclusions, yet we teach it as gospel across the world. A lot of shit in evolutionism simply DOES NOT MAKE SENSE, scientifically OR religiously.

Evolution does not make sense? Is this sarcasm? Evolution is pretty much fact, just because Darwin didn't fully understand all the why's doesn't make it invalid. What about newton and the theory of gravity? He didn't know why at first the plants didn't go in a perfect eclipse, and later on we figured out the rest of the planets had influence on them.

You should think of evolution as a house, the foundation of evolution is solid, and the house is doing it's job perfectly, but the scientists are arguing about what colour the curtains should be. Not about the foundation.

Evolution is so close to figuring out that life can come from the non living, but even if this is proved it doesn't disprove that a god does or does not exist.

Let's say evolution isn't what happened, but there is no reason not to tell people scientifically what happens. Science is open to skeptics, and they will accept a counter argument that has had research or some critical thinking rather than making some bold statement.


And by the way whoever said evolution/big bang is a violation of the second law of thermodynamics is fucking stupid. The law simply states that the entropy of the universe increases, but that does not mean that a certain system's entropy can decrease. You have to take it as S(universe) = S(system) + S(surroundings). In every case, the surroundings would gain more entropy than the system, and the second law of thermodynamics is still valid. This claim came from some douche bag who took basic chemistry and didn't fully understand what the fuck they were talking about and say, "Hey, I know I'm not a scientist, but you people who have studied this all your life, missed this little detail."

 

[Under The Oak]

Now, you and I both know that there are dozens of contradictions within the Bible itself which are just as blatant as those noted in contrast between apocrypha and canon. It simply seems to me, and I have sources to go back to for specifics on this, that the selection of the canon and the Bible has something more to do with sectarian and personal motivations than simply trying to simplify things for people. Are you proposing that any institution, let alone one so far in the past, is made up of a group with entirely homogenous intents, even at that early stage in its development? Over the ages, works have been excluded for a plethora of reasons, and these reasons changed with the times and with those in power just as anything else. It is not as simple as saying "oh you can tell what is wrong in the apocrypha by comparing it to the bible" because the very issue I'm raising is that the Bible is not the supremely valid source that it is made out to be.

Why is it so hard to believe that an early religious organization might not be as incredibly corrupt as it is today? I'm sure there were people trying to manipulate Christianity into something altogether different, and there still are many even now, but again it takes some faith to believe the general message stayed intact over the years. Yes, I have heard many claims of "contradictions" within the Bible itself, but all of them have come from misunderstandings of the texts or just plain ignorance. If you have some that you think are true contradictions, please let me know, but keep an open mind to the response you may get.

 

[cookiecutter]

So yes, I do look at the world around me, the way it works, and I think it's unlikely that it would've come from anything but a Creator.

This argument baffles me. 3000 years ago ancient Greeks looked at the Sun and said "That must be Apollo, how else could something like that exist?" or a few hundred years ago people said "The world must be flat." Just because something is hard to grasp, does not mean something supernatural is at work. If there is an intelligent designer, why are we born so close to where we defecate? Why are there species that are poorly designed?

 

[Zephyrus]

If we were any better designed we would drain this planet's resources much faster and earlier than now.

 

[Teh Grimace]

What kind of God would allow us to live in a world without suffering?

very buddhist of you.



...




suggest to yourselves, for a moment, that "god's big plan" is not just some arbitrary list of rules and standards that he divinely shat out one sunny afternoon, but that, indeed, "god" is in no way "the highest of all things" nor "the embodiment of all things", but simply "the caretaker of all things", with his "plan" being his best attempt to balance and allow to progress that which he is responsible for.

and everything, believe you me, is a lot to keep tidy.

...


imagine that "god" is a painter.

imagine that there is another higher plane, a more exact measurement of "all" than simply "the sum of each and every thing we see". rather there is a greater canvas of "all" and we (people, bunnies, lions, nitrogen, happiness, pain, and taxes) are simply the paint that has been spattered across it by this painter named, for the purposes of our imagining, "god".

now imagine that his initial creation of all "things" are represented by a frantic and somewhat disorganized but exceptionally potent period of creativity where he filled most of his canvas with the first rough draft of everything that first was, with lightning and black voids in space and primordial ooze being the highlights.

and, for about a billion or so years, "god" sat back and admired his work and thought it was teh rule x10. but then, one day, he started adding stuff. first he painted some dinosaurs, and some tidal waves, and some supernovas, and maybe he made his first rough draft of things like emotions and love and hate and suffering. but these new ideas were hardly perfect.

perhaps the dinosaur's tail was crooked or the waves didn't look right next to this island, or there was just too much love and things were getting a little gay, and maybe he should try to paint more pain, evil, and the like to butch it up a bit. and when he thought it was necessary to completely paint over something to make room for something else, he was introducing death, loss, end.

death, loss, and end to the things involved, but in "god"'s eyes, just a form of transition towards a finished, better product.

and so it is to all other things.

cancer? perhaps "god" thinks cancer cells are unfairly misrepresented in his work and so he paints a few into the world, and he thinks they'd look best in this 8 year old, and why? because he's the artist and he can do whatever the fuck he wants. the paint doesn't get an opinion.

of course, our initial pictorial perspective would be "we love children! when they suffer it makes us sad! we don't like being sad! sad is bad! why do you make our existance bad, 'god'?"

but "god" sees not 'bad', 'good', or any other exclusive type of categorizing. things aren't 'good/bad', 'right/wrong' in the sense that the good things belong and the bad things do not, that this world should be exclusively filled with the 'good' and 'right'. he is merely altering his work for what he believes will eventually be, giving in for just a moment to this type of categorization, "the better".



imagine, perhaps, that our attempt to give some idealized aesthetic judgement of "bad" to these things around us which we find unsuitable and, specifically, our concept of what "bad" is is just a result of our individual physiological composition in relation to that of all things around us, the parameters that our organism is most comfortable between in relation to the things outside those parameters which effect change upon us.


perhaps, if we were "god" (or maybe even lions or taxes), we'd be more capable of understanding the delicate, constantly evolving balance of "everything" in relation to "everything else" rather than "'my' 'human' organism" in relation to "things that would harm 'my' 'human' organism."

....



part 2 soon... i need a break...

 

[Satanstoenail]

If we were any better designed we would drain this planet's resources much faster and earlier than now.

I think we're doing a pretty damn good job of draining the world's resources extremely quickly, in the big scheme of things. Surely if the whole "Intelligent Design" thing was true, the Earth would have also been designed Intelligently, and there wouldn't be such things to worry about as resources running out and pollution and all the fucked up shit we're doing to the place.

Maybe it should be renamed "Not Very Intelligently Designed".

 

[Nico]

suggest to yourselves, for a moment, that "god's big plan" is not just some arbitrary list of rules and standards that he divinely shat out one sunny afternoon, but that, indeed, "god" is in no way "the highest of all things" nor "the embodiment of all things", but simply "the caretaker of all things", with his "plan" being his best attempt to balance and allow to progress that which he is responsible for.

and everything, believe you me, is a lot to keep tidy.

5 stars.

Completely on the money with this one Grimace. A few things I'd question, but I'll wait until I've had a toke, and then maybe give it a shot.

 

[Demilich]

Why is it so hard to believe that an early religious organization might not be as incredibly corrupt as it is today? I'm sure there were people trying to manipulate Christianity into something altogether different, and there still are many even now, but again it takes some faith to believe the general message stayed intact over the years. Yes, I have heard many claims of "contradictions" within the Bible itself, but all of them have come from misunderstandings of the texts or just plain ignorance. If you have some that you think are true contradictions, please let me know, but keep an open mind to the response you may get.

These contradictions aren't really "mistakes," they just show what we already know: The bible was taken from many different sources written by different people over decades and decades. For example: There are 2 creation stories and 4 accounts of Jesus' life.

 

[skeptik]

Actually, it's not. Without free will, we would just be robots fulfilling a duty to obey and praise God merely out of obligation, which would make Christianity pointless. Predestination is not biblical.

The Bible and Christianity asserts that God is omniscient, omnipotent, etc (has infinite attributes infinitely), does it not? If this is true, then God knows all events, and if God knows all events, then all actions are not of free will but are predetermined. If God is infallible and knows that you are going to do a specific action, then to not do that specific action would be to defy Gods infinite wisdom, which is inherently impossible. Thus, if you cannot possibly veer from the predetermined course known by God, then you are not acting out of truly free will.

 

[More Murder]

The Bible and Christianity asserts that God is omniscient, omnipotent, etc (has infinite attributes infinitely), does it not? If this is true, then God knows all events, and if God knows all events, then all actions are not of free will but are predetermined. If God is infallible and knows that you are going to do a specific action, then to not do that specific action would be to defy Gods infinite wisdom, which is inherently impossible. Thus, if you cannot possibly veer from the predetermined course known by God, then you are not acting out of truly free will.

But the Bible is also open to interepretation so that means it can be anything that I want it to be and can change the meaning of anything!

 

[CF87]

I'm a not practicing catholic. I am going to start reading about the inquisition more in depth though, something about this is drawing me in. I just want to read about all the people that went through a lot of suffering. the word inquisition seems sinister. I think the negativity of this time is interesting over pretty much anything that has to do with religion. I hate the fact that religion is always about HAPPY HAPPY GOD GOD HAPPY HAPPY GOD. Christians seem to much like HAPPY HAPPY HAPPY

 

[swizzlenuts]

The Bible and Christianity asserts that God is omniscient, omnipotent, etc (has infinite attributes infinitely), does it not? If this is true, then God knows all events, and if God knows all events, then all actions are not of free will but are predetermined. If God is infallible and knows that you are going to do a specific action, then to not do that specific action would be to defy Gods infinite wisdom, which is inherently impossible. Thus, if you cannot possibly veer from the predetermined course known by God, then you are not acting out of truly free will.

QFT

 

[Demilich]

But if he knows what you're going to do, you can't defy him because whatever you end up doing, he already knew!

 

[Dee Snarl]

This is seen as one of the classic paradoxes of traditional Christianity. That said, freewill is definitely one of the central tenets of Xianity.

Even if God knows what you are going to decide, that doesn't mean it's not up to you to decide. Does it?

 

[Mr_Haze]

Somebody once quoted a passage from the bible to attempt to persuade me of their argument of free will concerning Christianity. It was some sort of analogy along these lines: "there is two doors. even though you have the power to choose what door to enter, god knows what door you will, and it was meant to be." I don't think it was that direct, and it could have been taken out of context as well... I wish I could remember what book it was from.

 

[metal_wrath]

very buddhist of you.



...




suggest to yourselves, for a moment, that "god's big plan" is not just some arbitrary list of rules and standards that he divinely shat out one sunny afternoon, but that, indeed, "god" is in no way "the highest of all things" nor "the embodiment of all things", but simply "the caretaker of all things", with his "plan" being his best attempt to balance and allow to progress that which he is responsible for.

and everything, believe you me, is a lot to keep tidy.

...


imagine that "god" is a painter.

imagine that there is another higher plane, a more exact measurement of "all" than simply "the sum of each and every thing we see". rather there is a greater canvas of "all" and we (people, bunnies, lions, nitrogen, happiness, pain, and taxes) are simply the paint that has been spattered across it by this painter named, for the purposes of our imagining, "god".

now imagine that his initial creation of all "things" are represented by a frantic and somewhat disorganized but exceptionally potent period of creativity where he filled most of his canvas with the first rough draft of everything that first was, with lightning and black voids in space and primordial ooze being the highlights.

and, for about a billion or so years, "god" sat back and admired his work and thought it was teh rule x10. but then, one day, he started adding stuff. first he painted some dinosaurs, and some tidal waves, and some supernovas, and maybe he made his first rough draft of things like emotions and love and hate and suffering. but these new ideas were hardly perfect.

perhaps the dinosaur's tail was crooked or the waves didn't look right next to this island, or there was just too much love and things were getting a little gay, and maybe he should try to paint more pain, evil, and the like to butch it up a bit. and when he thought it was necessary to completely paint over something to make room for something else, he was introducing death, loss, end.

death, loss, and end to the things involved, but in "god"'s eyes, just a form of transition towards a finished, better product.

and so it is to all other things.

cancer? perhaps "god" thinks cancel cells are unfairly misrepresented in his work and so he paints a few into the world, and he thinks they'd look best in this 8 year old, and why? because he's the artist and he can do whatever the fuck he wants. the paint doesn't get an opinion.

of course, our initial pictorial perspective would be "we love children! when they suffer it makes us sad! we don't like being sad! sad is bad! why do you make our existance bad, 'god'?"

but "god" sees not 'bad', 'good', or any other exclusive type of categorizing. things aren't 'good/bad', 'right/wrong' in the sense that the good things belong and the bad things do not, that this world should be exclusively filled with the 'good' and 'right'. he is merely altering his work for what he believes will eventually be, giving in for just a moment to this type of categorization, "the better".



imagine, perhaps, that our attempt to give some idealized aesthetic judgement of "bad" to these things around us which we find unsuitable and, specifically, our concept of what "bad" is is just a result of our individual physiological composition in relation to that of all things around us, the parameters that our organism is most comfortable between in relation to the things outside those parameters which effect change upon us.


perhaps, if we were "god" (or maybe even lions or taxes), we'd be more capable of understanding the delicate, constantly evolving balance of "everything" in relation to "everything else" rather than "'my' 'human' organism" in relation to "things that would harm 'my' 'human' organism."

....



part 2 soon... i need a break...

I think you did a pretty good job of "painting" a scenario of god's plan. Very interesting. However, I think things are clearly more complex than that explanation. Although I know you weren't stating this as truth in any way.

 

[Teh Grimace]

However, I think things are clearly more complex than that explanation.

why clearly?


as a matter of fact, i do think that, if god exists, the life and death and trivial existance of a human means nothing whatsoever to his greater scheme. probably.

to the point where, though of course we would see children dying and floods and starvation as "negative" things, god could good and damn well have a perfectly reasonable justification for his choices, or he could have no explanation at all... it ultimately doesn't matter either way.

his will is done, and the paint is fucked, and that's just the reality of it so smile and get over your human ego.

this i find most likely.

 

[Dee Snarl]

why clearly?


as a matter of fact, i do think that, if god exists, the life and death and trivial existance of a human means nothing whatsoever to his greater scheme. probably.

to the point where, though of course we would see children dying and floods and starvation as "negative" things, god could good and damn well have a perfectly reasonable justification for his choices, or he could have no explanation at all... it ultimately doesn't matter either way.

his will is done, and the paint is fucked, and that's just the reality of it so smile and get over your human ego.

this i find most likely.

Sure, what do I know compared to God?

But I can only judge based on my limited human reasoning skills. And so I will.

Seems pretty fucked up to me that some poor kid is born with her internal organs outside her body. Through no fault of her own. All I can know is how it seems to me. Damned unfair, and a cheap shot.

Unless o fcourse she gets like an eternal reward for it. That oughtta even things out pretty nicely.

Course any reward or punishment that lasts for eternity seems patently unfair to me. That due to the nature of eternity vs. the finite natures of life, action, and crime. I don't think even the most evil child rapist/murderer/Hitler deserves to burn for freakin' eternity.

But, again, that's just me.

 

[Under The Oak]

Am I the only one who thinks this thread has grossly derailed now? I haven't seen metal mentioned along with these religious discussions for pages now.