Avoiding the obvious gag ("No, but they believe they will."), debates such as this and this have wandered down the Path With No End: Mankind's Inherent Sin.
Danny says he sins because he's a sinner (which is like saying I write because I'm a writer). Anyhow, apparently we're all born sinners, because Adam and Eve (real people, who lived and walked on this Earth, when it was created 6000-odd years ago) chose sin.
Yes, sin is genetic - it's in our DNA.
But it's OK, God had this plan - he'd send this God-man miracle-doer down to Earth and tell everyone (well, at least a dozen or so) that if we repented and praised the Lord, we would be Saved from burning in Hell's Fire.
Well, that's all fine for you and me. We can read blogs and everything (I know some of your struggle, but keep practicing...). But what about those whose mental capacity has been severly reduced, for one reason or another?
A friend of mine works with autistic children. Some struggle with the concept of feeding themselves, let alone original sin. So, what hope have they got? They're going to Hell, right? Or is there a get out clause? Is there something in the small print?
I'd like to think the mentally restricted get an automatic pass into Heaven. But it does beg the question, what happens when they get there? Are their Earthly limitations released? Do they write poetry and play grandmaster-level chess with God? Will David Beckham be discussing quantum mechanics with Erwin Schrödinger? Will George Bush be lighting farts with J. Robert Oppenheimer? Will the Archbishop of Canterbury be girating in a sweaty Mambo with Pope Benedict XVI?
And these are just some of the many things I spend my waking life contemplating.
Thursday, June 08, 2006
Do Retards Get Into Heaven?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
33 comments:
And this is the reason you're insane. You think too much ;)
Go read my blog, I've posted something just for you.
I'm thinking retards DO get into heaven, and if you make it there, you'll have to play chess with them on their level. They will cheat of course, you won't be allowed to. You have to figure your own way around it lol.
Nice theory.
There's always a spin on everything, isn't there?
It's a hypothesis...dabich has absolutely no evidence.
Oh wait, that's the working definition of religion.
aa - you are another who don't know where I am coming from. Don't step on me when you don't know what I'm about.
Organized religion sucks green slimy pond scum. I believe in God, even tho I have left the Roman Catholic Church.
I come here to Simon's blog because he makes me think and I adore his sense of humor.
Even tho he aggravates me half to hell some days, I still appreciate his point of view. His head isn't up his ass. Others, I can't say the same :)
She also comes here because of the deep feelings I have for her.
simon,
it seems you doing anything to consider your own life and your own actions.
you clearly are not retarded and are quite sharp. i realize i am trying to discuss things with someone who could probably out intellectualize me with half his brain tied behind his back. so i'm seeking not to answer with my own thoughts, but with what the Bible articulates.
you've asked some great questions here that we don't have perfect answers to. however, in 2 samuel 12:23, david understands that his infant will be in heaven. God did not choose to lay out for us the "ground rules" to this understanding. i admit that i don't have all the answers, but this passage gives me hope about babies, and the mentally disadvantaged.
i could start rattling questions off to you as well and you would just consider that avoiding this issue:
where does morality come from? if we've evolved from nothing but time and chance, how did a basic understanding of right and wrong get wired into us? who developed that system? why are some things universal within it? you're not a fuzzy "whatever you consider to be right must be right" kind of guy, so i know you wrestle with this.
you spoke of things getting more complex as you dig deeper. when do we naturally see that happening around us? what actually grows in complexity today or doesn't entropy seem to rule the day? furthermore, if i add time and chance to an equation, don't i actually increase the odds for failure, not sucess? if i tell you i'll meet you between noon and 12:30, but i'll only stand there for a minute before leaving...don't we have a greater chance of meeting (though still 1 in 30) than if i just tell you i'll meet you on tuesday?
how would an eye develop? did the retina form first? the cornea? the iris? the lens? even if the eye developed wouldn't it wither away without the tear duct? so did the tear duct develop first? and even if the tear duct and the eye fully developed, how would the signal for sight get to the brain? did the neurons taking the message to the brain develop first? if so, why would they develop if they had nothing to receive the vision to take it to the brain? and if the eye developed first, why would that be an advantage to a species if there were no way to take the message received to the brain?
you struggle with the concept of adam and eve being real. but if we evolved, which evolved first, a male or a female? and if it evolved first, what did it mate with to reproduce? and if a male and a female evolved at the same rate of time so that once fully functioning, they were able to reproduce together for the first time...how did that process get dragged out over millions of years if reproduction had to evolve?
or, you could look at creation and see there is a Creator.
He made adam and eve with a capacity to choose to follow and obey Him or not.
They chose not to follow Him, and each one of us is then inclined to do the same.
Yet, never once have i sinned and it not been exactly what i wanted to do.
But God, in His great mercy, offered His Son to pay the penalty of transgressing the character of God so that i can be redeemed to (notice, it's passive simon. i don't redeem myself to God, rather He redeems me to Himself) God.
you're incredibly complex simon. you great capacity for thought suggest you do not leave a lot to time and chance in your life. but are you really going to claim that's how you got here?
you also know that you have sinned. you believe there is a right and wrong, as evidenced throughout your blog. are you really going to claim you have never acted against what you know to be right?
you understand justice, i've also seen a yearning for that on your site. are you really being treated with justice if your sin is just overlooked and ignored? (would you be comfortable with that approach in your own governments judiciary, if they just overlooked wrong doing?)
yet the gracious way you have dealt with me, though you obviously disagree, also shows you to have compassion. is it so hard to grasp a concept that though you have sinned, God still offers His Righteous Son to pay that penalty for you?
i don't claim to have all the answers. again, simon, i think if i had all the answers it would destroy the belief in the transcendance of God. i am creation, He is Creator...therefore i'm not going to get it all. but i thank God that He has revealed in the Bible, that by repentance from sin and placing my faith in the person and work of Christ, i can be made right with God.
Simon, you have gas again???
;)
Danny ~ you have Simon tagged rather well. He is indeed intelligent, thoughtful, and very very dangerous with his wit. lol
Compassionate? Very much so.
Now you see why I keep coming here even tho he beats me up!
No, dabich, but I think Danny has.
i realize i am trying to discuss things with someone who could probably out intellectualize me with half his brain tied behind his back.
What a horrible thought. But perhaps quite useful should I ever require brain surgery.
if i tell you i'll meet you between noon and 12:30, but i'll only stand there for a minute before leaving...don't we have a greater chance of meeting (though still 1 in 30) than if i just tell you i'll meet you on tuesday?
Indeed. 1 in 30 as opposed to 1 in 1440. What is your point?
how would an eye develop?
Guess what, Danny. The answer to your questions about evolution and natural selection need to be answered properly by an expert.
I mean, if you were ill, would you ask me to diagnose your illness or would you ask a doctor?
Why is it you are happy that we need experts to answer questions about health, yet not questions about other aspects of science?
Check the link to "talk.origin" on my blog - the answers are all there. I pointed Dabich in the same direction, but I think was too much like hard work.
You see, that's the problem - anyone with an average IQ and a limited amount of effort can go: "Oh, God done it - and I'm a sinner - which is baaaaddd. I must beat myself up until I am good."
But to understand evolutionary theories, amongst others, you do have to be relatively smart and quite dedicated to learning complex science.
It's what we have universities for.
your: "how would an eye develop? did the retina form first? .... why would that be an advantage to a species if there were no way to take the message received to the brain?"suggests you are completely unfamiliar with the science.
Danny, you're questions are born out of pure ignorance. You need to read and understand Human Evolution
Why do you think monkeys and apes are so similar to us? Do you think your god made some species that were nearly in his image, but not quite? Why would he do that? Why does 96% of our DNA match that of a chimp?
By the way, we didn't evolove a brain stem on it's own, or a brain or an eye - they come from our nearest relatives - just slightly different. That's how evolution/natural selection works.
Danny, in 50 years, our natural advantages have made us increase our population from 3 billion to 6 billion!!! Other species are being destroyed as we speak. There's no clearer demonstration that survival of the fittest is at work.
But we may become victims of our own success.
you also know that you have sinned. you believe there is a right and wrong, as evidenced throughout your blog.
Not really. I don't there are black and white right and wrongs.
Your god says murder is wrong - but would it have been wrong to have killed Hitler before WW2 and saved millions?
I don't say wrong and right - I just point out what I see as flaws in human thinking. I'm sure my thinking is full of flaws.
where does morality come from? if we've evolved from nothing but time and chance, how did a basic understanding of right and wrong get wired into us? who developed that system? why are some things universal within it? you're not a fuzzy "whatever you consider to be right must be right" kind of guy, so i know you wrestle with this.
I missed this one.
As Dabich says, it makes sense to get along. See how well our species survives with our civilisation and our law system. It's not perfect, but it's better than the law of the jungle.
Our human instincts make us get along more than we don't. We frown at war and embrace co-operation, because it makes sense in terms of survival, doesn't it?
There are things we fight over, just like many species. You might argue the occasional fight has benefits for the species in the long run, like in other species.
You can't argue that our species doesn't work in terms of survival.
contrary to what you may think, i've been in these conversations before. i am aware that many claim the eye is suboptimally designed, however, every person i have had this discussion with (in person or on line) was able to see me and their eyes seemed to work just fine. if find it fascinating that though our eyes work, some want to claim that if God designed them, He did a poor job.
as for my point about time. it is that evolution, in effort to make their theory seem feasible has continued to add time and chance to the formula...thinking if you give it just enough time, anything can eventually happen. yet the odds (chance) will always argue that there are infinitely more opportunities for things to go wrong than to go right. 1 out of 30 if we try to meet within a half hour. 1 out of 1440 if we meet in a day. by adding time, i've only increased the odds of something NOT working, not increased the odds for it.
i do believe in microevolution. really it is ignorance to claim it doesn't exist. however, micro is not the same as macro (jumping over species lines) which we have no evidence of.
you claim the brain/eye/nuerons debate is silly, because we developed from apes that already had these things...but where did they get them? ultimately, macroevolution must go further than saying "look at all the similarities between monkeys and us" (while ignoring the tremendous differences). it must also ask, how did a once celled microorganism become both a complex human being eventually?
don't ignore, just because you believe we came from apes, who had functioning eyes, you must understand that eyes had to evolve at some point...and the theories of science have yet to come up with answers to these.
what is a "flaw" in human thinking but your assessment that something is wrong? again, you are trying to make sin a blanket decree of actions, but the Bible consistently teaches that sin is what happens in the heart, often manifest in our actions. therefore, a death to another human being can be classified in all kinds of categories such as: accidental, war, self-defense, murder, premeditated murder, etc. the "black and white" nature to sin is not in outward action expressed, but in the heart.
that's why the deeper questions are where you need to rest. you know you have sinned. you know you chose to sin. you know you desire justice, therefore you must admit there are consequences for your sin.
(even if you claim you do not want to acknowledge God's moral code, you must admit that you don't always live up to your own moral code. we all fall short, even of our own standards.)
but survival of the fittest was never an argument for the projection of an entire species, but an argument for the projection of individuals with their advantageous mutations.
survival of the fittest actually supports the idea of doing away with my competition, even within my species group so that i may dominate.
that doesn't fit with your cooperation model you are now trying to project.
Since you commented on my blog, I thought I'd comment on yours. I've written a quick post in response to your question as well.
Oh, and I replied to your comment too...
I think over 95% of our DNA is the same as other species of mammals, maybe 99%. Its the 1% that demonstrates our tremendous differences.
Simon, I hesitate to way into this debate because neither side speaks the same language. You have every right to be disgusted with organized religion. This is just humanities pathetic attempt at worshiping God. It is like anything we do, it's filled with human imperfection.
Most everyone understands Heaven and Hell incorrectly, even Christendom. The popular concept of Heaven and Hell is a legacy bestowed upon us by Romanism with a little help from Dante.
The bible says something different.
I find that when people argue about these weighty matters of life and they invoke the bible, it's clear from their arguments that they haven't read it.
You will see from reading the bible cover to cover (takes about a year)and really studying it. Sitting down with someone and going through it, that much of what passes for truth these days, is in fact, not that at all.
As for atheism, which I think you espouse (I could be wrong) it is simply not a system of truths, but mearly observations. It cannot explain anything. It is merely a response to theism. What do you believe and what is the foundation for your belief?
oh danny boy - you pull out all the standard arguments that creationists use time after time: 'how did the eye develop?' 'micro evolution is real but macro is not'
It gets very tiresome having to hear the same arguments time after time. Can't any of your people come up with something new?
and simon: on the original point of this post, I think you're spot on.
I have a hard time reconciling the xian god as he's presented through most of the bible as being petty enough to exclude people who didn't have the capacity to choose to follow his 12 step get out of hell free program.
What about people who grow up in isolated cultures who have never been exposed to xianity? What about babies who die before they can be baptised? Does god really have his bouncer on the gate saying, "sorry, you're not on the list"?
you guys cop out by claiming what some churches believe as standard practice.
many christians, as well as the Bible, do not teach that baptism is necessary for a baby/child to be saved.
read the Word.
it's not a twelve step program. it's a two step program. repent of your sin and trust the sacrifical work of Christ to pay the penalty of sin.
Simon, I have to agree with Danny. You're asking some interesting questions, but since none of them actually apply to your situation, you're still faced with the problem of your own sin.
As for how a person can have free will and yet choose to sin, have a look at this illustration.
Bugblaster just did a piece on the Rise and Fall of the Third Reich that may interest you.
And he and I are still waiting for you to come back. He wants to know about string theory; I want to know why you think that everyone in the New Testament thought Christ was an actual guy.
Simon said: "You see, that's the problem - anyone with an average IQ and a limited amount of effort can go: "Oh, God done it - and I'm a sinner - which is baaaaddd. I must beat myself up until I am good."
DisBich DOESN'T beat herself up. WTF???
so i'm seeking not to answer with my own thoughts, but with what the Bible articulates.
and there, simon, we have the definition of the true believer, and the reason you won't get through to them with logic or fact. maybe if more of the faithful sought to answer with their own thoughts, or even formulate their own thoughts, instead of those passed down by others of the faith, we could have a real discussion. Until then, simon, i believe you are merely beating your head against a brick wall.
Tunnel vision. Wow.
I had this big answer for Danny, last night. Typed it in. Then blogger went and lost it. I guess that's what you get for being a sinner.
Or is it bad Karma?
Well, looks like I've got lots to get through...
Danny: but survival of the fittest was never an argument for the projection of an entire species, but an argument for the projection of individuals with their advantageous mutations.
You should really be looking all this stuff up yourself, but anyway.
Natural selection (survival of the fittest) isn't as simplistic as your understanding of it.
Let's take the example of a successful business: there is competition with rival businesses, but ALSO competition within the company between employees - even when they are working on the same team and cooperating to achieve an objective.
This is what creates a healthy business.
It's the same with species - humans compete with each other within their group. But also cooperate to compete against other groups and/or other species.
This makes the human race a healthy business in survival terms.
Look at the things we can create to help us survive by cooperating but also by competing.
Danny, just by existing you are denying some other creature living space on this planet. You competing and winning (at the moment). Your religious delusion may even help you to compete, which might explain why your religion is so successful.
i've only increased the odds of something NOT working, not increased the odds for it.
Natural selection: Lesson 2:
Over time, you increase both odds. Lets say, in a 10,000 years, a million things go wrong for a species, and 100 thing goes right.
By your flawed logic, the bad outweighs the good, so the species will evolve backwards.
It doesn't work like that - every time a species has a bad mutation (something which makes it's survival chances smaller) it will, of course, die easier. So it offspring will be less likely to survive. And most probably is will die out.
Every time a species has a good mutation (something which helps it survive better) is will, of course, live longer. So it's offspring will be more likely to survive. Eventually, this superior version of the species will be so successful, it will take over from it's previous version.
danny: it must also ask, how did a once celled microorganism become both a complex human being eventually?
It does.
you claim the brain/eye/nuerons debate is silly, because we developed from apes that already had these things...but where did they get them?
From their ancestors. Repeat as necessary.
you must understand that eyes had to evolve at some point..
Ah, so you admit our eyes did evolve, then.
...and the theories of science have yet to come up with answers to these.
No they haven't. Why do you insist on saying things which aren't true - why don't you go and look for yourself instead of believing what some religous guy told you to believe.
You clearly have never read anything about evolution or natural selection because your understanding of it is primitive, to say the least.
simon,
you drift in and out of you "scientific" standards so much it give me a headache.
business models are not an accurate summation of the theory of survival of the fittest and natural selection. good try, but you made a leap that doesn't work for science.
of course, your concept that my existence means i have to be defeating other species ignores all the organisms that live within us, only living because we are. in that case, my extinction would mean theirs as well!
lesson 2: actually, you are ignoring the fact that things had to be JUST PERFECT for you theory to work. if one thing goes wrong...the whole thing is lost. therefore, if you need an exact percentage of a gas ratio, every other possible option destroys the entire experiment for the rest of time. therefore, the more time you add, the more opportunity you give something to go wrong, not right.
remember the meeting example. by increasing time, i do not increase our odds of meeting or missing one another...i only increase our odds of missing one another. there's only one good moment that works.
evolution claims their is only one good possibility...therefore all others are detremental.
next point: it does isn't a valid answer. give me one example. as for the eye. just saying they got if from their ancestor doesn't work. again, how did that one celled organism eventually develop a retina, a lens, a cornea, sensory nerves and the connection to the brain? none of those things would make sense and be adventageous according to natural selection without the others existing too. don't forget, your claiming this took millions of years, not a couple of days...therefore, the species would have to have a lens for centuries without developing other parts of the eye yet retain it for some reason.
you statement that i acknowledge eyes evolve is the same thing you scolded me for when i took one of your posts to mean you really do believe in God. i was speaking to your terms...
if you are giving the same answers as some scientist, which you are (yes, i have looked into these things), then you answers aren't even addressing the issues.
why do you keep chasing around, jumping from illustration to illustration, wrestling to change your theory of evolution to maybe fit something when there are questions right in front of you that you need to deal with.
what are you going to do about your sin?
I'm laughing here. Simon does have a way of jumping around from one thing to another. My Mom used to say (RIP, Mom) "If you can't impress them with your intelligence, baffle them with your bullchit."
Way to go, Simon! :)
(You're so good at spinning circles around me, Mate.)
yeah, thank - I was answering Danny's many questions which just so happened to jump around. And then I get the blame!
Yeah, that, as you Americans say, figures.
Danny, just because your low-level understanding of natural selection requires me to make a comparison to business and your imagination is to limited to get it, don't blame the messenger, buddy.
Is that what passes for an argument around here? Do you think that because we are religious that we aren't educated?
I was just having a bit of fun, Chris, because Christians always use this argument on me when I say I don't understand their belief-logic.
Just thought I'd use it first, this time - a kind of preemtive strike.
Danny:
The evidence for evolution is overwhelming. Evolution by natural selection, the central concept of the life's work of Charles Darwin, is a theory. It's a theory about the origin of adaptation, complexity, and diversity among Earth's living creatures. If you are skeptical by nature, unfamiliar with the terminology of science, and unaware of the overwhelmiing evidence, you might even be tempted to say that it's "just" a theory. The notion that the Earth orbits around the sun rather than vice versa...is a theory. Continental drift is a theory...Even electricity is a theoretical construct... Evolutionary theory, though is a bit different. It's dangerously wonderful and farreaching view of life that some people find it unacceptable, despite the wast body of supporting evidence." ~David Quammen, National Geographic Nov. 2004
Post a Comment