Superping-Jesus

[QuikSand]

I agree with Easy Mac's middle paragraph there. There is very little brainwashing going on for either side of a religious debate. Some children are raised in religious households while others are raised in non-religious ones. Eventually, we all must decide what we believe, and although that may be influenced, very highly at times, by what our parents may or may not have believed, in the end it all comes down to the answers we find within ourselves. I wouldn't have much respect for anyone who did otherwise.

I buy this, too.

I wonder what share of adult Americans have chosen to adopt the same faith that their parents held? I don't think I'm out on a limb in suggesting that it's much, much higher than anything consistent with the notion of "the answers we find within ourselves."

So, where does that leave them (the many, many people who have clearly just accepted the faith principles of their parents) in terms of your respect?

[dawgfan]

If we presume that there is truth to the notion that most regions of the world have been fairly consistent in the predominant religion going back centuries of time (notwithstanding certain political events that specifically change the cultural landscape like the splitting of Hindus and Muslims into India and Pakistan), then there seem to be 2 main conclusions one could draw:

- Whether through overt pressure or more subtle forms such as familiarity and proximity, the predominant religion of one's family/community/culture does have a strong influence on the religious choices we make;

- People in other parts of the world that follow different religions really are coerced and pressured into believing religions Y & Z, whereas people in my part of the world make up our own minds and come to the one true religion X

My point being, if this contention about the relative static nature of the religious composition of different countries/geographic parts of the world is true (and I suspect numbers would support this contention), there are differing ways one could interpret that information depending on the mindset one has.

[Cuckoo]

I buy this, too.

I wonder what share of adult Americans have chosen to adopt the same faith that their parents held? I don't think I'm out on a limb in suggesting that it's much, much higher than anything consistent with the notion of "the answers we find within ourselves."

So, where does that leave them (the many, many people who have clearly just accepted the faith principles of their parents) in terms of your respect?

I can't answer your question QS as I disagree tremendously with your assumption. As I've said in my previous posts, I am quite sure that there are many instances of people accepting their parents beliefs, religious or not, without giving the matter its due respect. I have never known a deeply religious person, however, who has reached their faith in that way. You say that "many, many people" have "just accepted the faith principles of their parents." If you're referring to people accepting those beliefs without considering the matter in all its complexities, I can only reiterate that if it's such a large number of people, it seems incredibly strange to me that I've never met one. Granted, my experience in the world is perhaps not as great as others, and it is conceivable that there are many out there like this. My gut tells me, though, that it's simply not the case. If you're simply saying that, after considering all the options and questions, a person returns to beliefs similar to those held by the parents or persons of influence, I would, in fact, have respect for that person.

It is the concept of blind faith that I just don't buy despite seeing it asserted by a number of people on occasion. My point was: Not only do I not buy it, but if it does occur, then I simply wouldn't have a lot of respect for that person.

[Bubba Wheels]

Bubba's turn!

Evolution has NEVER been proven, its actually more theory than creation is: no 'species link' has EVER been found to demonstrate one species becoming another (although I concede that natural selection does operate).

Creation, however, is almost ALWAYS mischaracterized by the ignorant in superior and condencending tones (why its not even allowed to be brought up in public schools these days!) Genesis , when read properly and with original texts looked up, talks about the RECREATION and REPOPULATION of the earth after some calamity/series of calamities have occurred prior. (won't go into them, many fine works and studies available to those who really want to know what's going on.)

Finally, finding GOD is a HEART condition (heart in the Biblical sense, meaning the 'inner-man', the 'spirtual' part of man that lives forever) and not a purely intellectual one. I believe pure reason CAN and WILL point to the Creator, but the Bible tells us that the intellect is the Battle-Ground between good and evil "as a man thinks in his heart, so is he" and this is the part that Satan also attacks ('Satan reveals himself an angel of light.)

Takes effort to find God, He sacraficed His ALL for us, don't think that He will just drop it all in your lap without you even seeking Him or asking Him for help to find Him "Seek and you shall find, knock and it shall be open unto you." "God is SPIRIT and desires to be worshipped in SPIRIT and in TRUTH.)

[druez]

Bubba's turn!

Evolution has NEVER been proven, its actually more theory than creation is: no 'species link' has EVER been found to demonstrate one species becoming another (although I concede that natural selection does operate).

Creation, however, is almost ALWAYS mischaracterized by the ignorant in superior and condencending tones (why its not even allowed to be brought up in public schools these days!) Genesis , when read properly and with original texts looked up, talks about the RECREATION and REPOPULATION of the earth after some calamity/series of calamities have occurred prior. (won't go into them, many fine works and studies available to those who really want to know what's going on.)

Finally, finding GOD is a HEART condition (heart in the Biblical sense, meaning the 'inner-man', the 'spirtual' part of man that lives forever) and not a purely intellectual one. I believe pure reason CAN and WILL point to the Creator, but the Bible tells us that the intellect is the Battle-Ground between good and evil "as a man thinks in his heart, so is he" and this is the part that Satan also attacks ('Satan reveals himself an angel of light.)

Takes effort to find God, He sacraficed His ALL for us, don't think that He will just drop it all in your lap without you even seeking Him or asking Him for help to find Him "Seek and you shall find, knock and it shall be open unto you." "God is SPIRIT and desires to be worshipped in SPIRIT and in TRUTH.)

Can I get an AMEN!

On a serious note, what did god sacrifice? His son? Come on now. Jesus knew he was going to heaven when he died. So it really isn't that big of a deal that he died now is it?

If you know what heaven is like and you know that you are guaranted to go there if you do a,b,c get tortured then killed etc.... I'm pretty sure 99.999999999999 % of us would be ok with it.

So now tell me what did he sacrafice again?

[Cuckoo]

Are you serious druez? Come on now. If we assume that God is all-loving, which Christians do, then what kind of a sacrifice is it to give your Son to the cruelest and jealous rebukes of mankind? For people who believe strongly in Christ, it is only part of the equation to consider the physical torture that Jesus endured. The burden of carrying mankind's sins on his shoulders would've far outweighed any lash or beating.

[Bubba Wheels]

Are you serious druez? Come on now. If we assume that God is all-loving, which Christians do, then what kind of a sacrifice is it to give your Son to the cruelest and jealous rebukes of mankind? For people who believe strongly in Christ, it is only part of the equation to consider the physical torture that Jesus endured. The burden of carrying mankind's sins on his shoulders would've far outweighed any lash or beating.

I would submit that the reason Jesus sweated 'drops of blood' in the Garden the night before His arrest is because He knew, for the first time in Eternity, that Jesus would be SEPERATED from the Father "Every Good and Perfect Gift comes from the Father" "Why Have YOu Forsaken Me?" and the experience of Spiritual death to the Creator and Son of God for our sins must have been beyond horrific.

[QuikSand]

I disagree tremendously with your assumption.

I have never known a deeply religious person, however, who has reached their faith in that way. You say that "many, many people" have "just accepted the faith principles of their parents." If you're referring to people accepting those beliefs without considering the matter in all its complexities, I can only reiterate that if it's such a large number of people, it seems incredibly strange to me that I've never met one.

How do you know you have never met one? That seems like an awfully broad statement.

A couple of weeks ago, I saw a lot of adults I know walking around with ash on their foreheads, signifying their religion. And what do you know, the overwhelming majority of them were named Hogan and McCoy and Dougherty and Fantozzi... and their parents, too, were walking around with ash on their foreheads.

I don't claim to know a lot of detail about how these many people came to adopt their religious faiths. I certainly can't tell you that they definitely did or did not consider anything in particular before adopting their faiths. (Though you seem to claim this kind of knowledge, since you assert that you have never met a single person who adopted a strong faith based on that of his parents)

What I do know is that there are an awful lot of people who are very religous, very spiritual, and who happen to be following the same faith that their parents did. Can I prove that they never gave a fair shake to other faiths and principles? Of course not. Does it stand to reason that many, many - if not most - of these people simply didn't invest much effort into this, and instead just opted to stick with the familiar path that offers least resistance? Of course it does.

If nearly everyone gained a completely even-handed understanding of every major faith, and was brought up without social context pulling them toward one over others, we'd almost certainly see a natural diaspora of faiths among any given culture - people would just adopt things that made the most sense for them. (And, I suspect, would be a lot less likely to adopt an off-the-rack faith at all) However, given the praqcticalities of role models and peer pressure and societal context... it's obvious that most people... nearly all people... are simply unable to reach any degree of "search" of this kind. Maybe they attend a service or two of a different faith, or read a book or two, or talk to a man of the cloth here or there... but all told, there's a lifetime of deep-seated influence telling us to just do what mom and dad did... and many, many of us basically decide between a) doing that or b) doing nothing.

So, am I accusing people of (to use your words) "accepting those beliefs without considering the matter in all its complexities" here? Damn straight.

[druez]

I don't know. If you know that you will be given eternal salvation. I mean know it as truth. To live a life of eternal happiness and bliss, where is the sacrafice?

If Jesus was given to the human race to die and never goto heaven that is indeed a sacrafice. But, Jesus didn't even live life as a typical man. He never married or slept with a woman. He never found his soulmate.

I suppose, we will never see eye to eye on these things, but thats ok. I wish you all the best!

[Cuckoo]

How do you know you have never met one? That seems like an awfully broad statement.

It is an awfully broad statement. I was assuming that readers of my statement would realize that I was speaking of people that I knew closely, not people that I happen to pass on the streets or meet in casual circumstances. Perhaps that was a faulty assumption on my part.

For people who have spent a significant time in religious environments, at least to my experience, there is a great deal of community involved in which people discuss their spritual feelings and the grounds for their faith. During my life, I have probably had discussions of these types with thousands of people, and that is not an overstatement. In those discussions, I have only encountered deeply religious people who absolutely did not simply accept blindly the views of their parents.


What I do know is that there are an awful lot of people who are very religous, very spiritual, and who happen to be following the same faith that their parents did. Can I prove that they never gave a fair shake to other faiths and principles? Of course not. Does it stand to reason that many, many - if not most - of these people simply didn't invest much effort into this, and instead just opted to stick with the familiar path that offers least resistance? Of course it does.

You come across as quite consdescending in your analysis of the knowledge that I'm "claiming," yet you turn around and do the exact same thing. The truth is that neither of us can know for sure. You say that it obviously stands to reason that people stick to the "path of least resistance." I say that based on my experience this is undoubtedly not the case. So, which of us is right? Neither one or both. I simply wanted to make the point to druez and to others that buy into this "blind following" of religious people that I have never seen such a case, and that if it is so common as many would have us believe, it seems strange that I have never encountered it amongst the deeply religious people I know well.

If nearly everyone gained a completely even-handed understanding of every major faith, and was brought up without social context pulling them toward one over others, we'd almost certainly see a natural diaspora of faiths among any given culture - people would just adopt things that made the most sense for them. (And, I suspect, would be a lot less likely to adopt an off-the-rack faith at all) However, given the praqcticalities of role models and peer pressure and societal context... it's obvious that most people... nearly all people... are simply unable to reach any degree of "search" of this kind. Maybe they attend a service or two of a different faith, or read a book or two, or talk to a man of the cloth here or there... but all told, there's a lifetime of deep-seated influence telling us to just do what mom and dad did... and many, many of us basically decide between a) doing that or b) doing nothing.

Again, the best I can do is disagree with you assumption based on my experience. As someone else pointed out, faith is not about an intellectual sampling of what you like and what you don't like about particular religions. Not to be condescending myself, but that sounds to me like a statement that someone who doesn't have faith would make. This thread began with a number of people who do not believe in Christ asking questions to better understand those that do. Therefore, to provide information to someone who has never experienced the faith that I feel, I pointed out that faith is not something done blindly. Nor, in my opinion, is it about sampling religion like a buffet line. It's spiritual. It's emotional. And it takes a great deal of though, reflection, and doubt before one reaches a point where they believe with all of their soul in something.

So, am I accusing people of (to use your words) "accepting those beliefs without considering the matter in all its complexities" here? Damn straight.

Do I still disagree with your premise and that of others who subscribe to the theory that refuses to give a person of faith any credit for their decision to believe? Well, you know the rest... ;)

[Cuckoo]

I don't know. If you know that you will be given eternal salvation. I mean know it as truth. To live a life of eternal happiness and bliss, where is the sacrafice?

If Jesus was given to the human race to die and never goto heaven that is indeed a sacrafice. But, Jesus didn't even live life as a typical man. He never married or slept with a woman. He never found his soulmate.

I suppose, we will never see eye to eye on these things, but thats ok. I wish you all the best!

I do understand your point, and I didn't mean to imply that I didn't. My only point was that knowing you're going to Heaven doesn't erase the knowledge of the suffering that must occur for that to happen.

And I wish you the best as well. I thoroughly enjoy the discussions when they're civil as this one has been for the most part.

[Cuckoo]

DOLA

I just realized QS, the difference that we may be having. What I'm referring to is the notion of faith, not the notion of religion. When a person finds faith, it typically has little to do with learning every aspect of all the world's religions. It has nothing to do with what church they go to. What you seem to be speaking of is a choice of religion, not faith, and that delineation needs to be made. There are a lot of people who go to church but don't have faith, and there are a lot of people who have faith and do not go to church. My comments regard that acquisition of faith, and I assert strongly that it has nothing to do with the beliefs of one's parents. In my humble opinion, it is absolutely impossible to "hand down" faith.

Now, if you're speaking about matters of denomination or sect or religious affiliation, I would agree with your assessment. The difference between the two, however, needs to be noted.

[dawgfan]

Cuckoo, here's something for you to consider:

It seems as though in most countries around the world, the predominant religion has remained static over a long period of time. For example, Christianity has been the primary religion in the North American countries, Western Europe and Australia. Islam has been the primary religion in most middle eastern countries, many African countries and parts of Asia. Buddhism has remained strong in many parts of Asia. The Indian subcontinent has been primarily Hindu and Muslim for a long time, with the split of those two groups into India and Pakistan with the independence of India from British rule. Some countries found their predominant religious ideas subverted by political means, notably Eastern Orthodox Catholicism in Soviet Russian and Buddhist, Taoist and other Eastern religions/philosophies in Communist China. Judaism has remained a strong sub-culture within the predominant Christian cultures in America and Western Europe and among predominantly Muslim cultures in the Middle East.

As Quik pointed out, if most people arrived at their religion of choice purely from their own independent investigations and choices, without outside influence from family, community and culture one would expect to find a more even distribution of the world's primary religions as opposed to the pattern one sees currently.

This is why it is suggested that whether through subtle or more overt means, the mores of a particular community seem to have an influence over the religious choices the members of that community make. I have no doubt you've observed people come to a decision on their beliefs through thorough examination of all the possible choices, but do you presume this is the case in a majority of situations? If so, how do you reconcile this with the observation of religions tending to be lumped by historical precedence based on location and culture?

[Cuckoo]

Dawg, see my DOLA post. I was never speaking about choices of religion. I was speaking about arriving at faith, and I do think there is a tremendous difference between the two.

Edited to add: I've realized after reading over my previous posts that I have not done a very good job of articulating my point which initially was a simple one - to defend the notion of faith as a process and not something taken lightly or done blindly by those that I know. I write a post, think I've expressed myself fairly well, then realize that there are a number of different ways to read it. For that, I apologize, and it's the reason I often stay out of debates like this because it's much clearer in my mind than I can transfer it to the written word. I hope my clarifications cleared up any confusions as to what I am asserting.

[Bubba Wheels]

Most people want to be accepted and fit in regardless of the price, so even if there is a 'true' faith (just making a point, don't lose your wireframes!) most folks will reject it out of hand because it would reguire too much sacrafice on their part.

[AENeuman]

why chew bubble gum if you are christian? or, why give to the needy if they are saved? it's a powerful thing to grasp the statement by Jesus that "the Kingdom of God is here", at the very least it could mean that the Holy Spirit is always present. Thus, how much more could heaven be, if what we are living in now is filled with the presence of God. Paul saw this problem of abandoning this life for the eternal and warned against it.
Finally, giving a nod to brother gibson, the allowing of the suffering of Christ by God seems to be more the point than Jesus not suffering because he lacked existential angst.

[QuikSand]

My comments regard that acquisition of faith, and I assert strongly that it has nothing to do with the beliefs of one's parents. In my humble opinion, it is absolutely impossible to "hand down" faith.


I think the difference you are making between "faith" and "religion" might go a long way toward explaining the differences that we have expressed.

I still might be inclined to lose respect for people who are willing to entertain "religion" simply based on the rituals performed by family members (what does that say about the value of the religion?)... but I can see how "faith" (a more enigmatic concept) can be a bit more slippery.

[dawgfan]

Dawg, see my DOLA post. I was never speaking about choices of religion. I was speaking about arriving at faith, and I do think there is a tremendous difference between the two.

An interesting distinction, and one I don't necessarily disagree with. What I will say though is that those who arrive at faith as you put it I would think are a significantly smaller subset of those who identify with a particular religion, no?

There are those that will say that the U.S. is something like 70% Christian, and while there may be that many who when asked would identify themselves as such, the percentage who are really true believers I would suggest is a much smaller percentage.

Most people want to be accepted and fit in regardless of the price, so even if there is a 'true' faith (just making a point, don't lose your wireframes!) most folks will reject it out of hand because it would reguire too much sacrafice on their part.

I agree. I recall reading an article a few years back that was calling Catholicism the fastest-growing religion in the world, and no it wasn't because they were reproducing more than others :)

When interviewed, one of the common themes for many who had converted to Catholicism was the attraction of joining a community of people with a long history of traditions and customs. For many of these people, the attraction was as much about feeling like they belonged as it was a deeper spiritual belief in the principles of Catholicism.

I would also suggest that it is likely difficult, if one lives in a region where a particular faith is the primary cultural influence, to buck that trend and publicly proclaim a belief in a different faith. I would expect many in that situation either keep their own belief quiet, or move to a place more accepting of different beliefs.

[Cuckoo]

I think the difference you are making between "faith" and "religion" might go a long way toward explaining the differences that we have expressed.

I still might be inclined to lose respect for people who are willing to entertain "religion" simply based on the rituals performed by family members (what does that say about the value of the religion?)... but I can see how "faith" (a more enigmatic concept) can be a bit more slippery.

Agreed with you and dawgfan. I think there are significantly fewer people that consider themselves to have faith than simply those who identify with a certain religion. And I also agree that people who simply entertain religion because of a familial tradition are all too common, and I do find it regrettable.

[Drake]

Yup. I prefer the purely theoretical argument, though, without mention of the fact that there might actually be some evidence that this is how things actually work.

I tend to agree, but I've been digging into this material way too deeply of late. The novel I'm working on at the moment deals very closely with these themes and the eruptions of the sacred into the technological multiverse.

Not to mention, I really see the multi-dimensional nature of theoretical String descriptions as the model for networked data storage in the future (i.e. if multiple shadow universes exist, as String theory postulates, it would be fairly easy--at least mathematically--to shunt computation off into an alternate dimension using loaded Shroedinger waveforms to predict calculation results, thus potentially delivering not just instantaneous results, but in theory, results that actually precede the initiation of the computation itself. That is to say that you'd have the results of your script before the script actually ran in the universe you actually inhabit. That should speed up computers a bit. But more importantly, if information is just signal--just ones and zeroes--that data could be structured and stored in Shroedinger "frozen" waveforms for access in any place at any time in this universe provided you have the devices to retrieve it. Of course, a bunch of this is still wildly hypothetical. :) )

[Bubba Wheels]

I tend to agree, but I've been digging into this material way too deeply of late. The novel I'm working on at the moment deals very closely with these themes and the eruptions of the sacred into the technological multiverse.

Not to mention, I really see the multi-dimensional nature of theoretical String descriptions as the model for networked data storage in the future (i.e. if multiple shadow universes exist, as String theory postulates, it would be fairly easy--at least mathematically--to shunt computation off into an alternate dimension using loaded Shroedinger waveforms to predict calculation results, thus potentially delivering not just instantaneous results, but in theory, results that actually precede the initiation of the computation itself. That is to say that you'd have the results of your script before the script actually ran in the universe you actually inhabit. That should speed up computers a bit. But more importantly, if information is just signal--just ones and zeroes--that data could be structured and stored in Shroedinger "frozen" waveforms for access in any place at any time in this universe provided you have the devices to retrieve it. Of course, a bunch of this is still wildly hypothetical. :) )

Yeah, but how does the 'Flux Capacitor" work? :D

[QuikSand]

Not to mention, I really see the multi-dimensional nature of theoretical String descriptions as the model for networked data storage in the future (i.e. if multiple shadow universes exist, as String theory postulates, it would be fairly easy--at least mathematically--to shunt computation off into an alternate dimension using loaded Shroedinger waveforms to predict calculation results, thus potentially delivering not just instantaneous results, but in theory, results that actually precede the initiation of the computation itself. That is to say that you'd have the results of your script before the script actually ran in the universe you actually inhabit. That should speed up computers a bit. But more importantly, if information is just signal--just ones and zeroes--that data could be structured and stored in Shroedinger "frozen" waveforms for access in any place at any time in this universe provided you have the devices to retrieve it.

Drake, if there are any fairly approachable sources that you might be willing to share (links, biblio references, that sort of thing), I'd be very interested in understanding more about your subject here. Sounds really fascinating.

[druez]

Any of you see Event Horizon. Where the Universe would fold to allow travel between two spots. But, when you crossed through that place you went to hell. It was crazy but interesting.

[Drake]

Drake, if there are any fairly approachable sources that you might be willing to share (links, biblio references, that sort of thing), I'd be very interested in understanding more about your subject here. Sounds really fascinating.

Here are some quick solid resources on an introductory level:

http://superstringtheory.com/
-- nice general site for getting the basics down. Has some pretty pictures.

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/elegant/
-- this is a link to the extra material from their nifty episode "The Elegant Universe". If you can track this down on video or something, Brian Greene is brilliant at taking hard material and making it accessible to non-scientists (like me).

http://www.sukidog.com/jpierre/strings/refs.htm
-- A good starting place also, with links to resources around the web.

http://theory.tifr.res.in/~mukhi/Physics/string2.html
-- Solid explanation of basic concepts, accessible to laymen.

For more intense research:

http://xxx.lanl.gov/abs/hep-th/9411028
-- longish

http://www.nuclecu.unam.mx/~alberto/physics/stringrev.html
-- papers, papers, papers


I'm not finding links to some of the more complex research I tracked down. (I tend to search for scientific papers and print them off University web sites, so I don't save the links.) When I get home, I'll take a look at my file folders and see what else I can find.

[fhasumi]

Drake...are you smoking weed or something? That idea sounds WAY messed up...and *pushes up hornrimmed glasses* highly illogical

[fhasumi]

I'm by no means a math/science wiz, but which direction would you point the radar dish in order to send information into that other dimension?

I've done some rough experiments with a pie-tin (washed), paper-clips, alligator clips (red plastic, NOT yellow), my walkman, tape, and an oscillating fan ...but so far the results have been hampered by the fact that my fan only moves from side to side, and not from dimension to dimension.

[druez]

Here are some quick solid resources on an introductory level:

http://superstringtheory.com/
-- nice general site for getting the basics down. Has some pretty pictures.

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/elegant/
-- this is a link to the extra material from their nifty episode "The Elegant Universe". If you can track this down on video or something, Brian Greene is brilliant at taking hard material and making it accessible to non-scientists (like me).

http://www.sukidog.com/jpierre/strings/refs.htm
-- A good starting place also, with links to resources around the web.

http://theory.tifr.res.in/~mukhi/Physics/string2.html
-- Solid explanation of basic concepts, accessible to laymen.

For more intense research:

http://xxx.lanl.gov/abs/hep-th/9411028
-- longish

http://www.nuclecu.unam.mx/~alberto/physics/stringrev.html
-- papers, papers, papers


I'm not finding links to some of the more complex research I tracked down. (I tend to search for scientific papers and print them off University web sites, so I don't save the links.) When I get home, I'll take a look at my file folders and see what else I can find.

That is one of the most intriguing things I've read in a long time. WOW, I didn't understand it all and I'll have to reread a good bit of it. But, that is some powerful stuff.

[sachmo71]

Any of you see Event Horizon. Where the Universe would fold to allow travel between two spots. But, when you crossed through that place you went to hell. It was crazy but interesting.

Yes. Bizzare movie, but I too thought it was interesting.



Here is something that I was thinking about on the way to work, and an I wanted to throw it out and see what everyone thought...

Religion can be used as a justification for racism. Does anyone else think that if some effort were diverted to teaching about other religions as well as your own it could lead to more harmony between the different belief systems of the world?

[fhasumi]

Not so fast, sachmo71. We're talking about dimensions here. Far more interesting than religious stuff :)

[druez]

Yes. Bizzare movie, but I too thought it was interesting.



Here is something that I was thinking about on the way to work, and an I wanted to throw it out and see what everyone thought...

Religion can used as a justification for racism. Does anyone else think that if some effort were diverted to teaching about other religions as well as your own it could lead to more harmony between the different belief systems of the world?

Yes I do, I posted something very similiar to that a while back on another message board. I was crusified for it, but I agree. The way religion is taught now it promotes just another form of racisim or eliteism or some other kind of ism...... :) But, yes I think it would be a great idea to teach people about all the various religions.

Now, where would they be taught it? Good question there. Can't have religion in school. Not sure why not? I mean religion is just another social science, I think it would be a great idea to have a teacher who was well versed on many religions to educated students about all the different paths in life. We both know that would never happen, because religion is based on we are right and everyone else is wrong.... :(

I'm sad to see that the human race will stay on this lower level of development, untill we do away with our petty superstituions....

As Niche said, "i'm paraphrasing here" We will look at ourselves as monkies, as we now look at monkies. As we develop into the uberman or overman what we do now will seem like monkies. If someone wants to paraphrase better they can, but I get his point.

[Drake]

I'm by no means a math/science wiz, but which direction would you point the radar dish in order to send information into that other dimension?

I've done some rough experiments with a pie-tin (washed), paper-clips, alligator clips (red plastic, NOT yellow), my walkman, tape, and an oscillating fan ...but so far the results have been hampered by the fact that my fan only moves from side to side, and not from dimension to dimension.

That's why I write science fiction as opposed to just science. :)

Seriously, the advantage of SF is that I can look at bleeding edge research, make some extrapolations, assume that someone will devise the technological tool to implement the raw science, and then build a plot around it as a given. The actual technical details can be (and probably should be) fuzzed. How this all actually works in the novel is really just background for the important bits. The point is that the whole of human space has become massively virtually networked to such an extent that most people spend their time viewing the world and interacting with people through the internet (which they call simply "the String") rather than living and interacting in their actual physical environments. Virtual life has become more meaningful than physical life...except, of course, for my protagonist, who is an old-school command line network hacker. The religious bits follow accordingly from this mind/body dichotomy. To get the picture of where I'm going, google "the singularity" (in quotes) or "Vernor Vinge".

For the record: in this novel, the technology that makes multiverse waveform storage and access possible was developed by porn consortiums. Porn has done more to advance end-user accessible technology in the last one hundred years than all of the governments, wars and universities put together. (I keed, I keed...maybe.)

For the record #2: My protag lives in a high rise apartment building in the section of his fictional city known as Quiksand. Yes, I stole the name. I needed one and it seemed perfect. I'm horrible at creating names.

But think of it as an homage. ;)

[druez]

drake do you have any books we can read? I read about 2 novels a week. Sci-Fi, or old school Sci-Fi. Like Wheel of Time etc...

Anyway, did you ever read those books by CS Friedman forgot the damn name of the series.

Anyway, this colonoy ship is forced to land on this planet. When it lands there, the laws of Earth don't apply. So Science and Technology starts to fail. Dreams come to live and gods are born based on worship. Magic becomes real. One part of the world decides to believe in the Earths Old One God. And there science works fine. Its most interesting to read. I'll give you the name tonight when I get home, its a 3 part series.

[fhasumi]

Whatever happened to "suspension of disbelief?" I always thought that a good science fiction novel was fiction, yes, but at least plausable enough to allow the reader to think "well, maybe it's possible," and then focus on the real issues of the story.

It also sounds to me like technology is playing the role of the antagonist. In other words, technology itself is a main character in your novel. I certainly hope it's a believable character :)

[fhasumi]

Also...I just thought of this. How do you "store" information into the Schroedinger Equation? That sounds very interesting to me.

You've tickled my intrigue bone.

[sachmo71]

Yes I do, I posted something very similiar to that a while back on another message board. I was crusified for it, but I agree. The way religion is taught now it promotes just another form of racisim or eliteism or some other kind of ism...... :) But, yes I think it would be a great idea to teach people about all the various religions.

Now, where would they be taught it? Good question there. Can't have religion in school. Not sure why not? I mean religion is just another social science, I think it would be a great idea to have a teacher who was well versed on many religions to educated students about all the different paths in life. We both know that would never happen, because religion is based on we are right and everyone else is wrong.... :(

I'm sad to see that the human race will stay on this lower level of development, untill we do away with our petty superstituions....

As Niche said, "i'm paraphrasing here" We will look at ourselves as monkies, as we now look at monkies. As we develop into the uberman or overman what we do now will seem like monkies. If someone wants to paraphrase better they can, but I get his point.

Isn't "we are right and everyone else is wrong" inherent for faith to work? So wouldn't that make it impossible to allow someone of one sect to accept the right of another as human equals?
Most of my thinking was inspired by the situation in the Middle East. The Islamic extremist groups have a religious duty to kill the Jews. The Jews have to defend themselves, and in many areas treat the Islamic groups as subhuman. Will there religious beliefs be an insurmountable obsticle to them ever accepting one another as equals? Does the faith that they devote their lives to make both parties racist in the extreme? Would education about one another as a people help quell the violence, and maybe bring some common sense to the region?

[fhasumi]

"The Islamic groups have a religious duty to kill the Jews."


That's a bit of a stretch, don't you think? That's like saying Christians have a duty to kill abortion doctors.

Just because some extremists use religious justifications for violence doesn't mean that is a fundamental tenet of their faith.

No offense, just pointing out bad logic this morning. You have been warned. :)

[sachmo71]

"The Islamic groups have a religious duty to kill the Jews."


That's a bit of a stretch, don't you think? That's like saying Christians have a duty to kill abortion doctors.

Just because some extremists use religious justifications for violence doesn't mean that is a fundamental tenet of their faith.

No offense, just pointing out bad logic this morning. You have been warned. :)

When using the term "Islamic groups", I was inferring extremist groups. Sorry for not being clear.

[fhasumi]

Thank you for clearing that up.

[Drake]

Whatever happened to "suspension of disbelief?" I always thought that a good science fiction novel was fiction, yes, but at least plausable enough to allow the reader to think "well, maybe it's possible," and then focus on the real issues of the story.

It also sounds to me like technology is playing the role of the antagonist. In other words, technology itself is a main character in your novel. I certainly hope it's a believable character :)

The science *is* (distantly) plausible, but I choose not to dwell on the technical details. It's a novel, not a technical manual. Hell, it's a great deal more plausible than FTL travel, but writers get away with that one all the time.

I didn't intend to play up the technology as antagonist angle so much. It's an antagonist to the same extent that the moor in Wuthering Heights can be said to be an antagonist...which is to say, not really at all, but it is essential to understanding the motivations that drive some of the characters. The cultural, political and technological environment is important in SF, and how you draw those lines helps to say meaningful things about the human condition or the theme you're working with, but the environment itself doesn't really qualify as a character.

Hope that clarifies for you a bit.

[revrew]

Isn't "we are right and everyone else is wrong" inherent for faith to work? So wouldn't that make it impossible to allow someone of one sect to accept the right of another as human equals?


The answer to your first question is no. There are universalist faiths, relativist faiths, and faiths of various sundry names that take up the position that "all paths lead to God."

Now, the Jewish, Muslim, and Christian faiths do imply possession of the truth and other forms of worship as either distortions or absence of truth. I will speak only of Christianity, where the god-figure said, "no one comes to the Father (i.e. salvation, eternal life, paradise, heaven, the truth, etc.) but by me." Thus the notion that there is only one Truth is inherent in the Christian faith.

HOWEVER, this does not naturally lead to the second question or conclusion. The Christian faith also teaches us to "consider others BETTER than yourselves;" "this is my command, that you LOVE one another;" "no greater love has a man, than he lay down his life," etc.

Some could say, "But these teachings are only for how Christians treat one another." I suppose that's a valid textual interpretation, but to then conclude Christians have permission to treat others like crap, as inferior, in condescention, etc. doesn't jive with with other key teachings, namely "You're attitude should be the same as Christ..." "....God is love..." "...who humbled himself and made himself a servant."

In fact, the idea that Christians are being transformed into the character of God is foundational to the teaching. And there are only a very few passages that say point blank what God IS:

"I am...what I am"
"I am...the way, the truth, and the life."
"The Word was God." (complex theology, but I include it here just to try to fairly list all the instances I can think of)
"God is...love."

It is entirely possible, even commanded, for the people of faith to know the one Truth and still hold others in equal or even greater regard.

[Drake]

drake do you have any books we can read? I read about 2 novels a week. Sci-Fi, or old school Sci-Fi. Like Wheel of Time etc...

Anyway, did you ever read those books by CS Friedman forgot the damn name of the series.

Anyway, this colonoy ship is forced to land on this planet. When it lands there, the laws of Earth don't apply. So Science and Technology starts to fail. Dreams come to live and gods are born based on worship. Magic becomes real. One part of the world decides to believe in the Earths Old One God. And there science works fine. Its most interesting to read. I'll give you the name tonight when I get home, its a 3 part series.

You can find out about my novel via my website: www.darrenrhawkins.com (or, you could click the link in my sig to go straight to my publisher's website...)

Re: CS Friedman - Are you thinking of The Coldfire Trilogy? I haven't read it, but I've had it recommended to me a few times. May have to check that out.

[nfg22]

I tend to agree, but I've been digging into this material way too deeply of late. The novel I'm working on at the moment deals very closely with these themes and the eruptions of the sacred into the technological multiverse.

Not to mention, I really see the multi-dimensional nature of theoretical String descriptions as the model for networked data storage in the future (i.e. if multiple shadow universes exist, as String theory postulates, it would be fairly easy--at least mathematically--to shunt computation off into an alternate dimension using loaded Shroedinger waveforms to predict calculation results, thus potentially delivering not just instantaneous results, but in theory, results that actually precede the initiation of the computation itself. That is to say that you'd have the results of your script before the script actually ran in the universe you actually inhabit. That should speed up computers a bit. But more importantly, if information is just signal--just ones and zeroes--that data could be structured and stored in Shroedinger "frozen" waveforms for access in any place at any time in this universe provided you have the devices to retrieve it. Of course, a bunch of this is still wildly hypothetical. :) )


While I used to beleive this Theory although not all that together. Most of what you just said was made up in a book. The book is called Timeline by Micheal Crichton. The whole storing computer data in frozen waves is obsurd if you think about it scientifically. Also The deal with the infinite universes then Acually finding a way to defy the laws of this universe and getting there instatanously is going to be impossible.

Not an expert in this field but this is my opinion.

[wig]

"gravitons"

:(

[sachmo71]

Thanks Rev. Looks like Christians are off the hook.

[nfg22]

"gravitons"

:(

Yes I am sure they would work in real life and Micheal never said anything because he didnt want to be in the world spotlight.

[druez]

Thanks Rev. Looks like Christians are off the hook.

The bible is all about interpritation...

Anyway, while based on what Rev says. You should love your fellow heathens, you are still condeming them to hell because they don't accept your beliefs are you not?

Any religion based on love "CAN NOT HAVE THE END RESULT BE HELL/DAMNATION IF YOU CHOOSE NOT TO BELIEVE" that is 100% completely contradictory.....

[Drake]

While I used to beleive this Theory although not all that together. Most of what you just said was made up in a book. The book is called Timeline by Micheal Crichton. The whole storing computer data in frozen waves is obsurd if you think about it scientifically. Also The deal with the infinite universes then Acually finding a way to defy the laws of this universe and getting there instatanously is going to be impossible.

Not an expert in this field but this is my opinion.

I haven't read Timeline. Maybe I should check it out.

Sure, storing data in waveforms doesn't make any sense. I've always been suspicious of those fiber optic cables that govern my T1 connection to the internet. In fact, I've pretty much decided that the line is likely full of little demons passing the packets back and forth. I knew computers were evil.

;)

[Bubba Wheels]

The bible is all about interpritation...

Anyway, while based on what Rev says. You should love your fellow heathens, you are still condeming them to hell because they don't accept your beliefs are you not?

Any religion based on love "CAN NOT HAVE THE END RESULT BE HELL/DAMNATION IF YOU CHOOSE NOT TO BELIEVE" that is 100% completely contradictory.....

The Bible interprets itself, you can take any ONE word (such as Truth) in the Bible and do an entire and complete study on it (hint: it always comes back to GOD being the eternal source for everything.)

To answer the second part, since it was brought up, a Loving and JUST God MUST judge sin and punish it, else there is NO accountability and no JUST God who DID love people would ever allow that. But even though GOD in His loving Mercy DID make a way out for ALL of us to avoid the consequences of our sins, that is the part you (as most) seem to have the most problem with. (Which just proves again, your real problem is with GOD, not me!) ;)

[revrew]

The bible is all about interpritation...

Anyway, while based on what Rev says. You should love your fellow heathens, you are still condeming them to hell because they don't accept your beliefs are you not?

Any religion based on love "CAN NOT HAVE THE END RESULT BE HELL/DAMNATION IF YOU CHOOSE NOT TO BELIEVE" that is 100% completely contradictory.....

Point A: I don't condemn to hell, people choose it.

Point B: I would ammend the capped and boldened section to say the following: Any all-powerful God of love CAN NOT ALLOW THOSE HE LOVES TO BE MURDERED, RAPED, AND TERRORIZED WITHOUT SERIOUS CONSEQUENCES...that is 100% completely contradictory. Those consequences are hell, the kind of place Hitler, Stalin, Idi Amin...and I...deserve.

Beyond that, the docrtine of hell is not an easy pill for anyone (even me) to swallow. I too wish God would just make a public appearance every couple of years, smash some mountains up and raise some dead people to prove he was God and not some nut, and then everyone could believe and we all could be saved. Except he did that already (with the Israelites of the Old Test.), and they still rejected him. They thought the gods of the harvest and the gods of sex were a lot more fun than this one, holy God guy. But back to the hell question...I consider it a mystery, yet I "make sense" of the mystery this way: there are those that chose/choose/will chose (to God, time is irrelevant) Him, and those that will choose hell. If he snuffed out the world right now, he'd be condemning some of those that WOULD choose Him to hell because he didn't wait for them to be born. Now how loving would that be?

The opposite of love is not hell. The opposite of love is apathy toward those who have suffered and been slaughtered.

[nfg22]

Point A: I don't condemn to hell, people choose it.

Point B: I would ammend the capped and boldened section to say the following: Any all-powerful God of love CAN NOT ALLOW THOSE HE LOVES TO BE MURDERED, RAPED, AND TERRORIZED WITHOUT SERIOUS CONSEQUENCES...that is 100% completely contradictory. Those consequences are hell, the kind of place Hitler, Stalin, Idi Amin...and I...deserve.

Beyond that, the docrtine of hell is not an easy pill for anyone (even me) to swallow. I too wish God would just make a public appearance every couple of years, smash some mountains up and raise some dead people to prove he was God and not some nut, and then everyone could believe and we all could be saved. Except he did that already (with the Israelites of the Old Test.), and they still rejected him. They thought the gods of the harvest and the gods of sex were a lot more fun than this one, holy God guy. But back to the hell question...I consider it a mystery, yet I "make sense" of the mystery this way: there are those that chose/choose/will chose (to God, time is irrelevant) Him, and those that will choose hell. If he snuffed out the world right now, he'd be condemning some of those that WOULD choose Him to hell because he didn't wait for them to be born. Now how loving would that be?

The opposite of love is not hell. The opposite of love is apathy toward those who have suffered and been slaughtered.



But why would a God that is all just and loving allow suffering and evil? If satan causes so much trouble why cant God simply kill him?

[nfg22]

But why would a God that is all just and loving allow suffering and evil? If satan causes so much trouble why cant God simply kill him?

You idiot NFG22 you are making me mad :p . If there was no evil then our freedom of choice would be between good and good. So in essence there must be evil, which brings about sin, which brings about suffering.

[sachmo71]

Did you just quote yourself, AND call yourself an idiot? Are you part of the Holy Trinity?

Whooo...holy ghost! Oooooo!

[AENeuman]

The way religion is taught now it promotes just another form of racisim or eliteism or some other kind of ism...... :) But, yes I think it would be a great idea to teach people about all the various religions.

Now, where would they be taught it? Good question there. Can't have religion in school. Not sure why not? I mean religion is just another social science, I think it would be a great idea to have a teacher who was well versed on many religions to educated students about all the different paths in life. We both know that would never happen, because religion is based on we are right and everyone else is wrong.

Oh wise one: If "religion is taught" so that it promotes racism, how then can you ask, "where would it be taught?" Are you saying that religious institutions are teaching racism? I would hate for you to be as fundamental in your assessment of religion as you claim religion is fundamental in their assessment of the non-religious. It is absurd, even vulgar, that all religions teach racism. If anything, your scope in judging all religions and all religious people cannot be complete. Just one example, the Vatican II said that the Holy Spirit is not confined to the Church, moreover infinite grace, is just that. The Church has no say in denying what and where the Holy Spirit does its thing, so neither should we.
Also, religions are taught in school. I just helped a friend put together her lesson plan for her unit on Islam for middle school kids. This unit is part of a larger world religion one that is mandated from the state.

[druez]

You idiot NFG22 you are making me mad :p . If there was no evil then our freedom of choice would be between good and good. So in essence there must be evil, which brings about sin, which brings about suffering.

NFG revision 2.

So you are saying that the only choices we get to make in life are between good and evil.... Not if I want vanilla or chochlate or I like redheads or blonds?

You still have a ton of indpendent will and descisions to be made even without a choice between good and evil.

Doesn't =

[druez]

Oh wise one: If "religion is taught" so that it promotes racism, how then can you ask, "where would it be taught?" Are you saying that religious institutions are teaching racism? I would hate for you to be as fundamental in your assessment of religion as you claim religion is fundamental in their assessment of the non-religious. It is absurd, even vulgar, that all religions teach racism. If anything, your scope in judging all religions and all religious people cannot be complete. Just one example, the Vatican II said that the Holy Spirit is not confined to the Church, moreover infinite grace, is just that. The Church has no say in denying what and where the Holy Spirit does its thing, so neither should we.
Also, religions are taught in school. I just helped a friend put together her lesson plan for her unit on Islam for middle school kids. This unit is part of a larger world religion one that is mandated from the state.

It wasn't taught in the 80's and 90's in NJ where I grew up.

Anyway, the fundemental teachings of christianity are you except Jesus Christ as your savior or you goto hell. Its pretty cut and dry. Those that don't are not in gods grace and goto hell. The catholic religion doesn't allow female priests, hmm seems sexist to me.

[nfg22]

NFG revision 2.

So you are saying that the only choices we get to make in life are between good and evil.... Not if I want vanilla or chochlate or I like redheads or blonds?

You still have a ton of indpendent will and descisions to be made even without a choice between good and evil.

Doesn't =

Yes but this thread isnt discussing the freedon of choice for ice cream? It is duscussing Jesus. Also I was referring to why an all loving God would let evil be around. God made us so we can make the choice between Him and all that isnt Just and wholesome.

[AENeuman]

druez, because religion was not taught to you, it must not have been taught.... because some christians are fundamental racist, it must be racist... because the Vatican does not allow women priest, Catholics must be sexist.
I'm not sure you understand stand my meaning of grace. you make it seem that grace is conditional, which if it was it would no longer be called grace.
I would agree with you that if Chirstians believe in Jesus in order to prevent themselves from going to hell or to get into heaven then their beliefs are worthy of your vennom. Again, the concept of grace is what gets one into heaven, whatever that may be. You seem to have a great dislike for the institutions, and their versions of God. Seems to me you could believe in God that does not contain any of those things that you dislike, racism, sexism, etc..

[druez]

druez, because religion was not taught to you, it must not have been taught.... because some christians are fundamental racist, it must be racist... because the Vatican does not allow women priest, Catholics must be sexist.
I'm not sure you understand stand my meaning of grace. you make it seem that grace is conditional, which if it was it would no longer be called grace.
I would agree with you that if Chirstians believe in Jesus in order to prevent themselves from going to hell or to get into heaven then their beliefs are worthy of your vennom. Again, the concept of grace is what gets one into heaven, whatever that may be. You seem to have a great dislike for the institutions, and their versions of God. Seems to me you could believe in God that does not contain any of those things that you dislike, racism, sexism, etc..


You must be new to this thread. I went into my beliefs about 5 pages ago "hehe" :). Anyway, yes I don't have a problem with "God" or the constant as I call it. I have a problem with the various religions. I do believe in a higher power and I do believe its a personal relationship. I don't think you need to live by the rulebooks put down by the various faiths. Everyone knows the rules inside themselves...

[nfg22]

You must be new to this thread. I went into my beliefs about 5 pages ago "hehe" :). Anyway, yes I don't have a problem with "God" or the constant as I call it. I have a problem with the various religions. I do believe in a higher power and I do believe its a personal relationship. I don't think you need to live by the rulebooks put down by the various faiths. Everyone knows the rules inside themselves...

Well you are right but the thing is think of it this way.

Do you believe that God is all knowing? and omnipresent?omnicent?

Well if you do then why would He let people be mislead by some book they say is from Him yet He isnt in it? I believe the Bible while written by man has many things that are Godly and we should loive according to what Jesus said. I dont always live that way but I should.

[AENeuman]

druez, as christopher walken said in "search and destroy": i'm enchanted with your optimism. while i think everyone may "know the rules inside themselves" that does not mean that we should be lawless. i fully see your point on dogma. i hate to think that we have to be threatened to do good, whether it's jail, hell, pain, etc.. this is a great tension, one may even say it's due to sin. but whatever it is i think if one looks at religion as being a source of inspiration and fulfillment, then without the focus on the threats and promises religion can be a good thing.

[fhasumi]

Sure, storing data in waveforms doesn't make any sense. I've always been suspicious of those fiber optic cables that govern my T1 connection to the internet. In fact, I've pretty much decided that the line is likely full of little demons passing the packets back and forth. I knew computers were evil.


Here's a link for your edification :)

http://electronics.howstuffworks.com/fiber-optic.htm

During my nap another question popped into my mind. How do you "store" information into an equation? It's an interesting concept. As a test, this morning I sat down with pen and paper and tried to store some tax-related information into the equation y = mx + b but to no avail. :(

Can you help me out? You don't have to explain it completely to me (I probably won't understand it anyways), just give me the fuzzy answer :)

[Schmidty]

This thread is like an "Idiot's Guide to Christianity" written by a dyslexic chimpanzee.

In honor of this thread, I'm going to start my own where I take all of your questions on quantum physics and my theories on dark matter.

[fhasumi]

That would be sweet! If you start it, I'll start the questions.

[rexallllsc]

You idiot NFG22 you are making me mad :p . If there was no evil then our freedom of choice would be between good and good. So in essence there must be evil, which brings about sin, which brings about suffering.

If God knows all, then there is no freedom of choice. Our choices have already been made. And if God will send me to hell for not accepting him...well, that just flat out doesn't make sense, because he created every part of my, including my brain, and within that, my thought structure.

When you really get down to it, it just doesn't make sense.

[tucker342]

no kidding...:D

If you break down any ideology, it won't make since...

religions especially

[Cuckoo]

no kidding...:D

If you break down any ideology, it won't make since...

religions especially

Are you trying to say it won't make sense? I really wish people would just admit that they don't know as much as they'd like to about a particular subject or religion instead of simply dismissing it outright as not making sense. That doesn't make any sense.

[fhasumi]

I'm still confused about the whole "storing information in an equation" and "sending information into another dimension"

Don't even think of asking me about religion. :)

[nfg22]

If God knows all, then there is no freedom of choice. Our choices have already been made. And if God will send me to hell for not accepting him...well, that just flat out doesn't make sense, because he created every part of my, including my brain, and within that, my thought structure.

When you really get down to it, it just doesn't make sense.
1. If God created you with the freedom of choice and you made the wrong choice then it is his fault? You chose the wrong thing. If he created you to make the right choice and only the right choice then you wouldnt really have that freedom would you. Now this doesnt negate your argument all the way but Im sure it all works out to where you are treated justly. because He is a just God.

2. God doesnt send you to hell for not accepting him. You go to hell because of seperation from God because he cannot be with sin. So when you accept His grace through His Son, then you can be with him because sin doesnt seperate you.

[nfg22]

This thread is like an "Idiot's Guide to Christianity" written by a dyslexic chimpanzee.

In honor of this thread, I'm going to start my own where I take all of your questions on quantum physics and my theories on dark matter.


Thanks for the input. Tell me where this thread went wrong and how you would fix it oh "great one"

[Schmidty]

Thanks for the input. Tell me where this thread went wrong and how you would fix it oh "great one"

Where do you want me to start???

Actually, I'm not going to. My advice is this: Plant seeds. Don't try to explain things which you don't fully understand.

[nfg22]

Where do you want me to start???

Actually, I'm not going to. My advice is this: Plant seeds. Don't try to explain things which you don't fully understand.

I dont fully understand everything but I do understand the thing that matters most. So i feel trhis thread helped alot more than it hurt. So start where you will.

[druez]

I liked the thread.

[Cuckoo]

I think both nfg and revrew have done a very fine job here. Keep it up guys. There are people out there who have legitimate questions, and you guys have a broad enough knowledge base to answer many of them.

[wig]

All this topic did for me was make me realize that religion is even more rediculous than I first thought.

[druez]

Wig, while I do agree with you for the most part. You could phrase it in a different way. I mean Bubba Wheels is a bit over the top. But Revrew, is a good example of a person who has faith but isn't condemning others IMO. But, I'm pretty much with you that Religion is pretty wacked in general.

[wig]

the topic leaders did a good job of answering questions and explaining. It's just the material they have to work with that's rediculous.

[Marc Vaughan]

If God knows all, then there is no freedom of choice. Our choices have already been made. And if God will send me to hell for not accepting him...well, that just flat out doesn't make sense, because he created every part of my, including my brain, and within that, my thought structure.

I covered this a little earlier on in either this thread ... here's a copy and paste:

* God knows the past, present and future of everything.
* God gives people free will, at this point he knows all of the possible past, present and futures that can occur - but individual free wills are as yet undetermined (in fact in my theory all possibilities happen as this removes any restrictions on Gods omnipotence, your free will is actually determining which of an infine number of realities which you are in - yeah I know this has gone a tad surreal now).

Bear in mind this is my personal interpretation of things and is most likely rubbish - but it makes sense to me :D

PS. There was a very bad CM based anology regarding this in my post earlier in this thread - read it at your peril ;)

[revrew]

I'm going to go out on a limb here...
wig says the "material we have to work with" is ridiculous. I agree. The word ridiculous (quotes here mean I have my dictionary open on my lap) means "inspiring ridicule, absurd, preposterous." If it inspires ridicule, ridicule means "contemptuous laughter at or feelings toward a person or thing."

In my experience, my views, even especially on this board, are often met with "contemptous laughter" for being seen as "absurd." Cuckoo and nfgs affirmations aside, I could easily be left to wonder: why do people feel the need to laugh at, scorn, even "ridicule" these beliefs? Why is so much effort and energy poured into discrediting these beliefs as illogical? Why the widespread contempt for this particular set of beliefs? (Now, granted, with terrorism on the rise, Muslims get a lot of contempt as well, and with all the door-knocking, Jehovah Witnesses and Mormons get a fair share, too--but there is an odd correlation between Christianity and ridicule. Why?)

Rather than "quoting myself" (cute trick, nfg), I'll just answer my own question. The notion of an all-powerful God that is purely love and justice and goodness is absurd. Ever met anything or anyone else, ever, that fit that description? History's religions are filled with (as druez pointed out) jealous, angry, petty, selfish gods.

And then this God, rather than wiping out evil, decides to try to redeem it? That's ridiculous! Why not just wipe it out and start over? Why not just make it perfect? Sure, Christian, you give me this crap about God loving me too much to just wipe me out, but what is there about me that's so lovely this good God would allow many to suffer and die just so I had a shot? Bump me off, too, and be done with selfish humanity! It is ridiculous.

And then, this God comes as a gentle, suffering servant?? Who could believe that? Why not rock some mountains, speak in a voice heard round the world, COMPEL people to believe in him? To honor our free will and to establish a faith (that is not faith if so easily achieved)? What's the point of that? If you're God, just tell us! It is ridiculous.

*It's ridiculous precisely because when Jesus said, "The kingdom of God is at hand," he was referring to (among other things) a completely different view of reality. A worldview that accepts "I am the Truth" over "I can see the truth with my own two eyes." A worldview based on faith, trust, and invisible over the empirically provable. A worldview that says the greatest inevitable force in the universe is not death, but love.

If we judge Christianity by the human worldview it will always be absurd. Jesus didn't come to fulfill what would make sense to every human, but to give a new sense, a new worldview, a preposterous worldview based on a whole other set of truths.

It's like the Matrix. Judge it by what you see inside the Matrix, and this stuff about humans as batteries and mind-controlling machines is ridiculous. Who could believe that? But Jesus--the only man to live, die, then come back again (and he did it without a telephone line!)--says, "I've got two pills. Take one, and go back to your life inside your worldview. Take the other, and I show you just how deep the rabbit hole goes."

Maybe some of you do think I'm crazy, ridiculous. I can understand why. But I'll tell you this simply: "I'm talking to you from inside the rabbit hole."

[SplitPersonality1]

Maybe some of you do think I'm crazy, ridiculous. I can understand why. But I'll tell you this simply: "I'm talking to you from inside the rabbit hole."

Good stuff rev.

[Bonegavel]

--snip for brevity--
In my experience, my views, even especially on this board, are often met with "contemptous laughter" for being seen as "absurd." Cuckoo and nfgs affirmations aside, I could easily be left to wonder: why do people feel the need to laugh at, scorn, even "ridicule" these beliefs? Why is so much effort and energy poured into discrediting these beliefs as illogical? Why the widespread contempt for this particular set of beliefs? (Now, granted, with terrorism on the rise, Muslims get a lot of contempt as well, and with all the door-knocking, Jehovah Witnesses and Mormons get a fair share, too--but there is an odd correlation between Christianity and ridicule. Why?)
--snip for brevity--
Personally, I believe that whatever conclusion a person has come to in regards to this matter (soul, religion, etc) is great. Each one of us has to find his own answers and because it is something that can't be proven (like Valve software had the source code to Half-Life 2 stolen) it is a matter of personal belief.

A person that doesn't believe in the God of the bible, can't prove he doesn't exist, just like a christian can't prove that god exists. There isn't a formula like the one Homer created in the Simpson's (the episode where he had the crayon removed from his brain) that proves god doesn't exist. It just can't be done.

Had this discussion occured 15 years ago, my view point would have been completely the opposite. My road has been long and arduous, yet always thought-induced process. I don't take this stuff lightly because, frankly, my SOUL may depend on it.

The people laughing are flat out wrong to do so. That is elitism. "Ooh, i'm so smart because i don't believe in God and here is why... and you are such an idiot for believing in God and here is why..." Since it can't be proved either way (only speculation and theory) it is only an elitist that would look down upon another's religious belief (or lack thereof).

My mother is deeply religious and we discus this sort of stuff all the time. I don't ever mock my mother for her views. In fact, I'm rather jealous of her for being so convinced while I have lost my way. Especially after growing up going to church 4-5 times a week.

keep on keeping on revrew.

[druez]

I'm going to go out on a limb here...
wig says the "material we have to work with" is ridiculous. I agree. The word ridiculous (quotes here mean I have my dictionary open on my lap) means "inspiring ridicule, absurd, preposterous." If it inspires ridicule, ridicule means "contemptuous laughter at or feelings toward a person or thing."

In my experience, my views, even especially on this board, are often met with "contemptous laughter" for being seen as "absurd." Cuckoo and nfgs affirmations aside, I could easily be left to wonder: why do people feel the need to laugh at, scorn, even "ridicule" these beliefs? Why is so much effort and energy poured into discrediting these beliefs as illogical? Why the widespread contempt for this particular set of beliefs? (Now, granted, with terrorism on the rise, Muslims get a lot of contempt as well, and with all the door-knocking, Jehovah Witnesses and Mormons get a fair share, too--but there is an odd correlation between Christianity and ridicule. Why?)

Rather than "quoting myself" (cute trick, nfg), I'll just answer my own question. The notion of an all-powerful God that is purely love and justice and goodness is absurd. Ever met anything or anyone else, ever, that fit that description? History's religions are filled with (as druez pointed out) jealous, angry, petty, selfish gods.

And then this God, rather than wiping out evil, decides to try to redeem it? That's ridiculous! Why not just wipe it out and start over? Why not just make it perfect? Sure, Christian, you give me this crap about God loving me too much to just wipe me out, but what is there about me that's so lovely this good God would allow many to suffer and die just so I had a shot? Bump me off, too, and be done with selfish humanity! It is ridiculous.

And then, this God comes as a gentle, suffering servant?? Who could believe that? Why not rock some mountains, speak in a voice heard round the world, COMPEL people to believe in him? To honor our free will and to establish a faith (that is not faith if so easily achieved)? What's the point of that? If you're God, just tell us! It is ridiculous.

*It's ridiculous precisely because when Jesus said, "The kingdom of God is at hand," he was referring to (among other things) a completely different view of reality. A worldview that accepts "I am the Truth" over "I can see the truth with my own two eyes." A worldview based on faith, trust, and invisible over the empirically provable. A worldview that says the greatest inevitable force in the universe is not death, but love.

If we judge Christianity by the human worldview it will always be absurd. Jesus didn't come to fulfill what would make sense to every human, but to give a new sense, a new worldview, a preposterous worldview based on a whole other set of truths.

It's like the Matrix. Judge it by what you see inside the Matrix, and this stuff about humans as batteries and mind-controlling machines is ridiculous. Who could believe that? But Jesus--the only man to live, die, then come back again (and he did it without a telephone line!)--says, "I've got two pills. Take one, and go back to your life inside your worldview. Take the other, and I show you just how deep the rabbit hole goes."

Maybe some of you do think I'm crazy, ridiculous. I can understand why. But I'll tell you this simply: "I'm talking to you from inside the rabbit hole."

I've enjoyed my conversation with you. I think everyone has a right to believe what they wish, its a personal relationship. My beef isn't with god or christians or muslims etc.... its with those who condemn me for having a different belief. I never got that feeling from you or Ng. Now bubba.... Anyway, good stuff and keep the faith!

[rexallllsc]

1. If God created you with the freedom of choice and you made the wrong choice then it is his fault? You chose the wrong thing. If he created you to make the right choice and only the right choice then you wouldnt really have that freedom would you. Now this doesnt negate your argument all the way but Im sure it all works out to where you are treated justly. because He is a just God.

LOL. But he created me, which means he created everything about me. Including my thought process. I thought God was perfect...wouldn't this mean he created something imperfect?

[nfg22]

LOL. But he created me, which means he created everything about me. Including my thought process. I thought God was perfect...wouldn't this mean he created something imperfect?



I guess it would mean that because we arent perfect. All I know is it isnt God's fault we sin. And He isnt sending you to hell because you wont believe in Him. He send people to hell because He cannot be with their sin which could be washed away by faith in His Son.


I was thinking of writing a FAQ about Christianity, Although it has already been done somewhat I would like to do one.

If you are looking for a good Non-Biased read on Christianity read the Case for Christ and the Case for Faith. The books were written by a hard nosed reporter that Thought his wife was wrong in what she believed and went out to find the truth.

[rexallllsc]

I guess it would mean that because we arent perfect. All I know is it isnt God's fault we sin. And He isnt sending you to hell because you wont believe in Him. He send people to hell because He cannot be with their sin which could be washed away by faith in His Son.


I was thinking of writing a FAQ about Christianity, Although it has already been done somewhat I would like to do one.

If you are looking for a good Non-Biased read on Christianity read the Case for Christ and the Case for Faith. The books were written by a hard nosed reporter that Thought his wife was wrong in what she believed and went out to find the truth.

Nah, that's cool. I went to Christian school for 13 years, and no one has been able to successfully convince me of anything.

Although I'm not saying there's no God...as there's a lot about our existance that we don't know anything about...but the God in the Christian Bible is hard for me to believe. He's perfect...but what he makes isn't. He sent his "son" (man-made characteristic if there ever was one) to die for us...and if you don't believe it (because humans by nature are curious, and don't just believe things they're told for no reason), you're going to hell!

It's not my fault God made my brain this way...I really can't help it.

[rexallllsc]

Sidenote: Why would a loving God allow so many wars to be fought over his name?

[AENeuman]

revrew, i'm writing a paper right now on tertullian's quote, "because it is absurd i believe" it's heavy stuff cuz it's getting into metaphysics, but still a blast (if your like me and like this stuff). what i like about the quote is that it shows the brilliance in simplicity and paradox; two things that this thread has struggled with.
most recent quote i came across from tert. was : heresies sprout from a grain of truth

[Buccaneer]

Sidenote: Why would a loving God allow so many wars to be fought over his name?
How else would we know the difference between good and evil? Most of what humankind has throughout history has been motivated by sin.

[MJ4H]

revrew and BoneGavel. Two outstanding posts.

revrew, the way you have answered some questions in this thread and explained some concepts that I would have a difficult time explaining is very highly commendable. I am very impressed and thought I should send a long a note of appreciation. Good job.

[nfg22]

Nah, that's cool. I went to Christian school for 13 years, and no one has been able to successfully convince me of anything.

Although I'm not saying there's no God...as there's a lot about our existance that we don't know anything about...but the God in the Christian Bible is hard for me to believe. He's perfect...but what he makes isn't. He sent his "son" (man-made characteristic if there ever was one) to die for us...and if you don't believe it (because humans by nature are curious, and don't just believe things they're told for no reason), you're going to hell!

It's not my fault God made my brain this way...I really can't help it.


Again your not going to hell for your lack of faith, you go to hell because of your sins that separate you from God. The faith that could save you shows God's love.

[nfg22]

Sidenote: Why would a loving God allow so many wars to be fought over his name?



If God stopped all evil then there would be all good and we wouldnt have the choice between the two.

[rexallllsc]

How else would we know the difference between good and evil? Most of what humankind has throughout history has been motivated by sin.

If I'm reading this correctly, God is making his point by having millions killed?

[rexallllsc]

If God stopped all evil then there would be all good and we wouldnt have the choice between the two.

LOL. This is getting comical. Do you're saying wars are good?

[rexallllsc]

Again your not going to hell for your lack of faith, you go to hell because of your sins that separate you from God. The faith that could save you shows God's love.

But the brain that God created for me doesn't allow me to "have faith"...it makes me question things. If someone told me that I'd have $1,000,000 by tomorrow...I wouldn't believe him. Now, that doesn't mean I wont have the $, but I can't just have blind faith in things because something might be true.

[nfg22]

LOL. This is getting comical. Do you're saying wars are good?
No im saying if God didnt allow evil things then only good would be left. So you couldnt choose to be corrupt and stray from God, because all that would be there is good. Now the reason we are here is to have freedom of choice. You cant have that freedom if you dont have a choice.

[rexallllsc]

No im saying if God didnt allow evil things then only good would be left. So you couldnt choose to be corrupt and stray from God, because all that would be there is good. Now the reason we are here is to have freedom of choice. You cant have that freedom if you dont have a choice.

So God is letting us have the choice, then damning you for making the choice. Sweeeeet.

[nfg22]

But the brain that God created for me doesn't allow me to "have faith"...it makes me question things. If someone told me that I'd have $1,000,000 by tomorrow...I wouldn't believe him. Now, that doesn't mean I wont have the $, but I can't just have blind faith in things because something might be true.

So it was God's fault that you chose not top follow Him? The facts are laid out and the choice is here. Beleive what you like and when you die you can complain to God.

[nfg22]

So God is letting us have the choice, then damning you for making the choice. Sweeeeet.


Wow...the 40th time typing this. God isnt sending you to hell for rejecting Him. It is the principle that you cant be with him because He is completely Just and cannot be with sin.

[Buccaneer]

rexall: Wars are what sinful man have done, still do and will continue to do to "solve issues". The only way there could be no more wars is to have no more sin. God is not a puppeteer, He gave us free will to choose. Some have chosen the most powerful weapon - prayer, while most others have not not.

"If my people shall confess their sins and turn from their wicked ways, I will heal your land"

[rexallllsc]

So it was God's fault that you chose not top follow Him? The facts are laid out and the choice is here. Beleive what you like and when you die you can complain to God.

Facts? Please show me one fact that proves that God exists. I personally don't know if he does or doesn't...but please let's get one thing clear: NO ONE KNOWS FOR CERTAIN.

[nfg22]

Facts? Please show me one fact that proves that God exists. I personally don't know if he does or doesn't...but please let's get one thing clear: NO ONE KNOWS FOR CERTAIN.



Maybe fallacy to you but you have seen what I have typed and when the time comes you will see.

[rexallllsc]

Maybe fallacy to you but you have seen what I have typed and when the time comes you will see.

Saying I see it as a "fallacy" says that I'm saying it's not true...when I don't know if it's true or not. I can't believe in it because I don't have any information that would lead me to make a decision, one way or another.

[Bubba Wheels]

Wig, while I do agree with you for the most part. You could phrase it in a different way. I mean Bubba Wheels is a bit over the top. But Revrew, is a good example of a person who has faith but isn't condemning others IMO. But, I'm pretty much with you that Religion is pretty wacked in general.

Ha! Where have I 'condemed' anyone? I think that stating the direct position on anything using the Bible as the source is just going to make alot of people mad. If someone else is able to appeal more to your 'sensibilities' than I do, great! But your statement kind of speaks for itself, in that while someone like the others are easier for you to listen to you will still reject the message. And again, my point is not to attempt 'conversion' of anyone, just stating 'the facts, maam,' as the Bible lays them out. There is your real problem. :)

[Bubba Wheels]

I've enjoyed my conversation with you. I think everyone has a right to believe what they wish, its a personal relationship. My beef isn't with god or christians or muslims etc.... its with those who condemn me for having a different belief. I never got that feeling from you or Ng. Now bubba.... Anyway, good stuff and keep the faith!

Again, where have I condemed you? But if I quote the Bible and you feel condemed, well maybe you SHOULD consider the source! :)

[revrew]

revrew, i'm writing a paper right now on tertullian's quote, "because it is absurd i believe" it's heavy stuff cuz it's getting into metaphysics, but still a blast (if your like me and like this stuff). what i like about the quote is that it shows the brilliance in simplicity and paradox; two things that this thread has struggled with.
most recent quote i came across from tert. was : heresies sprout from a grain of truth

Freaky coincidence. Of course, one of my favorite stories is of a man with severely disabling ALS who went on the Oprah show. He couldn't speak any more, but his wife "just happened" to be a speech therapist. She worked daily with people with severe speech impediments, and she was therefore able to understand her husband as his voice turned to garbled mush. On the show, the wife translated her husband's garblings to the audience.

"What an amazing coincidence," Oprah said, "that you're in such a position to understand your husband.

The husband mumbled something. "He says," said the wife, "'A coincidence is nothing but a small miracle in which God opts to remain anonymous.'"

I love it. Anyways, metaphysics coincidences and "so absurd I believe" coincidences have been fun to watch in this thread. But this thread sort of reminds me of another Tertullian quote: "What has Athens to do with Jerusalem?"

[Marc Vaughan]

If I'm reading this correctly, God is making his point by having millions killed?
The theory is that God doesn't cause any wars to happen or sin to be done, howeveer by giving humans free will they are able to commit both awful atrocities but amazing acts of compassion and kindness ....

God could prevent all wars, but by doing so that would remove humans free-will ....

Time for a bad analogy:

I write evolutionary AI for my games, this learns and adapts as the game operates (which is why people moan that their tactics get 'cracked' in CM) - sometimes the AI does things I'd wrongly and has to make mistakes before learning to succeed - however this doesn't mean that I should purely restrict it to doing the 'right' thing at all times, this would make the engine inflexible and less able in the long run.

I believe humanity is similar to this, we do great harm and can cause devastating damage both to ourselves and the planet we live on, however I believe we (as a species) are slowly learning and heading in the right direction ..

[Ajaxab]

Facts? Please show me one fact that proves that God exists. I personally don't know if he does or doesn't...but please let's get one thing clear: NO ONE KNOWS FOR CERTAIN.

I'm just curious as to how you would define 'fact.' What are you looking for in terms of a 'fact'?

I'm also unsure how one can substantiate that no one knows for certain. How do we know that no one knows for certain? How could we defend that claim? It seems that to make that kind of general statement, we would have to speak to every single person who has ever lived and lives. How do we know that God hasn't spoken to someone directly, either in history or in our lifetime? I don't think it's as clear as getting this one thing clear.

[Cuckoo]

Facts? Please show me one fact that proves that God exists. I personally don't know if he does or doesn't...but please let's get one thing clear: NO ONE KNOWS FOR CERTAIN.

Have you even seen Anna Kournikova? If that's not proof of God, it's at least proof of the devil. Temptation is the darndest thing... :D

[nfg22]

I'm just curious as to how you would define 'fact.' What are you looking for in terms of a 'fact'?

I'm also unsure how one can substantiate that no one knows for certain. How do we know that no one knows for certain? How could we defend that claim? It seems that to make that kind of general statement, we would have to speak to every single person who has ever lived and lives. How do we know that God hasn't spoken to someone directly, either in history or in our lifetime? I don't think it's as clear as getting this one thing clear.


Here is my thing and I know im going to be called crazy for saying this but here it goes. Since my dedication to Christ I have many a time talked with God. Now no a voice did not come and speak directly but I have talked with Him and yes He responds. Also I can feel the presence of God in me when I am deeply in worship or in prayer with Him. There are many more things in my life that confirm my beliefs but those are a few.

[Cuckoo]

Here is my thing and I know im going to be called crazy for saying this but here it goes. Since my dedication to Christ I have many a time talked with God. Now no a voice did not come and speak directly but I have talked with Him and yes He responds. Also I can feel the presence of God in me when I am deeply in worship or in prayer with Him. There are many more things in my life that confirm my beliefs but those are a few.

Well said. The only other "fact" I would mention is my daughter. For me, I'm absolutely sure of God everytime I look at her.

[druez]

I believe humanity is similar to this, we do great harm and can cause devastating damage both to ourselves and the planet we live on, however I believe we (as a species) are slowly learning and heading in the right direction ..

I agree Marc 100%. I'm just don't think its the god in the bible that is pulling the strings. I point back to a constant that started it all, but doesn't really care how it turns out one way or another. It doesn't have human characteristics, so how can we expect it to think and act like a human. That is humans writing about what they don't understand.

I to believe that the human species is making slow progress, but In the grand scheme of things we really aren't that old of a species.

Think about this 20 lifetimes could be strung back to back since the day Jesus was born.

i.e. person born 0AD and lived to 100AD person born in 100AD lived to 200AD you get the point.

That isn't that long.....

Anyway, I'm still pretty convinced that souls are recycled and at times when you meet people who are wise when they are young, you refer to them as an old soul for a reason.

Remember energy can't be created or destroyed correct?

Back to the circle of life .........

[Bonegavel]

Maybe fallacy to you but you have seen what I have typed and when the time comes you will see.
nfg22, just stating something doesn't make it so. Humans have a limited capacity for understanding (i.e., we know through our senses) and just because some people get warm fuzzies when thinking about god, doesn't make it real. I get warm fuzzies thinking that Microsoft may actually produce a secure operating system, but I know that ain't never going to happen. Though somebody might, and that is ok.

If god created us, then he knows that we have a limited capacity. We are all Doubting Thomas' and need to touch things and see them to believe. One trip to a McDonalds drive-thru and you understand that you can't take it on faith that what you believe is in the bag is actually there. You have to stop at the window and check your order.

I believe in gravity and not because of some vague ramblings on paper by Sir Isaac Newton, but because I have seen its effects first hand.

I don't understand why God doesn't show himself to us and make himself known in a real way. If he is worried that this will taint us and get rid of free-will, all he has to do is see that Adam and Eve knew god existed and they still didn't listen. Hell, lucifer was his right hand man and he rebelled. I don't think he has a leg to stand on for an excuse not to make himself known to us in a real way. He will still get his batch of non-believers that he must have in order to feel like he has given free-will to people and he always has satan to push around.

I challenge god... show yourself and stop this invisible shit. You're messing with my soul here. [looks overhead for cumulonimbus clouds]

[revrew]

I challenge god... show yourself and stop this invisible shit. You're messing with my soul here. [looks overhead for cumulonimbus clouds]

Excellent! Go for it, man! Try restating that challenge for 30 days and keeping your eyes open. I would be curious to see the results. Want to do a dynasty?

Okay, now that sounds like I'm joking. But (dynasty aside), I'm not. Have you ever? Actually woke up each morning for a month solid asking the same questions of the heavens? "God, if you're there, show me!" I would really be interesting in hearing what you saw/learned after the 30 days.

[Bonegavel]

Excellent! Go for it, man! Try restating that challenge for 30 days and keeping your eyes open. I would be curious to see the results. Want to do a dynasty?

Okay, now that sounds like I'm joking. But (dynasty aside), I'm not. Have you ever? Actually woke up each morning for a month solid asking the same questions of the heavens? "God, if you're there, show me!" I would really be interesting in hearing what you saw/learned after the 30 days.Been there many times. As many jokes that i interlace in my comments, I really take this seriously, again because this possibly has to do with eternity.

What I am convinced of, however, is that many people that call on god like this may fall into the horrorscope trap and read into events what they want to see. There could have been 20 things that happened that another person would have seen as "god's reply" and I don't.

What I am talking about rev is I want god to ring my doorbell, show me a few tricks (like how to fold my underwear via mindpowers), maybe act like the ghosts of A Christmas Carol and take me on a little trip and tell me the straight facts.

If he would just do that, then I would say that I was given the choice and if I failed to believe, my bad. I'm sure if he did that, some people would still reject him, but that is fine. They were given a fair shake.

[edit - add this]
The reply i get most from believers when I talk like this is: "that isn't the way it works, you must simply have faith." or "you are seeing it from man's perspective and not god's." As for the last comment, you're damned right I'm seeing it from man's perspective, i don't really have a choice (especially since I'm constantly reminded how I could never understand god's *mind*).

[druez]

Excellent! Go for it, man! Try restating that challenge for 30 days and keeping your eyes open. I would be curious to see the results. Want to do a dynasty?

Okay, now that sounds like I'm joking. But (dynasty aside), I'm not. Have you ever? Actually woke up each morning for a month solid asking the same questions of the heavens? "God, if you're there, show me!" I would really be interesting in hearing what you saw/learned after the 30 days.


Been there tried that. I called it out, called it names. Called it a liar. Ripped it, dissed it even tried to kiss it. :) Same shit different day.....

[Marc Vaughan]

I believe in gravity and not because of some vague ramblings on paper by Sir Isaac Newton, but because I have seen its effects first hand.

(For the sake of a counter arguement)

But it could be argued that you see creations of God (ie. everything) every day but deny his existance regardless.

You don't know that 'gravity' as a law is accurate or correct, just if you throw something in the air it will fall down ... you have 'faith' that this is due to the lawy of gravity ...

Some people understand the laws of physics (and hence why in theory gravity works) - some however simply accept that it sounds plausible with the information they have to hand and leave it at that.

Peoples believe in God is very similar, some are natural cynics (I am) and question everything several times before deciding which way to jump, where as for some blind faith and the knowledge that many people believe it is enough.

In both situations there is an aspect of 'faith' as the true truth cannot be discerned at present (bear in mind the law of gravity is still a 'theory' - one which could be disproved (unlikely, but possible - the world was flat once ;) )).

Each individual must decide where to put their faith and live with the consequences of that decision, personally I'm hoping someone will disprove the law of gravity so I can learn to fly ;)

[nfg22]

nfg22, just stating something doesn't make it so. Humans have a limited capacity for understanding (i.e., we know through our senses) and just because some people get warm fuzzies when thinking about god, doesn't make it real. I get warm fuzzies thinking that Microsoft may actually produce a secure operating system, but I know that ain't never going to happen. Though somebody might, and that is ok.

If god created us, then he knows that we have a limited capacity. We are all Doubting Thomas' and need to touch things and see them to believe. One trip to a McDonalds drive-thru and you understand that you can't take it on faith that what you believe is in the bag is actually there. You have to stop at the window and check your order.

I believe in gravity and not because of some vague ramblings on paper by Sir Isaac Newton, but because I have seen its effects first hand.

I don't understand why God doesn't show himself to us and make himself known in a real way. If he is worried that this will taint us and get rid of free-will, all he has to do is see that Adam and Eve knew god existed and they still didn't listen. Hell, lucifer was his right hand man and he rebelled. I don't think he has a leg to stand on for an excuse not to make himself known to us in a real way. He will still get his batch of non-believers that he must have in order to feel like he has given free-will to people and he always has satan to push around.

I challenge god... show yourself and stop this invisible shit. You're messing with my soul here. [looks overhead for cumulonimbus clouds]

How much faith would it take to believe in somthing you see? If God came and talked to you today and showed you 1000 miracles and you beleived is it because of faith or fact? My fuzzys that I get arent like that I can feel somthing in me. No I dont think your below me for not beleiving because I once thought the same thing, then again you could say I make this up so you would believe me, but why would I beleive in somthing I make up? Search and you will find, God will not show himself unless you are serious and seek Him with your lifes intent but then you will be rewarded.

[nfg22]

Been there many times. As many jokes that i interlace in my comments, I really take this seriously, again because this possibly has to do with eternity.

What I am convinced of, however, is that many people that call on god like this may fall into the horrorscope trap and read into events what they want to see. There could have been 20 things that happened that another person would have seen as "god's reply" and I don't.

What I am talking about rev is I want god to ring my doorbell, show me a few tricks (like how to fold my underwear via mindpowers), maybe act like the ghosts of A Christmas Carol and take me on a little trip and tell me the straight facts.

If he would just do that, then I would say that I was given the choice and if I failed to believe, my bad. I'm sure if he did that, some people would still reject him, but that is fine. They were given a fair shake.

[edit - add this]
The reply i get most from believers when I talk like this is: "that isn't the way it works, you must simply have faith." or "you are seeing it from man's perspective and not god's." As for the last comment, you're damned right I'm seeing it from man's perspective, i don't really have a choice (especially since I'm constantly reminded how I could never understand god's *mind*).

This reply sparked somthing in my mind. Now I say that I know for sure and I just thought that maybe the miracle is supposed to be the complete transformation in someone that has accepted Christ. I have changed my whole life but I still dont have the overpowering love that I should for people maybe Im whats wrong in this miracle?

[Bonegavel]

How much faith would it take to believe in somthing you see? If God came and talked to you today and showed you 1000 miracles and you beleived is it because of faith or fact? My fuzzys that I get arent like that I can feel somthing in me. No I dont think your below me for not beleiving because I once thought the same thing, then again you could say I make this up so you would believe me, but why would I beleive in somthing I make up? Search and you will find, God will not show himself unless you are serious and seek Him with your lifes intent but then you will be rewarded.
An invisible *man* has left it up to me to learn of my eternal salvation via a book that was written by fellow humans and is so open to interpretation that few people that read it and believe it come to the same conclusions?

It would seem to me that if eternal life in heaven is paramount (this life is fleeting and eternity is, well, eternal), God would make it a little more concrete for those of us who don't get it on faith alone. We aren't all wired the same and God should know this. Everyone's needs are a little different. I need to poke my fingers in Christ's wounds, if you catch my drift.

[Buccaneer]

That's why we have His words, so you can see His purpose and works. Ask Him to show Himself to you and He will do so in ways that you wouldn't expect, if your eyes, ears and heart are open!

[nfg22]

An invisible *man* has left it up to me to learn of my eternal salvation via a book that was written by fellow humans and is so open to interpretation that few people that read it and believe it come to the same conclusions?

It would seem to me that if eternal life in heaven is paramount (this life is fleeting and eternity is, well, eternal), God would make it a little more concrete for those of us who don't get it on faith alone. We aren't all wired the same and God should know this. Everyone's needs are a little different. I need to poke my fingers in Christ's wounds, if you catch my drift.

Well I beleive that the only thing that is immenent to be interpreted is Christ dying for all of us and saving us if we choose to believe in Him, the rest is trivial to this. It is very clear of this message. Would and all loving God condemn you if He didnt give you enough evidence? I would believe that He will give you what you need if you look.(not saying you arent)

[yabanci]

by the way, what happened to the souls of all those people who lived in North and South America prior to the 1500s? Are they all in hell because they were not "saved" by christ?

[Buccaneer]

yab, the Scriptures said that God would reveal himself to everyone in many different ways. Psalms specifically spoke of through nature. However, those who have heard the Word and the gospel of Jesus Christ will be held accountable for it. Those (relatively) few that had not heard the Word would have the it presented to them in other ways. I said relatively few because most of the people that ever lived on this earth have been around since mid-20th century (or something like that).

[yabanci]

Those (relatively) few that had not heard the Word would have the it presented to them in other ways.

Can you give me a cite for this?

While it is relative, we are talking about hundreds of millions of poeple, including the Mayan, Toltec, and Aztec civilizations, every one of whom died without ever hearing of christ much less being "saved" by him. I'm genuinely interested in the answer to this question.

[rexallllsc]

Can you give me a cite for this?

While it is relative, we are talking about hundreds of millions of poeple, including the Mayan, Toltec, and Aztec civilizations, every one of whom died without ever hearing of christ much less being "saved" by him. I'm genuinely interested in the answer to this question.

This has always been a question of mine. What about the buddhist who leads a great life but believes in his God over what the x-tians thing is their God...simply because that's all he knows.

Ridiculous.

[Bubba Wheels]

This has always been a question of mine. What about the buddhist who leads a great life but believes in his God over what the x-tians thing is their God...simply because that's all he knows.

Ridiculous.

I would submit that it may be possible for someone who has never heard of Jesus Christ to still be saved by Jesus Christ (salvation being a 'heart issue', or 'condition') but no one who is ever saved will have been saved by anyone OTHER than Jesus Christ. (Jesus also said that there would be different degrees of punishment, and talked about how Capernum would suffer more in the day of judgement than Sodom and Gommorah would because had the latter seen the Miracles of Christ they would have repented.)

[rexallllsc]

I would submit that it may be possible for someone who has never heard of Jesus Christ to still be saved by Jesus Christ (salvation being a 'heart issue', or 'condition') but no one who is ever saved will have been saved by anyone OTHER than Jesus Christ. (Jesus also said that there would be different degrees of punishment, and talked about how Capernum would suffer more in the day of judgement than Sodom and Gommorah would because had the latter seen the Miracles of Christ they would have repented.)

According to who? You and the Bible? Forgive me if I doubt the authenticity of Jesus as the son of God.

[Bonegavel]

So it seems reasonable then, that we shouldn't be spreading the word of God to other countries. Using the above Budhist, what if he was doing the right thing without knowing god and then a missionary talked to him about Jesus. He stays Budhist and is now going to hell. If the missionary had shut their mouth, he may have been saved by god's *alternate methods* that I hear so much about.

[yabanci]

Is Gandhi suffering the torment of eternal damnation in the flaming pits of hell?

[Bubba Wheels]

Its real simple: If and when you hear the Word of God, you become responsible for it. Period. What was being 'speculated' about is those that do not hear the Word of God IN THE CONVENTIONAL sense. That may or may not be a different thing, but that is for God to know and worry about. If you really want to get into it, read Romans. Paul goes to great lengths to lay out the different aspects to God's Law and Grace (2 seperate but related things.)

[Bubba Wheels]

Is Gandhi suffering the torment of eternal damnation in the flaming pits of hell?

Interesting you mention Gandhi. I heard a story about him once (no way for me to determine its origin or verocity.) Seems Gandhi attended a Christian church at one point before his political rise. The story goes Gandhi was not well treated by some of the church members (church membership does NOT get you into heaven, by the way) and so he turned his back on Christianity in general. Christians and church members (not always the same thing) will answer to God someday for what they did on earth and especially in His Name, but regardless nothing they can ever do would EVER change a thing in God's Word as regarding who Christ is or what we are expected to become in Him ("Yes, let every man be a liar but God's Word is true.")

[rexallllsc]

Its real simple: If and when you hear the Word of God, you become responsible for it. Period. What was being 'speculated' about is those that do not hear the Word of God IN THE CONVENTIONAL sense. That may or may not be a different thing, but that is for God to know and worry about. If you really want to get into it, read Romans. Paul goes to great lengths to lay out the different aspects to God's Law and Grace (2 seperate but related things.)

In that case, I don't have to worry, because I've never heard it. You would think that something so all-powerful wouldn't use smoke, mirrors, and guesswork to make his presence known.

Problem solved!

[yabanci]

Interesting you mention Gandhi. I heard a story about him once (no way for me to determine its origin or verocity.) Seems Gandhi attended a Christian church at one point before his political rise. The story goes Gandhi was not well treated by some of the church members (church membership does NOT get you into heaven, by the way) and so he turned his back on Christianity in general. Christians and church members (not always the same thing) will answer to God someday for what they did on earth and especially in His Name, but regardless nothing they can ever do would EVER change a thing in God's Word as regarding who Christ is or what we are expected to become in Him ("Yes, let every man be a liar but God's Word is true.")

You've got the story wrong, Bubba.

[Bubba Wheels]

You've got the story wrong, Bubba.

Really? Then enlighten me with the real one. ;)

[Noop]

We're in the Matrix.... this is not real folks...

[revrew]

What I am convinced of, however, is that many people that call on god like this may fall into the horrorscope trap and read into events what they want to see. There could have been 20 things that happened that another person would have seen as "god's reply" and I don't.

What I am talking about rev is I want god to ring my doorbell, show me a few tricks (like how to fold my underwear via mindpowers), maybe act like the ghosts of A Christmas Carol and take me on a little trip and tell me the straight facts.

(This came after my challenge to take up 30 days of prayerful sky-searching for God) - As for me, I'm on day 4,283 right now (granted, I didn't count up the leapyear days, so + or - 5 days). Every day for 4,283 days, I have woken up and asked "God, enough of this invisible shit (okay, those aren't my exact words, but those are the words bonegavel used, and they reflect accurately my thoughts)...show yourself to me today."

Now, if you want to dismiss my story as horoscope self-delusionment, that's your prerogative. But in all that time, God has only rarely gone more than 30 days without making his presence abundantly clear to me. Those 30+ stretches were some of the most difficult days of my life, but they were often followed by some of the clearest revelations of my Christian walk.

Again, you may dismiss it as self-delusionment, but I prefer to think of it the way Billy Graham once said: "I can't see the wind. I can see the effects of the wind, but I can't see the wind." Do I therefore doubt the existence of wind? No. Because I can witness it's effects.

"But the wind is scientifically measurable!" you say. Of course. Science is the measure designed by God to test things physical. Faith is the measure designed by God to test things spiritual.

I can't see God. But I've seen his effects. For 4,283 days and counting.

[nfg22]

Yeah Exactly what I am saying too. You can dismiss the feeling I get and the things that happen in my life by i know they are true.

[druez]

I think the biggest problem I have with what you are saying is the lack of control.

Many religious people use the mantra it was gods will. Or in gods plan. If its his will or his plan, then why give us free choice? Once again very contradictive.

I like to take credit for the good things I do in my life, I also like to shoulder the blame when bad things come my way.

Example in 2000 Alison a tropical storm hit in Houston. My 2 story condo was flooded and my wife was about 3 months pregnant at the time. I was living in a neighborhood that wasn't so great. I had no idea at the time being new to the area that the neighborhood was not a very conducive place to raise a child.

Anyway, rather then cry over spilled milk, I got out of my lease because of the flood took a loan out from my company and moved into a very nice neighborhood.

Many of you god type folks, will say it was gods will, or see god works in mysterious ways. Where I go by the mantra shit happens. You deal with the cards you are dealt and make descisions as you go.

It just seems god is for the "weak" minded or "weak" willed. I'm not saying you guys all are, but on the few occasions in my life where crap was going bad, I caught myself about to pray to god for help and stopped and said fuck that I'm stronger then that.

[revrew]

"Shit happens" - did you know that was a biblical quote?

Okay, actually it's stated a bit less crudely - Rich and the poor...good and bad...wise and foolish..."Time and circumstance happen to them all". In other words, shit happens.

But is there no purpose, no meaning, no plan to the shit? Did the sun and moon and earth and carbon and oxygen and H2O and all that just accidentally come together? Am I to believe I am nothing more than a bag of plasma and protein? That there is no purpose or meaning for me being here? To me, that would take a lot of faith. A lot of faith in the power of cynicism to conquer all.

In essence, I see no validity to the "weak mind" argument. I think it takes a weak mind (likewise, not saying that YOU are) to only be able to base value and truth judgments on what the eye can see. In that way, the human mind is no more perceptive or intelligent than a dog. It only believes what images it's optical nerve can process. I think it takes a weak mind to watch a sunset and say, "It's just an accident that that is there." Can that mind not conceive anything greater? Is the human mind so dull that it can not turn patterns of events into evidence of a higher intelligence?

In essence, if faith in God is evidence of a weak mind, faith in the eyeballs alone to determine truth is no less evidence of a weak mind. I could press my point further and argue from a humanities perspective that it's even MORE evidence of a weakER mind, but I won't. I'll simply leave it at this: the weak mind argument, the crutch argument, etc. is mute. We ALL have bases for truth determination that are founded on psychological, emotional, and personal reasons and reactions. Faith in one system is no more weak than the other. We ALL have weak minds. (Of course, that's a biblical quote, too.)

[Marc Vaughan]

Many religious people use the mantra it was gods will. Or in gods plan. If its his will or his plan, then why give us free choice? Once again very contradictive.
I look at it this way (time for a very bad analogy again - you lot should be used to them by now ;) ).

As well as doing coding/design at SI, I manage the all the development staff in the company. I do this in what appears to be a very loose manner.

I ensure that everyone works on the areas of the game they enjoy the most and they keep work hours which they prefer (some work 8-5.30, some 11-7 or whatever) and while I oversee the designs for each area, unless I find something which is flawed I let people run with things in the manner they prefer... hence they have a lot of 'free will'.

Most people at SI don't know what everyone else is working on, simply because things tend to motor at a very fast rate - they simply trust me to keep track of things.

I organise all these disparate activities subtly and coordinate all the different threads of activity to give a coherant conclusion which ends in a (hopefully) successful game release for each product.

This is how I view Gods organisation of the world and mankind, we have free-will, but God puts us each in the situations which we need to learn from and has a master plan which he's nudging us in the direction of - some people trust him that he knows what he's doing, some however don't have faith yet ....

It just seems god is for the "weak" minded or "weak" willed. I'm not saying you guys all are, but on the few occasions in my life where crap was going bad, I caught myself about to pray to god for help and stopped and said fuck that I'm stronger then that.

I know many people who are far from 'weak minded' or 'weak willed' who are christians, in fact the majority of christians I know are very strong minded individuals - the majority of which still test and question their faith in God on a daily basis.

[druez]

Hmm perhaps, I came off in the wrong way. Many still seem to think I don't believe in a force or a god. I do indeed believe in a higher power or as I like to call it a constant. I just don't believe that this force, power etc... has all the human emotions or characteristics we place upon it in the bible. I do not believe that he felt the need to send himself down in human form.

Yes, shit does happen and karma another thing I believe in works in mysterious ways. While a good many of you look at this higher power in a human sense from the bible. I tend to seperate myself from the blinders and think.

What about the rest of the universe, there has to be other civilations out there.
Do they have different beliefs in gods?
Have they figured out more then us?

While, we may never agree on the bible per say, I think we are on the same page in believing there is a force out there. The first cause or constant.

There has to be a balance in all things.

[Cuckoo]

I tend to seperate myself from the blinders and think.

Here we go again... :rolleyes:

[Bubba Wheels]

I think the biggest problem I have with what you are saying is the lack of control.

Many religious people use the mantra it was gods will. Or in gods plan. If its his will or his plan, then why give us free choice? Once again very contradictive.

I like to take credit for the good things I do in my life, I also like to shoulder the blame when bad things come my way.

Example in 2000 Alison a tropical storm hit in Houston. My 2 story condo was flooded and my wife was about 3 months pregnant at the time. I was living in a neighborhood that wasn't so great. I had no idea at the time being new to the area that the neighborhood was not a very conducive place to raise a child.

Anyway, rather then cry over spilled milk, I got out of my lease because of the flood took a loan out from my company and moved into a very nice neighborhood.

Many of you god type folks, will say it was gods will, or see god works in mysterious ways. Where I go by the mantra shit happens. You deal with the cards you are dealt and make descisions as you go.

It just seems god is for the "weak" minded or "weak" willed. I'm not saying you guys all are, but on the few occasions in my life where crap was going bad, I caught myself about to pray to god for help and stopped and said fuck that I'm stronger then that.

Maybe God is so loving in His mercy that He was helping you out all along, but doing it more for your wife and kids in a bad situation despite a guy filled with too much pride and spite to ask God for help himself.

[Bubba Wheels]

A man with much faith in God climbed onto his roof one day during a very bad flood. Soon a boat came along and the man said 'Get in!" Man on the roof replied "I'm going to wait for God to save me!"

A little later a man in a rubber raft came along and said to the man on the roof "Get in!" Man on the roof replied "I'm waiting for God to save me!" Water was getting very high now.

Finally a helicopter came along and a man with a bullhorn lowered a rope and said "Grab it!" Man on the roof yelled back...well, you know what he yelled back. Then he drowned and went on to his reward.

As the man stood before God in heaven he asked "Lord, why didn't you save me?" God replied, "I sent you a boat, a raft and a helicopter, why didn't you use one?" Moral of the story is very simple, God is often working all the time, we just often choose to ignore Him. "Why does this generation seek a sign? Only an evil generation seeks a sign, and the sign you will get will be the sign of Jonah." Jesus in the Gospels. Those who know God and commune with Him do not need the spectacular to know that He is there.

[Bonegavel]

But bubba, God would have known that the man wasn't going to accept the rides.

[nfg22]

Hmm perhaps, I came off in the wrong way. Many still seem to think I don't believe in a force or a god. I do indeed believe in a higher power or as I like to call it a constant. I just don't believe that this force, power etc... has all the human emotions or characteristics we place upon it in the bible. I do not believe that he felt the need to send himself down in human form.

Yes, shit does happen and karma another thing I believe in works in mysterious ways. While a good many of you look at this higher power in a human sense from the bible. I tend to seperate myself from the blinders and think.

What about the rest of the universe, there has to be other civilations out there.
Do they have different beliefs in gods?
Have they figured out more then us?

While, we may never agree on the bible per say, I think we are on the same page in believing there is a force out there. The first cause or constant.

There has to be a balance in all things.

While I respect your veiws because they do come from intellegence, you seem to mix up God needing to send His Son. He did not need, He did it because He wanted to and to show His love to you, so you could have an opportunity to be with Him someday.


God is infused with some human characteristics yes, but He is not modeled after us, yet we are modeled after Him as it says in the bible. Thus the animals do not convey the so called Humanly emotions that we do because they were not modeled after Him.

You say God is for the weak minded to lean on in times of trouble? Well yes that is true, I am weak and I lean on him in times of trouble, yet I also accredit that trouble to being my fault but when in times of prosper I also lean on Him yet I give him credit for those times.

[nfg22]

But bubba, God would have known that the man wasn't going to accept the rides.

But how can He say to the man I would have sent them but you wouldnt have accepted. Then the man's argument that God wasnt there would have held.

[sabotai]

because it is something that can't be proven (like Valve software had the source code to Half-Life 2 stolen)

I can prove that...I can't tell you how because it might put me in a bad position, but if I had to, I could. :D

[Bonegavel]

I can prove that...I can't tell you how because it might put me in a bad position, but if I had to, I could. :D
Nice. I don't mean to hijack a holy thread, but I cannot wait for this and Doom III to arrive. Normally, I could care less, but the Half-life demo video was unbelievable and Doom III is, well, Doom III.

[sabotai]

Yes, I'm highly anticipating both (and although I know the code was stolen, I also think they're using it as a convinient excuse to delay the game. It would have been delayed anyway, we all know that. They always get delayed. :) )

And with that, let the religious discussion continue.

[yabanci]

(again) by the way, what happened to the souls of all those people who lived in North and South America prior to the 1500s? Are they all in hell because they were not "saved" by christ?

[nfg22]

I dont beleive so. I beleive those that lived to the law without out knowing it were granted salvation. God may judge the heart of everyone justly, He will never cause an injustice.

[Easy Mac]

so if this thread goes away for three days and then reappears at the top of the board, does it classify as a miracle and can we be cannonized by the catholic church? Saint FOFC has a nice ring to it.

[nfg22]

so if this thread goes away for three days and then reappears at the top of the board, does it classify as a miracle and can we be cannonized by the catholic church? Saint FOFC has a nice ring to it.

Not that funny.

[druez]

While I respect your veiws because they do come from intellegence, you seem to mix up God needing to send His Son. He did not need, He did it because He wanted to and to show His love to you, so you could have an opportunity to be with Him someday.


God is infused with some human characteristics yes, but He is not modeled after us, yet we are modeled after Him as it says in the bible. Thus the animals do not convey the so called Humanly emotions that we do because they were not modeled after Him.

You say God is for the weak minded to lean on in times of trouble? Well yes that is true, I am weak and I lean on him in times of trouble, yet I also accredit that trouble to being my fault but when in times of prosper I also lean on Him yet I give him credit for those times.

I would argue the point that animals don't have human emotions or responses. Dogs are a prime example, they love no doubt about that. They hate, pretty true there. They nurture and protect. yep.... They get jealous and they get angry or mad.

How bout dolphins and whales? In fact I would argue that monkies have human emotions also....

[Marc Vaughan]

I would argue the point that animals don't have human emotions or responses. Dogs are a prime example, they love no doubt about that. They hate, pretty true there. They nurture and protect. yep.... They get jealous and they get angry or mad.

How bout dolphins and whales? In fact I would argue that monkies have human emotions also....

I have to agree with that, animals to me can convey pretty much all aspects on human emotion and feeling, cats especially (I'm a cat person) seem very human - prone to selfishness, love and compassion.

(examples)
My cat is generally very independant and arrogant in nature, however he is also very patient with our kids suffering various maulings of affection from them when they're very young.

I've also seen cats surpress their hunting instincts to protect animals who are part of the household (Abbey one of our previous cats used to protect our hamster when it escaped (which it did frequently) when every one of her instincts should have been telling her to kill it in the same manner she would a normal rodent.

The same cat also spent an evening chaperoning my wife as we paced up and down the street attempting to encourage labor for our second youngest son.
(end examples)

All of these you can probably rationalise down to pack instinct or selfishness (ie. it wouldn't hurt the hamster because it knew it'd get in trouble) on the behalf of the creature, but I would remind you that both of these are also present in mankind and show that the animal involved understands and responsds to complex circumstances understanding the consequences involved.

To indicate that animals don't have emotions is inaccurate in my experience, they have different levels and reactions for such things but defnitely have them.

This could be conjectured to be partially down to their intelligence level, but I would personally conjecture that people don't indicate that a mentally challenged human doesn't have emotions even if severely handicapped ... so why discount an animal from having them just because they can't communicate them verbally.

What all this means on a religious level I don't know, I'm far from an expert on such things and would be interested in hearing peoples opinions.

[QuikSand]

It's easy to see the devolution of this basic argument (where much of this thread has headed).

People of faith, who are predisposed to evidence of God, will find what they are looking for in any number of things. They see natural beauty, life itself, the order of the cosmos, and even the "fuzzy" feeling they get when they worship --and they declare the majesty and mystery of these things themselves to be "proof."

People without faith are frequently predisposed to look for more empirical evidence - saying that the argument for God is founded on principles that are wholly unverifiable - things that are easily explained away as coincidence, deception, and randomness. Without any empirical proof, the non-believers are affirmed in their opinions that the whole thing is speculative at best, and a construction of man for earthly reasons (political or financial power, for instance) at worst.


The thing is that both sides of the argument get what they want from what they see and experience, and both sides of the argument can be assembled to be completely logically consistent. Believers can rely on the arguments we have seen here in this thread and the all-purpose "we cannot understand God" -- while nonbelievers can continue to doubt and to point out the potential human motivations behind all these stories.

That's why this debate has never calmed.

[Cuckoo]

I finally agree with you in this thread QS. :)

Although it is a little strange to hear my faith being described as my "fuzzy feeling."

[revrew]

In response to QS -
I agree. Which is why, I believe, a person without faith so rarely comes to faith through debate, or even discussion. The biblical example of people coming to faith was through the power of story and testimony, through seeing the power of God to transform lives. God saved the Israelites from Egypt, from Assyria, from Babylon, etc. Jesus saved people from illness, possession, and handicap, and then said, "I free them from sin and death, too." Paul was a life changed, as was Peter, and others, including Augustine, Wesley, Luther, me, etc. Converts, with some notable exceptions, are not usually won by argument, but by seeing the story of God transforming a life come alive. After all, Jesus did not say, "The world will know you are my disciples by your clear, persuasive argument." No, he said "by the love you have". That love, in turn, was not good deeds, but lives transformed from self-centered self-pleasing notions of affection and lust to the biblical concept of "agape" love --- ack, I'm getting too expositional/preachy...

The point is - I don't look for this thread to win any converts. I only hope it helps understanding and clear away a few of the sillier roadblocks to faith--such that when someone encounters an undeniable resurrection story, perhaps in a friend or family member's life, the power of one changed life can more easily change yet another.

[Buccaneer]

It's easy to see the devolution of this basic argument (where much of this thread has headed).

People of faith, who are predisposed to evidence of God, will find what they are looking for in any number of things. They see natural beauty, life itself, the order of the cosmos, and even the "fuzzy" feeling they get when they worship --and they declare the majesty and mystery of these things themselves to be "proof."

People without faith are frequently predisposed to look for more empirical evidence - saying that the argument for God is founded on principles that are wholly unverifiable - things that are easily explained away as coincidence, deception, and randomness. Without any empirical proof, the non-believers are affirmed in their opinions that the whole thing is speculative at best, and a construction of man for earthly reasons (political or financial power, for instance) at worst.


The thing is that both sides of the argument get what they want from what they see and experience, and both sides of the argument can be assembled to be completely logically consistent. Believers can rely on the arguments we have seen here in this thread and the all-purpose "we cannot understand God" -- while nonbelievers can continue to doubt and to point out the potential human motivations behind all these stories.

That's why this debate has never calmed.
Some of the best analytical and empirical minds throughout history have lived a life of faith through Jesus Christ. You can be both.

[druez]

In response to QS -
I agree. Which is why, I believe, a person without faith so rarely comes to faith through debate, or even discussion. The biblical example of people coming to faith was through the power of story and testimony, through seeing the power of God to transform lives. God saved the Israelites from Egypt, from Assyria, from Babylon, etc. Jesus saved people from illness, possession, and handicap, and then said, "I free them from sin and death, too." Paul was a life changed, as was Peter, and others, including Augustine, Wesley, Luther, me, etc. Converts, with some notable exceptions, are not usually won by argument, but by seeing the story of God transforming a life come alive. After all, Jesus did not say, "The world will know you are my disciples by your clear, persuasive argument." No, he said "by the love you have". That love, in turn, was not good deeds, but lives transformed from self-centered self-pleasing notions of affection and lust to the biblical concept of "agape" love --- ack, I'm getting too expositional/preachy...

The point is - I don't look for this thread to win any converts. I only hope it helps understanding and clear away a few of the sillier roadblocks to faith--such that when someone encounters an undeniable resurrection story, perhaps in a friend or family member's life, the power of one changed life can more easily change yet another.


I noticed you pointed out all the nice things god did to show proof he exists. Lets not forget what he did to the Egyptians. Or how bout Sadam and Gamora. He definately did his fair share of smighting and flooding to prove his point also....

[druez]

It's easy to see the devolution of this basic argument (where much of this thread has headed).

People of faith, who are predisposed to evidence of God, will find what they are looking for in any number of things. They see natural beauty, life itself, the order of the cosmos, and even the "fuzzy" feeling they get when they worship --and they declare the majesty and mystery of these things themselves to be "proof."

People without faith are frequently predisposed to look for more empirical evidence - saying that the argument for God is founded on principles that are wholly unverifiable - things that are easily explained away as coincidence, deception, and randomness. Without any empirical proof, the non-believers are affirmed in their opinions that the whole thing is speculative at best, and a construction of man for earthly reasons (political or financial power, for instance) at worst.


The thing is that both sides of the argument get what they want from what they see and experience, and both sides of the argument can be assembled to be completely logically consistent. Believers can rely on the arguments we have seen here in this thread and the all-purpose "we cannot understand God" -- while nonbelievers can continue to doubt and to point out the potential human motivations behind all these stories.

That's why this debate has never calmed.

While I agree with most of this point, I deviate from one core element. When you say those without faith, you mean those that don't believe in the bible or christiantiy? I believe I have some belief or faith, in a higher power. I just don't believe the bible describes this force, nor do I believe anything can adequetly describe it.

I do believe in Karma and have faith in certain beliefs I hold dear. So, just because one does not buy into christiantiy or the bible, doesn't mean one does not have faith.

[sabotai]

Quick biological note about emotions in animals...

the brain of a mammel, in general, is capable of experiencing at least basic emotions. Obviously this is very helpful to survival. If you experience fear, you fight harder for your survival or run like hell. If you experience happiness, you strive to do what makes you feel this way. If you experience hate, you avoid or destroy that thing, usually a threat to you in some way. Etc, etc.

This is one of the reasons. in my opinion, that mammels have become the dominate form of life in much of the world. For the most part, other forms of life do not experience emotions (reptiles, amphibians, birds and fish) because, generally, their brains are not wired that way.

The one thing that does seperate us though is our seemingly need to talk about and try to explain our emotions. We can thank the women for that one. :D

(I only bring this up since Marc and druez talked about it. I now return you to your regularly scheduled programming)

[QuikSand]

When you say those without faith, you mean those that don't believe in the bible or christiantiy?

Of course not. I'm talking about faith - believing in God (or some higher power) in the absence of demonstrative proof. I'm not talking about any particular brand of it, even though most of the discussion here has understandably centered on the Chritsian brand and biblical teachings.

Point is simple: By and large, believers believe, and already have all the proof they need. Nonbelievers will never find the proof they demand.

[nfg22]

I was once a non-believer though. I thought Christians were crazy and that as long as I was a good person I would make it into heaven. Now I know I was wrong then and I am a new person. I also belived many of the things that are common in the Non-believers(In Christ's Salvation) on this board but my veiws changed so it can happen.