if you actively disbelieve in any form of an intelligent creator god, you are by default an atheist.
If you are an atheist
copy this to your reply and add one to the #
Atheist: 1
If you adhere to any organized religion
copy this to your reply and add one to the #
Organized Religion: 1
If you are apathetic or agnostic
copy this to your reply and add one to the #
I dunno: 1
If you are a young earth creationist
copy this to your reply and add one to the #
My logic is severely flawed: 1
Off-Topic
Show
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reign_of_Terror
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Red_Terror
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Red_terror_(Spain)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Red_Terror_(Ethiopia)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Red_Terror
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Red_terror_(Spain)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Red_Terror_(Ethiopia)
I know it wasn't in the list, I assume you just overlooked it.
I know it wasn't in the list, I assume you just overlooked it.
Indeed, james880, every belief system is not covered on your list.
Are considered the new minority...
if you actively disbelieve in any form of an intelligent creator god, you are by default an atheist.
If you are an atheist
copy this to your reply and add one to the #
Atheist: 1
If you adhere to any organized religion
copy this to your reply and add one to the #
Organized Religion: 1
If you are apathetic or agnostic
copy this to your reply and add one to the #
I dunno: 1
If you are a young earth creationist
copy this to your reply and add one to the #
My logic is severely flawed: 1
What's the point of this? Do you have a point at all? You want a group hug? Well, I'm not giving you one. Sorry, I don't go around patting my "fellow atheists" on the back.
Your final shot at YECs is really uncalled for. Notwithstanding that you are using the term "logic" improperly. Here's a quote from my myspace page:
Logic is but a simple tool. It does not tell you what "truth" is. It does not tell you when something is false. It can perhaps help you come to those conclusions, but that is nothing inherent about logic itself. A screwdriver does not build a car; it is only a tool used to arrive at the final product, along with many other tools and the hands by the men and women who build it and utilize such tools.
Logic cannot tell you if God exists. Logic cannot tell you what is moral. It is not "illogical" to claim one thing or another, it is only "illogical" to present an argument which is not logically valid in some way. A valid argument does not necessarily have a true conclusion, and an invalid argument does not necessarily have a false conclusion. The truth and falsity of things are completely independent of logic.
So really, calm it with that arrogance of yours.
Also, you have your stuff mixed up. You categorized agnostics under "I dunno" implying that they cannot be atheists or theists. This is false. Agnostics are either atheists or they are theists. An atheist is one who lacks a belief in god(s) (so your definition of atheist is slightly off as well) and an agnostic is one who actively claims that we cannot know if any gods exist. I, for example, am both an atheist and an agnostic. My friend is an agnostic and an Eastern Orthodox Christian. Agnosticism tells you nothing of a person's belief or lack thereof in gods.
You left out a lot of categories, including, but not limited to: animism, pantheism, deism, etc.
You also have Organized Religion and Atheist as two separate categories. What about an atheistic Buddhist, Satanist, or Taoist? What should they categorize themselves as? They fit under both Atheist and Organized Religion.
You're oversimplifying religious beliefs and taking an unneeded shot at YECs (and I notice you didn't say anything about OECs) on a D&D board, where we should all be getting along and gaming.
I really don't see any point to this.
Are considered the new minority...
if you actively disbelieve in any form of an intelligent creator god, you are by default an atheist.
You're defintion is a bit off. Atheists in the existence of deity i.e. God. Adding the "intelligent creator" means you could catch people in that defintion that don't belong.
Anyway I'm an agnostic.
D&D could use a few religious people.
D&D could use a few religious people.
Take the ones from politics and government, please.
1. Im not looking for a pat on the back I could really careless. Just wondering who's here and in what numbers.
"Your final shot at YECs is really uncalled for. Notwithstanding that you are using the term "logic" improperly."
log·ic
–noun
1. the science that investigates the principles governing correct or reliable inference.
2. a particular method of reasoning or argumentation
I'd say anyone who says the earth is still in the thousand range, despite mountains of scientific evidence to the contrary. Dinosaurs living with homosapiens. Yeah any one who comes to that conclusion is using some very flawed "method of reasoning"
Oh and as for old earth creationists, as long as their beliefs can sleep in the same bed as scientific evidence, I dont care. Who cares if i took a shot at YEC's. Democrats and Republicans take shots at eachother's POV all day long even on these boards with out people mentioning "shot calling"
"Also, you have your stuff mixed up. You categorized agnostics under "I dunno" implying that they cannot be atheists or theists. This is false. Agnostics are either atheists or they are theists. An atheist is one who lacks a belief in god(s) (so your definition of atheist is slightly off as well) and an agnostic is one who actively claims that we cannot know if any gods exist. I, for example, am both an atheist and an agnostic. My friend is an agnostic and an Eastern Orthodox Christian. Agnosticism tells you nothing of a person's belief or lack thereof in gods."
IF and I say if I was asking under those criteria that I agree with you'd have a point here. But I was asking who identifies as an atheist first, not athiest first and agnostic by default. I also wasn't asking if you were an agnotic theist. I was simply not asking these people.
"You left out a lot of categories, including, but not limited to: animism, pantheism, deism, etc."
Once again... if i was asking to know about people in these categories... I would ahve put them on there.
Its like if i started a poll on Who's better Drizzt Or Artemis. And I took a jab at Regis. Someone would get butt hurt over Regis and assume Im just looking for a pat on the back from others who like Drizzt/Artemis. And then go so say "well you diddnt include Wulfgar" If I wanted to know about Wulfgar lovers... you know what I'd have done... ASKED!! surprise surprise.
"You also have Organized Religion and Atheist as two separate categories. What about an atheistic Buddhist, Satanist, or Taoist? What should they categorize themselves as? They fit under both Atheist and Organized Religion."
re·li·gion
n.
1. Belief in and reverence for a supernatural power or powers regarded as creator and governor of the universe.
2. A personal or institutionalized system grounded in such belief and worship.
Last time I checked... Atheists who follow forms Eastern religious practices still dont believe in "a supernatural power or powers regarded as creator and governor of the universe." which would by default make them agnostic/theist/or deist... not athiest. And LaVey satanism is self-worship and hedonism at best.
"I really don't see any point to this."
Awesome sweet... then there was'nt any real point to you boosting this back further up on a page thus supporting its ability to be seen and discussed. If its so beneath you and pointless....
Take the ones from politics and government, please.
Please do.
I'm not really an atheist in the definitional sense. I'm really more of an agnostic that's gotten completely fed up with constant attempts at conversion by those who subscribe to mainstream faiths and attempts at moralizing legislation by those same folks.
I'm not opposed to the idea of faith if I found something that jived 100% with my world-view. As it stands, though, I'd rather stick with my methods of interpreting and exploring reality rather than that of any organized religion.
I'm not opposed to the idea of faith if I found something that jived 100% with my world-view. As it stands, though, I'd rather stick with my methods of interpreting and exploring reality rather than that of any organized religion.
Come to the Dark Side, we have cookies.
I am a devout follower of the Hypnotoad. I just can't help myself ...
ALL GLORY TO THE HYPNOTOAD!
Come to the Dark Side, we have cookies.
Yeah, but your dental and skin care plans suck. Sorry. Just saying.
Come to the Light Side, we have full term life insurance and total-coverage health insurance.
I think people who've read other posts by me can guess what "Light Side" means. ;)
Come to the Dark Side, we have cookies.
Yeah, but they're those white chocolate and macadamia nut atrocities. The Wiccans have chocolate chip, and the girls are a lot more fun.
ALL GLORY TO THE HYPNOTOAD!
For some strange reason I find myself wanting to worship Hypnotoad...
(falls into vacant glassy eyed stare)
For some strange reason I find myself wanting to worship Hypnotoad...
(falls into vacant glassy eyed stare)
Yeah, he does that. All glory ...
Yeah, he does that. All glory ...
It's just not the same without sound. That's where the thought-destroying glory of the hypnotoad really lies.
It's just not the same without sound. That's where the thought-destroying glory of the hypnotoad really lies.
What that means is that you have not been properly indoctrinated into the CotHt (Church of the Hypnotoad) and need to submit yourself for re-education post-haste! Every member of the cul ... er ... church should immediately begin hearing the sound upon seeing any image of our high overlord Hypnotoad. I do. All glory ...
I'm just happy that Slurm is the "holy water". I loves me some Slurm.
It's just not the same without sound. That's where the thought-destroying glory of the hypnotoad really lies.
Huh? What're you talking about? I can hear the noise quite easily.
When was your last re-indoctrination period?
(picks up secret cul...church phone)
However, I'd love there to be a Westboro baptist on here, they rock*
*rock in a slightly scarry demented kind of way, that is!
However, I'd love there to be a Westboro baptist on here, they rock*
*rock in a slightly scarry demented kind of way, that is!
The internet is a tool of the devil.
Seriously though, if I never have contact with another Westboroian it'll be too soon. Growing up in Kansas (and going to school in their pulpit-away-from-home, Nebraska), I had more than my fill of those people pretty early.
The best thing to ever come of their antics was the time they were chased out of a community of 400 people at gunpoint. It's generally a bad idea to protest at the funeral of a soldier when the town is composed primarily of their extended family. We don't take that sort of stuff lightly where I'm from.
-snip-
This isn't a popularity contest. Or at least, it shouldn't be.
This isn't a popularity contest. Or at least, it shouldn't be.
There is no contesting the glory of the Hypnotoad!
All glory to the Hypnotoad!
The internet is a tool of the devil.
Seriously though, if I never have contact with another Westboroian it'll be too soon. Growing up in Kansas (and going to school in their pulpit-away-from-home, Nebraska), I had more than my fill of those people pretty early.
The best thing to ever come of their antics was the time they were chased out of a community of 400 people at gunpoint. It's generally a bad idea to protest at the funeral of a soldier when the town is composed primarily of their extended family. We don't take that sort of stuff lightly where I'm from.
Dude, I'm a "classic fundie"-type Christian, and Westboro offends me. They don't know what they're doing. Like, in the sense of insanity don't know.
All glory to the Hypnotoad!
Dude, I'm a "classic fundie"-type Christian, and Westboro offends me. They don't know what they're doing. Like, in the sense of insanity don't know.
Somebody ought to warn them silly buggers to stay out of eastern Iowa. I get a serious hate-on when I hear about them and I have to say, I might forget all about that "do unto others" thing if I catch wind of their kind on my patch of dirt. I may not agree with the war, but some things are still sacred.
If someone used my funeral to protest a war, I'd hope someone in my city would make certain there was a Westboro funeral soon after.
Yeah, but they're those white chocolate and macadamia nut atrocities. The Wiccans have chocolate chip, and the girls are a lot more fun.
I've never met a wiccan woman that weighed less than 300 pounds and wasn't a lesbian. I know that sales of brain bleach spiked after me saying that, sorry.
I tell people that I'm either a secular humanist or a germanic neopagan, depending on which I think will make them angrier. In truth, I'm a secular humanist who listens to too much metal and thinks vikings are freaking awesome.
I've never met a wiccan woman that weighed less than 300 pounds and wasn't a lesbian. I know that sales of brain bleach spiked after me saying that, sorry.
I tell people that I'm either a secular humanist or a germanic neopagan, depending on which I think will make them angrier. In truth, I'm a secular humanist who listens to too much metal and thinks vikings are freaking awesome.
You mean there are people who don't think vikings are awesome (that weren't around back in the day they went out, er, viking)?
I've never met a wiccan woman that weighed less than 300 pounds and wasn't a lesbian.
See, the wiccans I knew in college were into yoga and various martial arts. They also didn't seem to be lesbians at the time ( ;) ) though I might have been fooled. All in all, a fun bunch of ladies.
I range from hardcore atheist to wishy-washy agnostic depending on how stringent I feel like being that particular day. I'm also a Discordian and I think Pastafarians have a good thing going, except they're a bit too hung up on pirates when everyone knows vikings are way more awesome.
I assume by Pastafarians you mean those touched by his noodley appendage. As the son of two small-town science teachers in Kansas, I'm a registered member (and one of the first recruits) into the church of the Flying Spaghetti Monster.
See, the wiccans I knew in college were into yoga and various martial arts. They also didn't seem to be lesbians at the time ( ;) ) though I might have been fooled. All in all, a fun bunch of ladies.
.
I live near Salem, arguably the Wiccan capital of the country. The wiccans I meet tend to be heavier women, late 30s+, and are either very stern feminists or lesbians. They also usually dress like they are going to a Ren. Fair. Of course there are exceptions. Some of the younger ones are still thin, though mostly this isn't the case.
I live near Salem, arguably the Wiccan capital of the country. The wiccans I meet tend to be heavier women, late 30s+, and are either very stern feminists or lesbians. They also usually dress like they are going to a Ren. Fair. Of course there are exceptions. Some of the younger ones are still thin, though mostly this isn't the case.
I went to college in Lincoln, Nebraska, arguably the furthest place from any non-christian religion in the country.
All the wiccans I knew were girls who were looking for an empowering way of exploring their spirituality that didn't get in the way of their fun, while simultaneously giving them something interesting to talk about at parties. Wicca provided that, apparently.
It's just not the same without sound. That's where the thought-destroying glory of the hypnotoad really lies.
thats funny when i saw the picture i actually heard the noise in my head.. i guess that means i am indoctrinated into the church of Hypnotoad..
but in all seriousness. i am pretty much an agnostic. I am not opposed to organized religion, just not really for it either (although people knocking on my door at 9 am on weekend mornings seriously make me reconsider my stance).. I would also say i have a very strong interest in pagan religion, especially northern european (scandinavian and germanic) and celtic (ancient irish/celtic britons).. my sister used to be a practicing Wiccan, but i don't think she is as serious about it as she used to be (my mother was none to fond of mine or hers interest in paganism)
I went to college in Lincoln, Nebraska, arguably the furthest place from any non-christian religion in the country.
All the wiccans I knew were girls who were looking for an empowering way of exploring their spirituality that didn't get in the way of their fun, while simultaneously giving them something interesting to talk about at parties. Wicca provided that, apparently.
I don't think you had a representative sampling of the faith. College girls who get into Wicca because they want to have fun and talk about it at parties, are an insult to actual practicing wiccans.
I don't think you had a representative sampling of the faith. College girls who get into Wicca because they want to have fun and talk about it at parties, are an insult to actual practicing wiccans.
That's all well and good, but it has no bearing on my initial statement (that wiccan girls are more fun). In my experience it's completely true. Why are we still talking about this, again?
I've never met a wiccan woman that weighed less than 300 pounds and wasn't a lesbian.
I have met many who are neither.
That's all well and good, but it has no bearing on my initial statement (that wiccan girls are more fun). In my experience it's completely true. Why are we still talking about this, again?
I don't think wiccans are any more into fun than any other religious group. They certainly are not very conservative like Muslims or Southern Baptists, but then most other religions aren't either. They still have rules. And they do tend to be a thrill kill if you drag them to a steak house. Besides everyone knows that Catholic girls are the most fun. Just look at Madonna (I know, I know, she is Jewish now, but she was raised Catholic).
Just look at Madonna.
No.
Now, I guess, it's my turn to try a serious answer. I have my own problems with organized religion (teaching hypocrisy != good, IMO) but I also understand it's value. Once you've been to a few funerals and watch family and friends have their suffering lessened by the words of a priest, it's hard to deny that there is still some good done by these religions.
I've only met a few wiccans in my time. One was large, but the rest were not. To my knowledge, all were straight. I was at one's engagement party. Good times. I'd wager, though, that they come in all shapes, sizes and orientation. Kinda like how most things involving people work out. ;)
although people knocking on my door at 9 am on weekend mornings seriously make me reconsider my stance
Well, you couls always do what a mate's mom did - chase them down the driveway with a shovel yelling "Get the
of my property you sons of !"Alternatively, you could do what her other son did - invite them in to discuss their beliefs, poke holes through all of them, and refuse to let them leave till you've discussed just "one more thing", all the while be achingly pleasant and polite.
Well, you couls always do what a mate's mom did - chase them down the driveway with a shovel yelling "Get the
Alternatively, you could do what her other son did - invite them in to discuss their beliefs, poke holes through all of them, and refuse to let them leave till you've discussed just "one more thing", all the while be achingly pleasant and polite.
Ha.. my grandfather chased them with a high pressure hose and told them if they came back it would be his shot gun lol.. crazy old coot.. i love that old guy.. oh, they never came back either.
Alternatively, you could do what her other son did - invite them in to discuss their beliefs, poke holes through all of them, and refuse to let them leave till you've discussed just "one more thing", all the while be achingly pleasant and polite.
LOL, now that's my style.
After reading all of this, I forget what the OPs question was.
I am a firm believer in maybe there is a god, but I haven't seen any proof and personally, I think a lot of the stuff he/she/it does/allows is crap. However, I am open to everyone believing in whatever makes them sleep better at night.
On the subject of religion however, I am a firm believer that 99.9% of the folks I have seen in (insert any religion here) are a bunch of hypocritical, two-faced, back-stabbing, frauds. Most firm believers I see would stab someone else in the back and break every belief they have when confronted with someone from a different religion.
I just don't get it. I can't believe that this is how it was suppose to be. If there is a god, I feel sorry for all of us.
Off-TopicShowhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reign_of_Terror
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Red_Terror
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Red_terror_(Spain)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Red_Terror_(Ethiopia)
Every time someone attempts to make a red-hearing argument that presents the communist party (or that bastard Robespierre. Points for originality, btw, even if your historically off base by miles) as an indicative sample of atheism, I punch a theist. Mostly the ones who made the argument.
This goes double for Hitler. Triple for Stalin.
Objectivist: 1.
It is just as valuable as using the Catholic Church or Islam as indicative examples of theists. Communism, as practiced in the Soviet Union, Cambodia and China, was a secularist ideology that castigated religion. When people raise them as examples they are not saying all atheists would be tyrants. They are rebutting the notion that religion is somehow the root cause of all evils when it is intertwined with the state. All we are saying is the Inquisition is no more indicative of religious people than Stalin is of Atheists.
Objectivism is a religion now? Oh boy.
This goes double for Hitler. Triple for Stalin.
Purely out of curiosity, here; is there a reason that Stalin ranks more punches than Hitler? Both heartless bastards, to be sure. Just wondering if there's something special about Stalin that sets you off.
Purely out of curiosity, here; is there a reason that Stalin ranks more punches than Hitler? Both heartless bastards, to be sure. Just wondering if there's something special about Stalin that sets you off.
He killed more people than Hitler. Maybe that is why.
He killed more people than Hitler. Maybe that is why.
That would be a fair reason. He's not as universally reviled as Hitler, though. I'm just curious as to the reasoning employed, not disputing at all that they're both horrible examples of humanity, atheist or not.
I live near Salem, arguably the Wiccan capital of the country. The wiccans I meet tend to be heavier women, late 30s+, and are either very stern feminists or lesbians. They also usually dress like they are going to a Ren. Fair. Of course there are exceptions. Some of the younger ones are still thin, though mostly this isn't the case.
Yeah, that mirrors my own experiences.
I should have said "most" instead of "all", but making blanket statements about faiths. cultures, religions, and races tends to be funnier when you don't mention exceptions.
I don't really have much faith in anyone, but I find it less credible when I can trace back the start of a religion in modern history. (Note to wiccans: Wicca is not "the old ways". It's a faith that is based of a book that was written in the 1930's. It might be loosely based off the beliefs of various prechristian european cultures, but it isn't the faith of those cultures, it's a modern interpretation. Plus, Wicca has too much emphasis on the self for my liking.)
Alternatively, you could do what her other son did - invite them in to discuss their beliefs, poke holes through all of them, and refuse to let them leave till you've discussed just "one more thing", all the while be achingly pleasant and polite.
Gavin did it best.
I assume by Pastafarians you mean those touched by his noodley appendage.
Indeed.
As the son of two small-town science teachers in Kansas, I'm a registered member (and one of the first recruits) into the church of the Flying Spaghetti Monster.
Cool.
As to Wiccans, the only practicing Wiccan I know is a somewhat chubby gay man. I don't know what that contributes but I felt like sharing.
It is just as valuable as using the Catholic Church or Islam as indicative examples of theists. Communism, as practiced in the Soviet Union, Cambodia and China, was a secularist ideology that castigated religion. When people raise them as examples they are not saying all atheists would be tyrants. They are rebutting the notion that religion is somehow the root cause of all evils when it is intertwined with the state. All we are saying is the Inquisition is no more indicative of religious people than Stalin is of Atheists.
Objectivism is a religion now? Oh boy.
I have a special place in my heart for Stalin. He's almost one of the unsung bastards of human history. That, and I am of the opinion that good uncle Joe Steel did believe in a God. Himself.
I hate Communism for the same reasons I revile religion, and that is not at the base the argument over whose patron deity exists or doesn't, but because of the destructive and corrosive beliefs that both hold. Communism is just as irrational and mystic as the worst religion.
It is also a fallacy of equivocation to say that Crusaders =/= Modern Christians in the same manner that Communism =/= all atheists. The fact of the matter is that "atheism" is a category much vaster than Communism filled with a much wider variety than Christianity. All Communism has in common with the rest of atheism is an absence of one metaphysical belief. Not that it matters, because they replace it with one that is just as grotesque as the worse atrocities of the Dark Ages. I would call Communism "secular" only be the sheer fact that their God, the omnipotent "People" lived on Earth. Communism is a religion. I am not talking about that tripe Ann Coutler wrote about. Remember the ending of 1984? That is what I talk of.
Communists commit atrocity because they are Communists. Christians have committed evil because they are Christians, and that bull with the Spanish Inquisition is only the tip of one horrid iceberg. So far I've yet to see a secular humanists commit murder in the name of George Bernard Shaw. Last I check it wasn't John Galt's name that was shouted as they drove those planes into the Twin Towers. I have heard of Christians making shooting runs against clinics which perform abortion. In the name of Jesus. Call a no true Scotsman if you must. I really don't care. I am not saying that every Christian who ever walked the Earth is a murderous bastard (although I'd like to see you muster some Christians to give the same sentiment across the lines). I do know though, how easy it is for those ideas that Christians hold so dear to go from laughable to nasty. Real quick.
Hope you had fun. Good day.
(Also, as a quick FYI to the poster I first replied to, Robesperrier was a religious man, and thought he was doing the work of the Godhead with the Reign of Terror. Nice try, once again. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cult_of_the_Supreme_Being)
I've never met a wiccan woman that weighed less than 300 pounds and wasn't a lesbian.
I've met plenty. Sounds like you've met nothing but fluffbunnies. Or at least you think you've only met fluffies.
I tell people that I'm either a secular humanist or a germanic neopagan, depending on which I think will make them angrier.
Ah, that explains your Wiccan comment then, thanks.
I range from hardcore atheist to wishy-washy agnostic depending on how stringent I feel like being that particular day. I'm also a Discordian and I think Pastafarians have a good thing going, except they're a bit too hung up on pirates when everyone knows vikings are way more awesome.
Pastafarians have a good thing going when they stay focused on why they're pastafarians. I live in Kansas where the school board decided to basically allow ID to be taught in schools, and would like that seen done away with, and the FSM craze helps toward that goal. But these days it seems like it's blown up too much and they've lost their focus. I'd rather be a Unicornian, in that case. All hail Her Majestic Horniness.
I assume by Pastafarians you mean those touched by his noodley appendage. As the son of two small-town science teachers in Kansas, I'm a registered member (and one of the first recruits) into the church of the Flying Spaghetti Monster.
Pure awesome.
I live near Salem, arguably the Wiccan capital of the country. The wiccans I meet tend to be heavier women, late 30s+, and are either very stern feminists or lesbians. They also usually dress like they are going to a Ren. Fair. Of course there are exceptions. Some of the younger ones are still thin, though mostly this isn't the case.
Sounds like Silver Ravenwolf fluffies who have no clue what it really means to be Wiccan. They probably think that they lost a bunch of their kind during the "Salem witch trials," and that Wicca is older than dirt, eh? Wouldn't surprise me. Sigh.
I don't think you had a representative sampling of the faith. College girls who get into Wicca because they want to have fun and talk about it at parties, are an insult to actual practicing wiccans.
How? And heavy women who dress silly aren't? Do you even know that much about Wicca?
On the subject of religion however, I am a firm believer that 99.9% of the folks I have seen in (insert any religion here) are a bunch of hypocritical, two-faced, back-stabbing, frauds. Most firm believers I see would stab someone else in the back and break every belief they have when confronted with someone from a different religion.
Firm believer =/= "fundie." Try asking around at how many of the people you know consider themselves "firm believers" and you might be surprised at how passive, humble, non-violent many "firm believers" actually are. Don't judge the many by the actions of the few.
Every time someone attempts to make a red-hearing argument that presents the communist party (or that bastard Robespierre. Points for originality, btw, even if your historically off base by miles) as an indicative sample of atheism, I punch a theist. Mostly the ones who made the argument.
This goes double for Hitler. Triple for Stalin.
Objectivist: 1.
I agree with your comments about communism (I mean hello, there is a group called CHRISTIAN COMMUNISTS for crying out loud), but I have to add, every time someone mentions they are an Objectivist, I throw up in my mouth.
How can you follow someone so ugly as Ayn Rand? (jk jk jk jk don't hurt me) :P
It is just as valuable as using the Catholic Church or Islam as indicative examples of theists. Communism, as practiced in the Soviet Union, Cambodia and China, was a secularist ideology that castigated religion. When people raise them as examples they are not saying all atheists would be tyrants. They are rebutting the notion that religion is somehow the root cause of all evils when it is intertwined with the state. All we are saying is the Inquisition is no more indicative of religious people than Stalin is of Atheists.
Objectivism is a religion now? Oh boy.
Uh... no? Why would it be? He just said he's an Objectivist. The OP didn't ask for people's religions. It asked if they were: Atheist, Organized Religion, I dunno, YEC, and maybe another one I'm forgetting.
Just consider Objectivism to be +1 for Atheist. (Ugh. I so hate including Objectivists with the rest of us... *shudder*)
jk jk jk jk don't kill me Mr. Objectivist
Purely out of curiosity, here; is there a reason that Stalin ranks more punches than Hitler? Both heartless bastards, to be sure. Just wondering if there's something special about Stalin that sets you off.
Hitler wasn't a communist, but Stalin (claimed he) was? Or maybe he just doesn't like Stalinism or Leninism? Then again, as an Objectivist he'd be a staunch capitalist/right-wing libertarian, not wanting to be anywhere near any kind of communist economy.
-snip-
Ugh. So ignorant about both the religious and even more so of Communism. Just-- ugh.
I'm neither religious nor communist but reading that was just... well; I can tell you're the kind of person I can't convince otherwise, so I'll just leave it be.
Oh, and since we're all introducing our own categories now:
Absurdist: 1
I hate Communism for the same reasons I revile religion, and that is not at the base the argument over whose patron deity exists or doesn't, but because of the destructive and corrosive beliefs that both hold. Communism is just as irrational and mystic as the worst religion.
It is also a fallacy of equivocation to say that Crusaders =/= Modern Christians in the same manner that Communism =/= all atheists. The fact of the matter is that "atheism" is a category much vaster than Communism filled with a much wider variety than Christianity. All Communism has in common with the rest of atheism is an absence of one metaphysical belief. Not that it matters, because they replace it with one that is just as grotesque as the worse atrocities of the Dark Ages. I would call Communism "secular" only be the sheer fact that their God, the omnipotent "People" lived on Earth. Communism is a religion. I am not talking about that tripe Ann Coutler wrote about. Remember the ending of 1984? That is what I talk of.
Communists commit atrocity because they are Communists. Christians have committed evil because they are Christians, and that bull with the Spanish Inquisition is only the tip of one horrid iceberg. So far I've yet to see a secular humanists commit murder in the name of George Bernard Shaw. Last I check it wasn't John Galt's name that was shouted as they drove those planes into the Twin Towers. I have heard of Christians making shooting runs against clinics which perform abortion. In the name of Jesus. Call a no true Scotsman if you must. I really don't care. I am not saying that every Christian who ever walked the Earth is a murderous bastard (although I'd like to see you muster some Christians to give the same sentiment across the lines). I do know though, how easy it is for those ideas that Christians hold so dear to go from laughable to nasty. Real quick.
Hope you had fun. Good day.
(Also, as a quick FYI to the poster I first replied to, Robesperrier was a religious man, and thought he was doing the work of the Godhead with the Reign of Terror. Nice try, once again. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cult_of_the_Supreme_Being)
I didn't equivocate. I said that the crusades and inquisition are not indicative of all Theism. And it wouldn't be equivocation either way if you are saying Christians are to theism as Communism is to atheism. Which is what I was saying. I am a Buddhist and have little interest in defending Christianity. But the question was about theism vs. atheism. Not Christianity vs. Atheism. Extremism is bad no matter where is comes from. It can be produced by any ideology. Whether it is theistic or atheistic. The problem comes from certainty. That is why Mao was such a disaster.
Now your question of whether any secular humanists have committed atrocities is an interesting one. Though, to be fair, secular humanists are a kind of atheist in the same way christians are a kind of religious person. There are still Atheists who are not secular humanists. I cannot think of any examples where secular humanists have committed atrocities in the name of their ideology (though I suppose if one took a good hard look at medicine, there might be examples). Part of the problem, it seems to me, is few people identify themselves as secular humanists. There just are not that many of them. It isn't even a fashionable designation anymore. It has become a pejorative used by people like John Hagee. But doesn't seem to be a term atheists themselves embrace these days. The other issue is, they haven't really gained control of a nation in the way Christians, Muslims and communists have. Unless you regard the United States as a secular humanist country (which some might). But even then, our crimes were not in the name of secular humanism. As I think about it, I don't really think one would be likely to commit an act of extremism in the name of something as "hollow" as secular humanism. But one might commit atrocities in the name of virtues that follow from it. But it is hard to rally extremism around a negative proposition: "In the name of their being no God, I will destroy you!!!" But, I could see a Secular Humanist society invading a country like Saudi Arabia to "liberate" them from Sharia law (I believe this was the object of a discussion in another thread).
How? And heavy women who dress silly aren't? Do you even know that much about Wicca?
1
Actually, I have never been overly concerned about insulting Wiccans, so I don't know why I said that.
I don't know. Is there anything that could really be insulting to a religion that was founded on bad scholarship?
I know much about the history of the religion. But little of the its actual practices. I attended one wiccan service (mass?) when I was in college. Mostly what I know of Wicca as it is practiced is from what I see in Salem. Never been a big fan of the religion. So haven't looked into it that much.
as for me, I'm an agnostic leaning towards atheism
and two of the wiccans are *really* hot girls. so that thing about large women who dress wierd, well they DO dress wierd at times. . . anyway, you get my meaning.
Actually, I have never been overly concerned about insulting Wiccans, so I don't know why I said that.
I don't know. Is there anything that could really be insulting to a religion that was founded on bad scholarship?
I know much about the history of the religion. But little of the its actual practices. I attended one wiccan service (mass?) when I was in college. Mostly what I know of Wicca as it is practiced is from what I see in Salem. Never been a big fan of the religion. So haven't looked into it that much.
Fair enough.
I'm not a big fan of it either, but I know a few Wiccans and a few former-Wiccans so I know a little about it. Just tidbits though.
Alternatively, you could do what her other son did - invite them in to discuss their beliefs, poke holes through all of them, and refuse to let them leave till you've discussed just "one more thing", all the while be achingly pleasant and polite.
Like I do to any christian group that feels the need to sell god door-to-door. There's something odd in having impromtu religious debates on my porch because they think I need to know more about their brand of salvation.
Like I do to any christian group that feels the need to sell god door-to-door. There's something odd in having impromtu religious debates on my porch because they think I need to know more about their brand of salvation.
QFT
Purely out of curiosity, here; is there a reason that Stalin ranks more punches than Hitler? Both heartless bastards, to be sure. Just wondering if there's something special about Stalin that sets you off.
Communist and bastard.
Like I do to any christian group that feels the need to sell god door-to-door. There's something odd in having impromtu religious debates on my porch because they think I need to know more about their brand of salvation.
Most of these groups don't really bother me, especially since they usually have the best of intentions (after all they believe they are saving your soul). I don't agree with them. I think they are misguided. But I can't hate them for wanting to keep people out of hell. Is it really any worse than getting a phone call from a teller marketer? At least the Christian groups, usually, are not looking to make a buck off of you.
Communist and bastard.
And Hitler was just a Bastard? At least Stalin knew how to lead a nation. If with great cruelty and an iron fist.
I live near Salem, arguably the Wiccan capital of the country. The wiccans I meet tend to be heavier women, late 30s+, and are either very stern feminists or lesbians. They also usually dress like they are going to a Ren. Fair. Of course there are exceptions. Some of the younger ones are still thin, though mostly this isn't the case.
I wish more normal women dressed like that. I was at my local comic shop and there were 2 girls(19ish) who had a style that I wouldn't call ren fairish, more kind of victorianish with the dresses and corsets and all(they were christian though instead of wiccan). They were interesting, incredibly nerdy, and really cute. As much as I can see the practicality in wearing modern attire, I wish more of society would dress like they were going to a ren fair.
I wish more normal women dressed like that. I was at my local comic shop and there were 2 girls(19ish) who had a style that I wouldn't call ren fairish, more kind of victorianish with the dresses and corsets and all(they were christian though instead of wiccan). They were interesting, incredibly nerdy, and really cute. As much as I can see the practicality in wearing modern attire, I wish more of society would dress like they were going to a ren fair.
Unfortunately that would require a lot of the men to don things like hosiery. And I don't know about you, but picturing the average D&D player in a set of hose and a tunic is something I can live without.
Unfortunately that would require a lot of the men to don things like hosiery. And I don't know about you, but picturing the average D&D player in a set of hose and a tunic is something I can live without.
/vomit
/vomit
Yep, break out the brain bleach.
Maybe enough attractive normal women in dresses and corsets will offset the sheer horror of 300lb men in tights.
You just know your average group of people is going to show up looking like this...
or this...
Although if you're REALLY unlucky they'll be playing elves and show up like this...
Holy Cheese shoot me now!
IMO, women in ren fair clothing is a more interesting subject.
Although if you're REALLY unlucky they'll be playing elves and show up like this...
Holy Cheese shoot me now!
/sigh For one second, I have a positive view on/hope for humanity and then humanity has to come and ruin it for me.
/sigh For one second, I have a positive view on/hope for humanity and then humanity has to come and ruin it for me.
Sorry dude.
But I'm just trying to save you the pain man. The pain.
Like I do to any christian group that feels the need to sell god door-to-door. There's something odd in having impromtu religious debates on my porch because they think I need to know more about their brand of salvation.
I usually just tell them I am a practicing Satanist and then shut the door in their face.
I usually just tell them I am a practicing Satanist and then shut the door in their face.
I had "friends" in college who would tell the Campus Crusade and the Navigators that I needed my soul saved. On nearly a weekly basis, I'd come back to my dorm room (it was never locked) and there would be two or three other college aged people there wearing matching t-shirts with crosses on them.
I finally got tired of finding (semi-)polite ways of getting rid of them, so I commissioned one of my art student buddies to do me a door-sized poster/canvass that was basically a giant image of Chthullu with the bottom half of the fish symbol sticking out of his tentacled jaw, with a caption at the bottom that read "My god could eat your god."
A month of having that up, and the visits stopped.
... a giant image of Chthullu with the bottom half of the fish symbol sticking out of his tentacled jaw, with a caption at the bottom that read "My god could eat your god."
Now that's a t-shirt idea if I ever heard one.
Now that's a t-shirt idea if I ever heard one.
Heh, probably. Not something I would wear, but it would probably look pretty cool.
The only drawback of that particular system was that it scared off the girl I had a crush on at the time. She was Armenian, so she didn't really get the cultural reference, but she knew what the fish was. Every time she saw me until she graduated and headed home she would make the sign of the cross with her fingers. I'm pretty sure she was mostly joking, but I've never been sure...
I find religion to be a quaintly naive notion. God is just the end point of the line of stories that starts out with the Eater Bunny and the Tooth Fairy - cute little fables we use to explain the world to children until we think they are able to handle the truth. Sadly, most people cannot handle the truth about how frightening and unfair life really is and so long cling on to this one last fairy tale as a buffer against the horrors of a cold, uncaring universe in which we have no import and significance whatsoever.
.
Is it any less naive to claim that there is no higher power in the universe? Both theism and atheism are statements of metaphysical certainty that are little more than conjecture. And, frankly, the atheistic claim is more often than not an emtional reaction to the theistic one. In this way, Atheism is just as much a fairytale claim about truth as religion. It is just as much turning naive guesswork into "truth".
It would seem that the whole argument would become clear as to who was right after one dies. However, I don't know anyone who has died and lived to tell about it.
Exactly. And there exists the possibility that no one has been right ever. That some possibility we haven't ever imagined is the case.
Personally I take the Joseph Campbel approach to religion. Which is why Buddhism suits me rather well.
Is it any less naive to claim that there is no higher power in the universe? Both theism and atheism are statements of metaphysical certainty that are little more than conjecture. And, frankly, the atheistic claim is more often than not an emtional reaction to the theistic one. In this way, Atheism is just as much a fairytale claim about truth as religion. It is just as much turning naive guesswork into "truth".
Visit the Irreducible Complexity thread where this has been beaten to death.
The long and short of it is, you're talking very specifically about strong atheism, not of atheism in general. So don't generalize.
I don't claim there is no god. In fact, I go so far as to say that such a position is untenable. How does that fit your little box?
Visit the Irreducible Complexity thread where this has been beaten to death.
The long and short of it is, you're talking very specifically about strong atheism, not of atheism in general. So don't generalize.
I don't claim there is no god. In fact, I go so far as to say that such a position is untenable. How does that fit your little box?
Hold on there buddy. No need to get angry. Especially since we take a very similar metaphysical position.
You sound like an agnostic more than an atheist in my opinion. I realize within Atheism there is variety. But the post I was responding to was clearly making a case for what you label "Strong Atheism".
Heh, probably. Not something I would wear, but it would probably look pretty cool.
The only drawback of that particular system was that it scared off the girl I had a crush on at the time. She was Armenian, so she didn't really get the cultural reference, but she knew what the fish was. Every time she saw me until she graduated and headed home she would make the sign of the cross with her fingers. I'm pretty sure she was mostly joking, but I've never been sure...
Yeah, you wouldn't see me wearing it either. Still, it would be amusing. It's too bad you "scared her off". But, then again, maybe it was for the best. I'd have a hard time havimg any sort of lasting relationship with someone that gets that bothered by some odd imagery, at least. Maybe you saved yourself a headache. :D
By the way, I am not angry at any of the posters, but I wanted to make a stand and defend my beliefs.
I usually don't get involved in discussions like this, but I feel I need to put in my 2 cents. Why do most of the people here have such a problem with religion. Im a Christian, (by Christian I mean I believe in the death and ressurection of Jesus Christ) and I don't consider myself a fanatic or an idiot, but most of the people who post here will argue about how stupid or uneducated I am. Why? Why do you care so much if I believe in a God that loves man and wants to save them? Why can't I believe that God created the universe? Why does that make me an idiot? Lots of people are so eager to point out "holes" in my belief, and complain about the hypocrysy, but that just shows how my way of thinking is different than yours, and what is the problem with that? Before saying how flawed my beliefs are, maybe you should judge your own beliefs as harshly and critically as mine.
By the way, I am not angry at any of the posters, but I wanted to make a stand and defend my beliefs.
I am impressed that you stood up for your beliefs like that. I don't care what people believe. But I don't like seeing people gang up or become hostile to any group. And I have to admit I am troubled by the hostility shown to christians on this thread. I think it is innapropriate, and immature (the sort of thing one expects to hear from a college student who just found out about atheism). Not only that but something of a straw man has been created here. Not all Christians take the New Testament literally, or interpret it in the same way. If you find peace and awe in your faith, who am to stop you. And who I am to say you are wrong. Especially when I have little clue as to how you interpret your scripture.
P.S. I hope the presence of a few close minded people, who likely have a personal beef with your religion, won't chase you away from our forum.
P.S. I hope the presence of a few close minded people, who likely have a personal beef with your religion, won't chase you away from our forum
Have no fear, I could never leave these forums ( how else could I DM). I didnt become a Christian to get people to like me.
It just seems to me that the people who think so poorly of religion don't even understand it, and refuse to try and view the other side's point of view. In college I had a friend who was an atheist, and he was SO proud to bring it up and brag about it (just like a lot of people here), but he was my friend and I would just ignore his comments. The people here brag about their beliefs, even if they claim not to have any, so why can't a Christian be proud to say he/she is one? I understand why people fear religion, but why are they so eager to try and deny it to others? Everyone wants to believe in something, and puts their faith in something.
/comment
There, I said it.
While I am an atheist, I do value some messages from organized religions, like kindness, honesty, etc. but I also value freedom of choice.
Christianity is all about freedom of choice. Why do you think there is evil in the world. Why do you think God allows people to hurt and kill each other? God isn't going to step down and interfere with your life, God lets you do what you want. People like to blame God or question Him when bad things happen as a result to PEOPLE'S (not God's) actions. However, there are consequences for our actions, in this life or the next.
Something a lot of people don't understand is that goal of a Christian isn't to go to heaven when you die. The goal is to try and live a life pleasing to God, a rightous life, and that includes loving your fellow man and trying to teach him about the love of God. Why is that the goal? Because God loves you and wants you to love Him and your fellow man and He is God. Why would you not want to do what God wants?
Another thing people don't understand (including many Christians) is that a Christian is NO better than ANYONE else. I used to think that a Christian could do anything considered "wrong" and could just be forgiven, but I've learned a real Christian will strive to repent (meaning turn away, or end) their sins. There is a huge difference between knowing about God, and truely knowing God, and sadly the Bible says very few people will ever know God.
A Christian should not judge other people (Jesus was very clear on that), and it is not a Christian's place to say who goes to heaven or hell. That is decided by God whenever He judges everyone for their actions. I make mistakes just like anyone else, and I try to do whats right, but I do not believe I am a good person, who is better than a non-christian (in fact I could be worse since I know the difference between right and wrong). I do not believe that I am just guaranteed a spot in heaven just because I say I believe something. Actions speak louder than words.
Sorry about the long rant, but I feel people here need to know what I think about Christianity before they start attacking it. Also, this is my view and a lot of people would disagree with it, but I found the longer I live the more I feel that I understand what it truely takes to be a Christian. If you have any questions or comments for me, feel free to tell me (even if they are negative) and I will try to back my beliefs and explain them to you.
Sorry about the long rant, but I feel people here need to know what I think about Christianity before they start attacking it.
I've never had a problem with Christianity as a system of belief (or any other religion for that matter). My beef was always with the people who try to use their religion to justify bad behavior on their parts. If you're really a "live and let live" Christian, we'd probably get along just fine.
You just know your average group of people is going to show up looking like this...
or this...
Although if you're REALLY unlucky they'll be playing elves and show up like this...
Holy Cheese shoot me now!
oh, gods, *barf* you *barf* sir are *baaaaaaaaaaaaarf* are evil *barf*
I had "friends" in college who would tell the Campus Crusade and the Navigators that I needed my soul saved. On nearly a weekly basis, I'd come back to my dorm room (it was never locked) and there would be two or three other college aged people there wearing matching t-shirts with crosses on them.
I finally got tired of finding (semi-)polite ways of getting rid of them, so I commissioned one of my art student buddies to do me a door-sized poster/canvass that was basically a giant image of Chthullu with the bottom half of the fish symbol sticking out of his tentacled jaw, with a caption at the bottom that read "My god could eat your god."
A month of having that up, and the visits stopped.
NICE! That will help with my neighbors. . . :D
I've never had a problem with Christianity as a system of belief (or any other religion for that matter). My beef was always with the people who try to use their religion to justify bad behavior on their parts. If you're really a "live and let live" Christian, we'd probably get along just fine.
My problem with "Christians" is that so few of them actually are. Most people that lay claim to the faith have no understanding whatsoever of even the most basic of tenets and even less knowledge of the scriptures that they hold in such reverence. This is one of the reasons I hold muslims and Jewish people in higher regard than Christians.
His recent comments on the current split in the church over Homosexuality, his comments on HIV/AIDS, and his work on "truth and reconsiliation" after the end of Apathed show how groovy a person he is
Is it any less naive to claim that there is no higher power in the universe?
Yes, in much the same way that believing a fat man in red delivers free toys to every child on Earth in one night is far more naive than knowing he doesn't.
oh, gods, *barf* you *barf* sir are *baaaaaaaaaaaaarf* are evil *barf*
I do what I can.
:evillaugh 
Yes, in much the same way that believing a fat man in red delivers free toys to every child on Earth in one night is far more naive than knowing he doesn't.
It is different. We have evidence that Santa Claus is a myth, because we play him for our kids. If we don't put the gifts out, he doesn't come. What I am saying is that both theists and atheists are treading on speculative ground. Also, the assertion of atheism isn't just that one particular kind of god doesn't exist, but that there is no higher power at all. That the universe was not created by anything and is somehow self contained. So it isn't enough to say, well the Christian notion of God is silly, and therefore there must be no God at all. As I said, both are making speculative judgments about the fundamental truth of the universe. Something that is well beyond human knowledge.
I do what I can.
are you giving lessons?
are you giving lessons?
Ah, as my instructor once taught me, you cannot be taught to be evil.
Hold on there buddy. No need to get angry. Especially since we take a very similar metaphysical position.
You sound like an agnostic more than an atheist in my opinion. I realize within Atheism there is variety. But the post I was responding to was clearly making a case for what you label "Strong Atheism".
That's because I AM AN AGNOSTIC. I'm one of those agnostics that doesn't believe in gods as a result of my agnosticism. Ergo, I am also an atheist.
When you're making a "case" against strong atheism, please inform others that that is what you're doing. Otherwise you're just creating a straw man.
Maybe its slightly off-topic, but what is the general view on Spinoza nowadays? I've read his On the Improvement of Understanding, but I thought it was incredibly dry. From what I've read of it I thought Ethics was interesting. However, I ran into someone the other day who absolutely detests Spinoza. What do most people think of him(from both sides of the religious fence)? Is he even relevant in a modern debate on religion?
Well, I haven't read much of Spinoza, just a bit of Ethics and that's it. A friend of mine is quite well-read though and has been my source of information on Spinoza in the past.
It seems to me that Spinoza is still very relevant in modern philosophy (and of course religion). From what I understand, he played an excellent word-game with Ethics, and few have even attempted to dispute him (and those who dare go that far get pretty deep into philosophy, way beyond my understanding of it).
Did the person you ran into give a reason for detesting Spinoza? Personally I look forward to really delving into his work and actually understanding it in the future (when I go for my PhD in Philosophy).
Well, I haven't read much of Spinoza, just a bit of Ethics and that's it. A friend of mine is quite well-read though and has been my source of information on Spinoza in the past.
It seems to me that Spinoza is still very relevant in modern philosophy (and of course religion). From what I understand, he played an excellent word-game with Ethics, and few have even attempted to dispute him (and those who dare go that far get pretty deep into philosophy, way beyond my understanding of it).
Did the person you ran into give a reason for detesting Spinoza? Personally I look forward to really delving into his work and actually understanding it in the future (when I go for my PhD in Philosophy).
He didn't really get too far into why he didn't like Spinoza. I work with him, so if we aren't busy I'll actually ask his reasoning behind it. I wish I could read more philosophy, but sadly the internet is to philosophy as chocolate cake is to vegetables. One is a hell of a lot better for you in the end, but doesn't provide the same sense of immediate gratification.
I finally got tired of finding (semi-)polite ways of getting rid of them, so I commissioned one of my art student buddies to do me a door-sized poster/canvass that was basically a giant image of Chthullu with the bottom half of the fish symbol sticking out of his tentacled jaw, with a caption at the bottom that read "My god could eat your god."
A month of having that up, and the visits stopped.
I heard of a guy who got rid of visiting evangelizers by putting up a pentagram in the window next to the door.
My problem with "Christians" is that so few of them actually are. Most people that lay claim to the faith have no understanding whatsoever of even the most basic of tenets and even less knowledge of the scriptures that they hold in such reverence. This is one of the reasons I hold muslims and Jewish people in higher regard than Christians.
There are some Christians that are extremely dedicated, I'm not going to name them.
There is another group of people who lose their faith, children of parents who force religion and completely control them. Their kids will only ever rebel.
Ah, as my instructor once taught me, you cannot be taught to be evil.
was your instructor teaching you to be evil? If so, you're contradicting yourself. Or was he teaching something else and you both happened to be evil? Maybe I should just find a way to get rid of my consience. That's a good start
I may not be the worlds biggest fan on Christianity, but Archbishop Tutu is a great person!
His recent comments on the current split in the church over Homosexuality, his comments on HIV/AIDS, and his work on "truth and reconsiliation" after the end of Apathed show how groovy a person he is
Desmond Tutu is an inspiration.
It is different. We have evidence that Santa Claus is a myth, because we play him for our kids. If we don't put the gifts out, he doesn't come. What I am saying is that both theists and atheists are treading on speculative ground. Also, the assertion of atheism isn't just that one particular kind of god doesn't exist, but that there is no higher power at all. That the universe was not created by anything and is somehow self contained. So it isn't enough to say, well the Christian notion of God is silly, and therefore there must be no God at all. As I said, both are making speculative judgments about the fundamental truth of the universe. Something that is well beyond human knowledge.
Its actually very easy if you treat each religion as a scientific/metaphysical theory and test each one against the facts of reality as learned by you via induction. So far, most Gods which I have come across are demonstratably false, or so absent that they become a bare assertion, the Christian one being an easy one since he is loaded down by the weight of many self-contradictions. Some others take an understanding of science to dispel, such as knowledge that the sky is not made from the split ribs of a slain god (Tiamat). They are not speculative judgements in the least. Saying so is essentially denying that humans have any real power to understand the workings of the universe. The computer that you are using, which implicitly operates on the harnessing of numerous complex and counter-intuitive physical operations, begs to differ.
As a side note, you may also want to be careful with your definitions. It seems by your wording that you think that atheism equates with a total denial of any type of ruling order in the universe. Atheism is not metaphysical nihilism. Its is the conclusion the absence (not the denial) of a conscious preternatural source of interference in the universe. I am not sure if this equation was your intent, but if it was, I suggest you do not mix the two up. If it wasn't, I apologize for my mistake.
Desmond Tutu is an inspiration.
And proof positive that a person can be a Christian and be worthy of respect. There are few men in the world I would consider good, Tutu is one of them, even though I disagree strongly with his religion.
I may not be the worlds biggest fan on Christianity, but Archbishop Tutu is a great person!
His recent comments on the current split in the church over Homosexuality, his comments on HIV/AIDS, and his work on "truth and reconsiliation" after the end of Apathed show how groovy a person he is
Well said. I met him briefly as a kid; he was at Trinity Lutheran Seminary when my mom was ordained (pastor's kid) back in the early 80's. Spoke w/ him, shook his hand and all, but didn't really get to appreciate the magnitude of his presence and ideology until I was older.
Amazing. If this guy doesn't have his finger on the pulse of the world's ethics, I don't know who does.
Too bad you don't hear more about positive forces like this. All the tripe we're fed about clergy is usually at the behest of media outlets that could always stand to improve ratings, you know? That is to say, you only really hear about brutalists like al'Sadr, some priests taking liberties w/ young boys, hardcore or ultra orthodox types that cannot abide skin color, gender, or sexual orientation, and so on.
It's rare as Hell that you hear about the good stuff, even secular niceties. Missionaries doing AIDS relief, combatting illiteracy, starting youth programs in the inner city, etc.
People are often too quick to fire having furious relgio-political rhetoric as their ammo and a hair trigger for a temperment. Lack of critical thinking has fostered a very unfair and terribly biased opinion on many world religions in that its very fashionable to find fault w/ any form of organized faith. Truly, it is their right which I defend, but I cannot abide slander, hearsay, and conjecture.
Invisible skybrains that reward the just and punish the wicked. Somehow living after our lives are over. People performing magic.
It'll all just a bit far-fetched to me and sounds like one of the UFO nuts' conspiracy theories.
It'll all just a bit far-fetched to me and sounds like one of the UFO nuts' conspiracy theories.
That our commander-in-chief has absolute faith in. Anybody else feeling a tad bit scared?
That our commander-in-chief has absolute faith in. Anybody else feeling a tad bit scared?
Considering Obama and McCain both have some pretty close religious ties, yes, we should be scared.
That our commander-in-chief has absolute faith in. Anybody else feeling a tad bit scared?
I'm not. At least, not for that reason. ;)
I think it's pretty silly that in this day and age we (as in the human race) still believe in some of this crazy stuff.
A popular opinion in some circles to be sure, but deviant from the majority, that is, out of 6 billion or so, all walks of life, all beliefs, etc.
You're trying to dispel millenia of humanity and abstract thinking/belief. It is not going to happen in this lifetime I suspect.
It is important that we consider the intangible & unknown and not be cajoled, bullied, or manipulated into submission by skepticism & bitterness by the disenfranchised, those purely basing their logic only on what they may deduce as scientific, or otherwise.
I, by no means, am making any assumptions about your grounding or to which demographic you may feel or not feel you identify w/, just stating what is in matter-of-fact style if I may beg your pardon.
Invisible skybrains that reward the just and punish the wicked. Somehow living after our lives are over. People performing magic.
Your somewhat stereotypical estimation of the pinnacle of human existential thought is depressing/unrealistic IMO. Defensible to be sure and I would/will support that legal right, however, it is premature and, dare-I-say, presumptive. Please note this is not a personal jab so much as an opinion, more importantly, my own.
Concluding in rather cursory, if not overly simplified and misinformed tones, the whole of religion & philosophy as has been stated is legal. Were we to apply the same common rhetoric & negativity used prior to say, sexual orientation or race, this would easilly, and legally as well, be deduced as gay bashing or racism. Neither of which my own faith promotes, but I cannot speak for the whole of Christendom, just my little niche is all.
Essentially, what I'm saying is lambasting faith/philosphy (in this country) is "okay" and a preserved right, which is fine, I understand completely. But to apply those same standards, understanding, and ideology you've impressed upon this scenario to other social strata, namely race/sex issues, as stated previously, well, they would be decried as hate speach and censored promptly as illegal and tasteless.
That's just me though. It would seem ones ethos and existential being are more important than skin color or your sexual appetites. That is, the later are rooted in the flesh and, let's be frank, they're temporary at best and will surely expire & rot like all things. Body is fleeting; race shouldn't matter to wholesome, intelligent people. Those it to which it does I wouldn't want to associate w/ anyway. They do not hold to modern secular humanity or a good many tenets on race of most major religious thinking IMO. As for sexuality, it is temporary as well; it doesn't define the whole of your life either and is merely an extension of your instincts/libido, ie)not terribly pivotal in comparison to altruism, goodwill to mankind, higher thinking, etc. Furthermore, it's gonna' taper off and disappear in those golden years as nature works its course. Thusly, a footnote in your otherwise typical life for good or ill.
Your intellect, soul, thinking, etc, whatever you wanna' call it (cuz' you have that freedom too), are understandably more important (IMO), but the in vogue status quo these days is content to put this higher thought/mentality on the back burner in favor of lesser strata, typically, things that we shouldn't even have to address if we were goodly ppl. And coming full circle, worrying about race & sexual orientation (a few of the million social concerns) wouldn't be such an issue if people actually acted like decent people in accordance to most (not all) contemporary religious thinking.
That is, my faith & a zillion others these days, do not tolerate discrimination sexually, racially, or otherwise. It's just it shouldn't take faith to get your mind where it should be.
It'll all just a bit far-fetched to me and sounds like one of the UFO nuts' conspiracy theories.
Appreciated to be sure, but a little off the mark IMO. Speculation of little green men never really inspired humanity to give alms to the poor, heal the sick, promote peace and understanding, and bla bla bla. It helps sell books, get movie deals, and on the upside, gives alot of scientists some working material. Again, apples and oranges like the previous comparison. A bit harsh and fails to take into account all the variables given personal reasons (bias, background, etc).
goblin_pride: That our commander-in-chief has absolute faith in. Anybody else feeling a tad bit scared?
Not that it matters, but I didn't vote for him on the religious tip. In fact, I didn't vote for him at all. More importantly, his pandering & courting of many American religious factions to bolster campaigns I & II was a farce. That is, a great many of the religious American and the Christian Right (which ironically is neither in alot of respects) had no problem mentioning what they animatedly call "betrayal" at Bush's run. Essentially, they feel he, his advisors, campaign managers, whatever, used their facade as a jump point for more votes. Kind of what we're seeing now...again.
I wouldn't say he has "absolute faith" in much of anything much less religion. It helped get him in office and when it served its usefulness, he stopped paying lip service, thusly, antagonizing alot of religious America.
He allegedly jumped on the Jesus bus after hitting the bottle pretty hard back in the day. That is my estimation, although, I'm sure it's more than that. Doesn't matter really. He's a lame duck pres now.
As for Obama & McCain using religion as a sounding board, who knows. It gets votes and that's what they want. Whether they are completely secular or not, only time will tell. Media coverage is fickle and askwed at best. The upside is, Americans often want leadership from politicians that have a religious background as it is supposed to be tempered in morality and decency...the irony of course being Washington is anything but. Politicians don't always abide those tenets given ulterior motives and conflicting obligations and responsibilities. Still, it's hard to stop a train...
Appreciated to be sure, but a little off the mark IMO. Speculation of little green men never really inspired humanity to give alms to the poor, heal the sick, promote peace and understanding, and bla bla bla.
Or engage in the senseless violence of holy crusades or put people to death for believing in the "wrong" god, or even for believing in the right god but in the wrong way.
So the little green men thing can go either way.
A popular opinion in some circles to be sure, but deviant from the majority, that is, out of 6 billion or so, all walks of life, all beliefs, etc.
You make a good point here and it's one I often touch on, though I am myself an atheist. Because religious beliefs are so commonplace we cannot call them "insane" or imply that, and indeed modern psychology backs me up on this.
For those of us who are atheists, it may seem counter-intuitive, but there is nothing psychologically damaging or "wrong" about such beliefs.
It is important that we consider the intangible & unknown and not be cajoled, bullied, or manipulated into submission by skepticism & bitterness by the disenfranchised, those purely basing their logic only on what they may deduce as scientific, or otherwise.
It's also important not to mischaracterize the opposition in an attempt to cajole, bully, or manipulate others into submission by fanatacism and bitterness by the disenfranchised, those purely basing their faith only on what they may deduce as religious, or otherwise.
What I'm saying here is that you shouldn't paint others with such broad strokes, as you've done. I realize that the phrase, "Invisible skybrains that reward the just and punish the wicked. Somehow living after our lives are over. People performing magic." is insulting and you have every right to feel insulted. However, you should not use that as a springboard to insult everyone who doesn't share your beliefs, because you then go from returning insults not just to the original one whom you felt slighted by, but to throwing out those insults to the entirety of a group many of which have nothing to do with you and would not insult you in such a manner. It'd be like those atheists you criticize so much telling you that you're no different from the religious right: homophobic, racist, and the like. Certainly this isn't the sort of mentality you want to encourage?
Your somewhat stereotypical estimation of the pinnacle of human existential thought is depressing/unrealistic IMO.
It was stereotypical and uncalled for, that much I agree with. However, you calling it the "pinnacle of human existential thought" is also out of line and only meant to insult those who don't share your beliefs. Many of us disagree that it is in fact the "pinnacle of human existential thought." Comments like this only serve to further divide yourself from the rest of us (atheists) many of whom share your concerns that some of us (again, atheists) go out of line with comments like the one you replied to.
Essentially, what I'm saying is lambasting faith/philosphy (in this country) is "okay" and a preserved right, which is fine, I understand completely. But to apply those same standards, understanding, and ideology you've impressed upon this scenario to other social strata, namely race/sex issues, as stated previously, well, they would be decried as hate speach and censored promptly as illegal and tasteless.
I agree, but likewise, your own comments towards those with a lack of faith border the same kind of "hate speech." Not nearly as closely as the comments you are responding to, granted, but they walk the line.
Your intellect, soul, thinking, etc, whatever you wanna' call it (cuz' you have that freedom too), are understandably more important (IMO), but the in vogue status quo these days is content to put this higher thought/mentality on the back burner in favor of lesser strata, typically, things that we shouldn't even have to address if we were goodly ppl. And coming full circle, worrying about race & sexual orientation (a few of the million social concerns) wouldn't be such an issue if people actually acted like decent people in accordance to most (not all) contemporary religious thinking.
And likewise, those concerns also wouldn't be such an issue if people actually acted like decent people in accordance to most (not all) contemporary secular thinking.
Or engage in the senseless violence of holy crusades or put people to death for believing in the "wrong" god, or even for believing in the right god but in the wrong way.
So the little green men thing can go either way.
You don't really understand the Crusades, then. The Crusades was a political war, through and through, an attempt to capture land. It was fought mostly among Christians (against Christians) as well as Muslims. But that was just the surface of it. Really it had very little to do with religion; religion was the tool, not the cause.
For example: "I have no reason to believe in your deity any more than I have to believe in an invisible pink unicorn."
This gets the message across that to you they are similar, without implying that they have to be similar to someone else (although undoubtedly someone will take it that way, which is why I personally tend to be even more clear with my use of language).
I have no interest in getting into a religious debate, but chalk me up as a devoted atheist, active secular humanist, and a sworn enemy of magical thinking (unless you're talking about D&D spell tactics.)
-Unmaker
The point stands nevertheless, however. Religion has inspired appalling behaviour and it still does.
I should probably have used the word "wars" rather than "crusades". I wasn't specifically referring to *the* Crusades aimed at recapturing Jerusalem.
The point stands nevertheless, however. Religion has inspired appalling behaviour and it still does.
Certainly, and I don't dispute that. However, it should be noted that we don't have very many "atheist" or "secular" nations and history by which to compare, and the few that we do (Soviet Russia, for instance) don't tell a good story, either.
While atheism itself hasn't inspired appalling behavior, atheistic (i.e. non-theistic) beliefs and ideologies certainly have. And of course this is comparable to the fact that theism itself hasn't inspired appalling behavior, but that certain theistic beliefs (namely, [theistic] religions) have.
EDIT: The whole of humanity displays some rather appalling behavior; it's not limited just to the religious.
Out of curiosity, people, what is your opinion about the promises a god makes? For example, I remember reading the Old Testament (must know about every position if I am to make an informed decision), and one bit in particular struck out, where YHWH offered to void his contract with Abraham and make a new one with Moses if he let him exterminate the hebrews in the Sinai for their lack of faith. It's a bit distressing, to imagine deities that are so willing to break their promises.
Or engage in the senseless violence of holy crusades or put people to death for believing in the "wrong" god, or even for believing in the right god but in the wrong way.
So the little green men thing can go either way.
Heh, I knew that was coming in knee-jerk reaction. Always a popular "out".
The point being, you can take & hijack a perfectly good institution (see jihadist Islam, the Chritian Coalition, flavor of the we(a)ek pop culture fads/faiths), religion and philosophy in this case, and plug it into human socio-political powerbase 'x' and you're going to get the potential for either amazing goodness and humanity (bishop Tutu, Mother Theresa, educating the serfs, AIDS/food relief) or atrocity and abuse of its core tenets (Shiite/Sunni sectarian killings, the Inquisition, Conquistadors, anti-gay politicians and certain, uh, youthful indiscretions ;) , etc.).
Perhaps this is another reason for seperation of church and state.
The religion itself may or may not be broken. In this light, contemporary Christianity, Judaism, Islam, Buddhism, etc. are perfectly good. It is when you get someone at the helm that isn't and uses it for their own motives that you get things like the fashionable mentioning of the Crusades and so forth.
Popes & clergy, imams & mullahs, etc., they made those choices, not God. If people are motivated enough to listen to them and act upon their will (not God's), that is their cross to bear (no pun intended), not mine.
I mean, it's odd really, that alot of true religious folk of note are rebels in their own way. The aforementioned Tutu, Theresa and their ilk took a Hell of alot of flak for what they did. But these are exceptional human beings that used religion AS IT SHOULD be IMO. Jesus, Mohammed, Moses, etc., all tweaked alot of egos and facilitated higher thinking and goodwill at the expense of alot of peoples' illusions and pride. Isn't humility a virtue in pretty much all major religions these days?
As for the UFO nutjobs, yeah, they can undo years of growth for SETI, astronomy, NASA, all manner of good critical thinking w/ their pie-in-the-sky fanaticism in much the same way a clergy(wo)man w/ power and influence can subvert the innate beauty and altruism of faith 'x' and get round up suicide bombers, get gay bashers to picket funerals, or kickstart holy wars.
Not too cool.
I like to think there is extraterrestial life myself. Just as we study apes and our own genetic past, I think they are doing the same to us. Quite simply, it is possible (not definite) that they are simply very evolved humans just as we are evolved apes. Despite Creation Myth, I have no illusions about my genetic construction or faith and why primitive man w/ nary a microscope or bloodsample could fathom such deep thinking and complexity. Not important (to this thread anyway, but I'll entertain more dialogue).
UFO speculation in the popular sense doesn't synch up w/ current religious affairs in all aspects. Pigeonholing one or the other isn't exactly the apex of impartiality and critical thinking. There is wisdom to be learned in each I'm sure, you just have to seperate the wheat from the chaff so to speak.
In this light, contemporary Christianity, Judaism, Islam, Buddhism, etc. are perfectly good.
Are they?
Certainly they are the way some people choose to interpret them, but how do you know that these interpretations are correct? Maybe the people who claim that we actually are supposed to be going around executing homosexuals have got it right.
Are they?
Certainly they are the way some people choose to interpret them, but how do you know that these interpretations are correct? Maybe the people who claim that we actually are supposed to be going around executing homosexuals have got it right.
'Cept they're not. Universal, objective good overrides even religion. It is literally impossible that they are right, from a logic standpoint.
'Cept they're not. Universal, objective good overrides even religion. It is literally impossible that they are right, from a logic standpoint.
Yes, but I'm using "right" in the context of the Christian doctrine here. While it is morally wrong to execute homosexuals simply for being homosexuals, maybe that is exactly what "God" would have us do.
Are they?
Who's to say? I mean, respect for posing such a monumental question, but I'm not really sure any of us can answer it. Nor should we really.
Where I stand: I tend to take the open-ended Lutheran approach to things like this. That is, not necessarilly from a line of dogma, but prefering to acknowledge and act upon the understood ideal that religion is a personal matter, or more precisely, it's between you and God (or Yahweh, or Allah, or Buddah or whomever). You can only do what's right for you and leave it at that. Allow for convincing arguements and deep thought, but don't trumpet them and soap box I guess unless you can clearly see blatant wrong or evil that you can fix...err, are responsible to cite at least.
It's just, what are those wrongs? Different sins & transgressions for different cultures, religions, time lines, etc. NOthing is static, always evolving, even contemporary morality, religion and philosophy per demographic 'x'.
I'm not fit to pass judgement in this respect, and if I was, I woudn't traffic that wisdom in a place like this; that is, this format isn't exactly the pinnacle of impartiality and moderation. It has its moments to be sure.
Certainly they are the way some people choose to interpret them, but how do you know that these interpretations are correct? Maybe the people who claim that we actually are supposed to be going around executing homosexuals have got it right.
Per their society, perhaps, not ours. Per their religion, perhaps, but not mine. Who knows. I'm not for caring cuz' I don't think there is 1 "true religion" who has the answers. We're sometimes right, sometimes wrong. Can't be right 100%. Have to accept that we cannot think like God and trying to enforce human conditions & limitations on something that is possibly superhuman and infinite is a fool's errand.
To presume such is pretty arrogant as we're fallible and biased no matter the source. Presuming to think on a deific (while being mortal & somewhat flawed) level which is, well, pretty much impossible. Gotta' know our limits. So, to me, your own personal intepretation is probably the best bet (for you, the individual, not collective), but what do I know. I'm just another ant in the hill...and it's a big hill. You're not going to be judged as a group so much as a singular person, so to me, it stands to reason we should operate that way.
And there you have it. Interpretation. That's as good as I can get it given my own ethos of the personal relationship. Hence, personal interpretation...but that's between you and God or who/whatever you acknowledge existentially.
Maybe we should stone homosexuals to death, but how many times have we heard, "let he who is w/out sin cast the first stone" and bla bla bla. I don't wanna' be at the front of that line, you know?
All you can do it give it your best shot, understand the interconnectivity of all things, acknowledge the difference between Gift & Dominion, treat others like you'd want them to treat you, etc. I mean, basically, the main truisms of most major religions are the same just as we as people are. Factioning all of us up as "this" or "that" isn't really helping. Like it's gonna' matter when we're dead anyway. It'll just be you and God hopefully so all of the possible rhetoric, posturing, etc. will be for nought, just what you interpreted to the best of your ability.
This is only an opinion mind you. When I get my ticket punched and get more answers from upstairs, I'll post another thread and keep you all updated ;) .
You don't really understand the Crusades, then. The Crusades was a political war, through and through, an attempt to capture land. It was fought mostly among Christians (against Christians) as well as Muslims. But that was just the surface of it. Really it had very little to do with religion; religion was the tool, not the cause.
This is untrue. The start of the Crusades was to take back Jerusalem from a competing religion. That was the true of the rest, though the Christians did take that detour to attack other Christians in Constantinople. If it was just political or economic, why the constant focus on religious sites? Why not constantly attack the port cities until they were finally won and not constantly waste time going after Jerusalem?
This is rather akin to saying that the ACW was not over slavery, though both sides said it was at the time. It is only now when people have a reason to white-wash the events do people try to revise history.
I am an atheist. I do acknowledge that there is some remote possiblity that a deity might be hiding under a rock somewhere. However, the god of the bible and the rest of the Bronze age pantheons do not exist as described.
The point stands nevertheless, however. Religion has inspired appalling behaviour and it still does.
Take a second to take everything into account. Yes, some have used relgion to justify appaling behaviour. But when have people ever needed religion for that? Think of the greatest atrocities in the last century or so. Depending on who you are these will vary, subjectivity and such. For myself, the three greatest attrocities since 1900 were; Hitler's Hollocaust, Stalin's entire lifetime and all the people who died as a result of his existence on this planet, and the atomic bombings of two densely populated Japanese cities. These had nothing to do with religion. They were all pretty horrible. Religious fundamentalism has been responsible for tragedy, but I can't think of anything quite on the scope of any of these.
On the other hand, take a look at what Relgion as a whole has brought to this world. I am not going to make a case for you to believe in God. That is not something a random person on the internet could do. However, I am of the opinion that the practical advantages of religion by far outway the atrocities that some have linked to it. To use Christianity as an example, religion has formed the basis for our entire western way of life, and we would not be the way we are today without it. An example of this is the Roman Empire. The Empire was, as we all know, cruel and bloodthirsty. It also paved the way for all of Western Civilisation to follow. Rome persecuted Christianity, yet ultimatly became a Christian realm and the faith's greatest advocate. Rome's conversation was largely reactionary; people had lived a life of such decadence and depravity that, when they saw an alternative lifestyle practiced by the Christians, they were moved enough to adopt it as their own. Yes, I know that Rome as a state was still pretty cruel after Constantine, but that was ultimatly what you get when you have inbred despots ruling over an autocratic realm. But in the long run, Christianity was the west's greatest agent of reform (because, really, things had gotten pretty bad before Jesus came along, regardless of whether or not you believe in his divinity). Once Christianity was intitutionalised, it became vulnerable to the same failings that all human beings are vulnerable to, but one cannot discount the fact that we live the way we do largely because of the role religion has played in our history.
Personally, even though I feel the West is in dire need of a new cultural reformation, I still believe that Western way of life is an ideal worth treasuring. Christianity has contributed to that, and therefore deserves at least some respect, even from those who feel that it is ultimatly misguided.
This is untrue.
Actually, he is right on the money on that one. The Crusades had as much to do with religion as the current war in Iraq has to do with WMDs. Sure, we all heard a lot of talk about WMDs, but thats not really what its about. The Crusades were ultimatly the manifestation of a conflict that stems from a time before both Christianity and Islam; the conflict between Euro-centric western civilisation and non-western culture. Certainly, religions came into this as the ideology of the day, but ultimatly the Crusades were about two things. On a practical level, they were about the acquisition of wealth and power. On an idealogical level, they were about about Western civilisation coming into conflict with a relatively new threat to its security.
Where I stand: I tend to take the open-ended Lutheran approach to things like this. That is, not necessarilly from a line of dogma, but prefering to acknowledge and act upon the understood ideal that religion is a personal matter, or more precisely, it's between you and God (or Yahweh, or Allah, or Buddah or whomever). You can only do what's right for you and leave it at that. Allow for convincing arguements and deep thought, but don't trumpet them and soap box I guess unless you can clearly see blatant wrong or evil that you can fix...err, are responsible to cite at least.
This is largely my stance as well. I feel that it is up to everyman to be his own priest, if he so chooses. My father was always fond of saying "I will never ask a man to act outside of his conscience, nor will I let him ask me to act out of mine".
/clarification
I hope no one misinterprets my words. I have seen some harmless things in this thread which have been taken offense to by others, so I would hope that my post does not inspire more of the same. While I am a religious man, most of my friends, including the woman I love, are atheists, so it would be hard for me to spout fundamentalist hate speech and denounce non-believers and such.
Anyhow, happy gamings folks.
Personally, even though I feel the West is in dire need of a new cultural reformation, I still believe that Western way of life is an ideal worth treasuring. Christianity has contributed to that, and therefore deserves at least some respect, even from those who feel that it is ultimatly misguided.
I think you're all reading too much into what was mostly just an offhanded quip.
Nevertheless, one doesn't need religion to be a good person or a bad person, so we can't say for sure if the religiously motivated violence that has taken place over the years would have happened if religion hadn't been a factor any more than we can say for sure that we would not have made the cultural progress that we have had religion not been a factor. The point was that you can't just go and say "Religion was responsible for all these good things but wasn't responsible for these bad things because that was just the fault of people."
"Religion was responsible for all these good things but wasn't responsible for these bad things because that was just the fault of people."
OK, but weigh one against the other. I think that the sheer weight of religion's successes outweighs its failings. We have some religious extremism these days, but nothing compared to the true evils of the modern world. Compared to Hitlers and Stalins, Isea the closeminded homophobe D&D hating evangeliser is a fairly minor figure (a theoretical preacher, in case there is actually some Isea out there who people might think I'm talking about).
I just think people are too quick to judge the entire practice of Religion (not just Christianity), when they see someone religious do something bad. I don't think that the failings of religion outweigh the positive role religion has played as a social function in society for thousands of years. Just because the written word can be used for Nazi propaganda, for example, does not mean that the written word was not a good thing for the world.
and the atomic bombings of two densely populated Japanese cities. These had nothing to do with religion. They were all pretty horrible. Religious fundamentalism has been responsible for tragedy, but I can't think of anything quite on the scope of any of these.
I believe that one can be attributed to religion. The reason the atomic bombs were dropped was because there was a fear that the Japanese in their fanatical devotion to the Emperor* would defend the home islands so ferverently that the US would suffer millions of casualties trying to take them. Certainly it wasn't religion on the part of the US that caused it, but it was to combat religion and therefore should be counted.
*According to Shinto, the Emperor of Japan is a direct descendant of Ameratsu the goddess of the sun. That makes the Emperor a Kami (spirit) and living god. The shinto religion was so important to the Japanese that one of the terms of surrender was that the Showa tenno (Emperor Hirohito) renounce his divinity.
I believe that one can be attributed to religion. The reason the atomic bombs were dropped was because there was a fear that the Japanese in their fanatical devotion to the Emperor* would defend the home islands so ferverently that the US would suffer millions of casualties trying to take them. Certainly it wasn't religion on the part of the US that caused it, but it was to combat religion and therefore should be counted.
Good catch. I was wondering if this would come up. I can see your point, but I still think that religion was not to blame there. The Japanese were eager for America to invade, because they felt that if they could cause mountains of American casualties, they could force America to agree to accept Japan's surrender on terms that would be acceptable to Japan. If Truman (who hated the Japanese with a kind of fervor that is certainly worrying in the leader of the free world), had simply sent the Japanese a memo saying "Hey guys, if you give up we promise not to hang your emperor, for realz", then the tragedy could have been avoided.
Furthermore, the folks working on the Manhattan project were not working under the assumption that their weapon would be a last resort. It was not an issue of if the US was going to use the A-bomb, but how soon the A-bomb could be ready so it could be used as quickly as possible. Therefore, one can't claim that two cities of civilians were nuked as a worst case scenario. The were nuked because science had just invented the "I-win!" button.
Furtherfurthermore, the Japanese were not the only consideration in the matter. The US wanted the war done before the Soviet Union could involve itself, which was invenitably going to happen, in which case Stalin would control whatever Japanese territory he seized. So, in a large part, the use of the A-bomb was to flip off Communism with a big flaming mushroom-cloud finger.
[edit; another furthermore. Japanese religion had nothing to with why the targets for the A-bombs were civilian targets, and not military ones. That was a decision made purely for shock and awe. Throughout the entire war, certain Japanese cities were kept off the firebombing list, so that they would remain intact, and therefore be especially shocking targets for the A-bombs big unveiling.]
So yeah, I hear what you are saying, but ultimatly you can't peg the whole thing on Shintoism. Certainly, if you told a survivor of Hiroshima that it was all because of his silly emperor-worship, it would sound somewhat absurd.
I believe that one can be attributed to religion.
Intriguing proposition to say the least, but I'm gonna' go w/ the War Dept. and about 458k casualties that might feel differently on the matter. Either that attrition and said military think tank or my grandfathers testimony anyway, both having fought in the Pacific Theatre, namely on Saipan and Guadalcanal as the battles of note. Coincidentally, that was real war, not the current brushfire skirmishes we're experiencing now.
The reason the atomic bombs were dropped was because there was a fear that the Japanese in their fanatical devotion to the Emperor...
Sort of. Mostly just a generic Bushido glossing over, not the Emperor specifically. Real high emphasis on valor, complete sincerity, conviction, etc., not so much for compassion and total honor. This is why a Hell of alot of their officers and aviators were outraged about Pearl Harbor as they were misled into thinking a full declaration of war and the usual honorable protocol was made prior to the attack, which, of course, wasn't. They've been over this a million times on the History Channel, Ken Burns "The War", and bla bla bla. But, for a sneak attack, pretty clever, just not honorable.
Others could care less cut since we cut off the steel and oil trade to them. Funny how we supplied the raw materials that made the planes and ships that would sink our Pacific Fleet 1, 2, 3. Circle of life...
Anyway, basically, surrender is anathema is one of the tenets in this case, not specifically kow-towing to their sovereign about "no surrender". That is, more specifically, Bushido is not a faith so much as a warrior philosophy. Shintoism and Buddhism are though. No one worshipped the Emperor despite deification or reverence to him. A figurehead really. Tojo had the real power and the muscle to back it up.
Still, apart from warrior codes and national pride regarding surrender and giving up 1 island at a time, quite a few didn't like or necessarilly agree w/ the Emperor in much the same way you might illustrate a German soldier in the normal Wehrmacht from a Nazi soldier in the SS. Both would fight for homeland 'x', but one's political sensibilities might vary from 'x' to 'z'. Bullets and bombs however, do not discriminate. We got the same thing here; tons of servicemen/women despise Bush and the administration, but they believe in what they're doing, just not the decisions being made for them...
...would defend the home islands so ferverently that the US would suffer millions of casualties trying to take them. Certainly it wasn't religion on the part of the US that caused it, but it was to combat religion and therefore should be counted.
It was estimated about 1 million US casualites on the home islands. Hence Hiroshima/Nagasaki. And they weren't specific targets of incredible importance either. In fact, they were not pivotal to the war at all really. Quite simply, they were some of the only Japanese cities not bombed or burned to ash prior (massive incindiary bombing campaign [wood/paper homes] wiped out most cities). We'd been at it a long time w/ no appreciable terms in surrender. Fat Man & Little Boy were dropped there as most of the others were destroyed or too damaged already from conventional bombing.
Geographically, yes, it was a fluke. 2 random cities basically to showcase the awesome might of a bigass US budget and military prowess. The impetus was that conventional warfare wasn't working (in timely fashion) and they wouldn't surrender, but it was not religious in motivation.
I might be wrong, but the library was burned to erase records of religions before christianism, correct?
None knows for sure. It could have happened any time between 79 B.C. to as late as the 3rd century A.D. during a muslim war.
I might be wrong, but the library was burned to erase records of religions before christianism, correct?
I may be wrong also, but my understanding is somewhat different. To my knowledge, the library was burned by invading muslims. I think the justification was that either the books agreed with the Koran, and were thus unnesecary, or they did not, in which case they were heretical. Could anyone clarify the issue somewhat for me?
If I am right, then its not a telling event about christianity, though it would be for the idea of religion as a whole. It would be especially hipocritical for muslims to be responsible, since Islam is, at its core, a religion about knowledge.
However, I am not really confortable speculating on an event which I don't really know much about. The library could have been destroyed because the land was prime realestate, for all I know.
[edit:] I just saw Kurst's post above (didnt realise we were on a new page before replying) and I see that the issue around the library is indeed inconclusive. So we can't really say anything one way or the other/
Anyhow, if there is any more modern event, of which I would therefore have access to at least some conclusive knowledge, that you could say is in the scope of some of our other major world tragedies, then I'd be happy to talk about that too. I'd be fairly confident in the assertion that nothing truly horrible has come of the existence of Christianity since the time of the Reformation (which was awesome).
Does the burning of the library of Alexandria count? IMO, that's the worst atrocity in history, by far, as it screwed up all of humanity, not just an important part of it. I might be wrong, but the library was burned to erase records of religions before christianism, correct? Which means that the roman emperor and the big figures of christianism are responsible for something that threw humanity's progress back for at least six hundred years, if not a milennium.
It can count if you want it to, but in the annals of history in terms of religion, no, it doesn't. Depends on your perspective and interpretation.
I"m not sure if the motivation was to wipe out all records of religions 'x' through 'z', but it doesn't matter. Given the oral tradition, it's nearly impossible. Sad to be sure no matter how you cut it, but the "figures" as you stated made the call, not God, Jesus, whomever. I think perhaps it was more to set an example. A great many popular misconceptions about the horrors of religion 'x' are typically political or economic. But when you (ab)use religion as a veneer for righteous action, you can easilly manipulate the poor hundled masses into your bidding.
A decent parallel might be the destruction of various Hindu & Buddhist sites, the burning of the national film archives in Afghanistan by the Taliban, etc. Graven images, extreme beliefs, etc. These are not model Muslims by any means.
Fairly normal Muslim elements were dead set against it, but radical forces that happen to have the power weren't. There's a documentary on it floating around PBS about the subterfugue those caretakers took to try and preserve Afghan history from these barbarian terrorists. And they are, well, to me anyway. Subjugating women visciously (no schooling, let alone literacy), no radios, no film, rampant opium trade (but no alcohol consumption?), etc. A testimony to hypocrisy is there ever was one...
...but it does not speak for the whole of Islam. As good a faith as any, but when the only elements reported upon in popular media are extremists, people are easilly misled into stereotyping. Same thing w/ Christendom, Judaism, etc. Gotta' dig past the political, social, and economic chaff to get to the wheat so to speak.
These ppl though, they're not in-the-know, they have very little power or say. So, when you take a system that gives them cultural identity, a means of moral guidelines, existential growth, a swath of good things, and twist it to suit your own ambitions, alot will fall in line blindly cuz' they failed to understand the true meaning of religion which is "reconnection", not spoon feeding scripture, bowing & kneeling, etc. Asking of deep questions and mysteries, disection of archaic texts & histories, etc. Many barely do that w/ their own governments, let alone their own faiths. What is more important, your right to free assembly or a hallmark of goodwill to fellow man? The ideology to help the poor or a system of taxation that enforces it?
Could anyone clarify the issue somewhat for me?
No definitive date has ever been established for when it burned down, or how many times it burned.
No definitive date has ever been established for when it burned down, or how many times it burned.
Ah thanks. I saw your post after I posted, as I just admitted in an edit, so my speculation was largely pointless. Anyhow thanks for the clarification.
I believe that one can be attributed to religion. The reason the atomic bombs were dropped was because there was a fear that the Japanese in their fanatical devotion to the Emperor* would defend the home islands so ferverently that the US would suffer millions of casualties trying to take them. Certainly it wasn't religion on the part of the US that caused it, but it was to combat religion and therefore should be counted.
That's horrible reasoning. You're going to blame the victim rather than the bully?
That's like blaming blacks for the civil war, or blaming gays for homophobia.
That's horrible reasoning. You're going to blame the victim rather than the bully?
That's like blaming blacks for the civil war, or blaming gays for homophobia.
Not that I feel religion was the motivation for the whole schbang, but I don't think this line of reasoning was what he intended so to speak.
[edit; another furthermore. Japanese religion had nothing to with why the targets for the A-bombs were civilian targets, and not military ones. That was a decision made purely for shock and awe. Throughout the entire war, certain Japanese cities were kept off the firebombing list, so that they would remain intact, and therefore be especially shocking targets for the A-bombs big unveiling.]
Nagasaki was chosen partially for it's population and partially for it's historical significance. It was the only city in which foreign traders were allowed to land by law from the Tokugawa era until after Meiji restoration. During it's isolation, the Japanese would put to death any foreigner outside of Nagasaki. By removing the city that foreigners could walk about freely in, the US said quite clearly that we didn't need their permission anymore, we were coming in.
None knows for sure. It could have happened any time between 79 B.C. to as late as the 3rd century A.D. during a muslim war.
The latter is impossible, Islam didn't exist until the 7th century AD. Mohammad wasn't even born until the early 600s* so a muslim war couldn't burn down the library of Alexandria in the 3rd century.
The fire was more likely a side effect caused by the earthquake that sank half the city in the Mediterranian. It is possible that the Roman empire decided that the house of the Papyri in Pompeii didn't need competition for the title of greatest library in history. It's also possible that the Christian church in the 3rd century decided it was better to put it to the torch than sort through the stacks to eliminate the books that they wanted not to exist. Without a definitve date to tie the fire to, we'll never know what caused it.
*I apologize for not knowing the exact date.
(Mostly) Conservative Southern Baptist: 1 (Organized Religion: I lost count...)
As for the Library of Alexandria, I've always heard the fire was an accident related to the earthquake, but I've never really researched the event too carefully. As someone with an extensive D&D collection, I must say that the idea of books burning, for any reason, is clearly tragic.
Overall, I fall in line w/ conservative teachings found within the Southern Baptist community, though I do maintain a few noticeable differences. I do not accept 5-point Calvinism (and yes, I know that Baptist =/= Calvinist, but it's popular enough that I typically need to point it out), I'm still up in the air about YEC, OEC, and other issues (I'll expand my thoughts in a moment), and I've occasionally been labeled a little too Catholic for my own good (though I have my issues there as well).
As to the origins of the world, I used to read extensively on Creationism vs. Evolution, and the various theories in between (including the God-guided Evolution theories, whatever the proper title is supposed to be...). Then, one day, I had an epiphany...
It didn't matter one bit to me if the Earth was 6,000 years old, or if Genesis was an allegory and the Big Bang & Evolution were the tools for the creation of the world. As for Genesis as allegory, that idea has been proposed by prominent theologians well before Evolution and the Big Bang Theory entered the picture. Not to mention, I see some eerie parallels between Genesis & the Big Bang. (ex: Both accounts allow for the existence of 'light' before stars, or in our case, the Sun.)
If the early chapters of Genesis turn out to be an allegory, it wouldn't change an ounce of what I believe about mercy, grace, truth, sin, or redemption.
Not that I'm inclined to let the Evolution crowd off the hook too easily. It's been my experience that any objection raised by a YEC will typically be dismissed as "unscientific." I prefer specific responses instead of generic labels. As the religious one in this debate, I should be the only one allowed to make gross, inaccurate generalizations about the opposing side...
For example, there are serious problems concerning probability & evolution. Now, I'm willing to admit there may be a plausible, scientific answer for these problems, but that's not what I hear scientists using in the debate.
Save for the two words in italics, the following quote is not a direct quotation of any particular individual, but rather a general summary of the rebuttal put forward by evolutionists:
"Sure, there are serious problems with the probability of Evolution occurring, but given infinite time, even the most improbable of events can occur."
"Infinite time?"
Yeah... I thought you said the Earth was 14 billion years old... (IIRC). 14 Billion Years may be a pretty long time, but infinite time is infinitely longer than that!
I have heard several individuals, including college professors I hold in very high esteem, default to the infinite time argument... and science doesn't have that. (Btw, if you know of an individual who can discuss evolution & probability w/o using that phrase, let me know... my search has proven fruitless thus far.)
You know... my god is eternal, so I could plausibly resort to an infinite time argument, but every time I hear a scientist do, it just sounds like they're dodging the question.
Still, as I said earlier, my beliefs wouldn't be shaken up by a "Genesis is literal" or "Genesis is allegory" history of the world. My reasons for religious belief are a little more complex than that.
I was raised Southern Baptist & pseudo-Catholic (I was baptized Catholic, but my mother switched to the Baptist church when I was 2... but I still maintained several close family ties to the Catholic church.). I was active in my church on a weekly basis, and I was "Saved" at the age of 10.
I put saved in quotation marks b/c the story of my religious belief comes in two phases: when I was "saved," and when I became a Christian.
Shortly after my conversion (which I now understand was legitimate), my church split, and I was exposed to all the dirty, conniving, backstabbing, hypocritical behavior that atheism has so accurately labeled the modern church as possessing. Since I was extremely new to my beliefs, I quickly became very jaded. While I occasionally met a few sincere believers, and even had a few weird experiences, I mostly shrugged off religion, and went to church to make mom & dad happy. (I figured out very early that trying to get out of church was more trouble than it's worth.)
If I had to classify my religious beliefs in middle/high school, it would probably be similar in effect to the concept expressed by A.J. Jacobs in his book "A Year of Living Biblically."
Sacred Agnostic (At least, I think that's the term he used...)
I wasn't really sure about the existence of God, but religion seemed to at least hit on some important points. My opinion about the Bible could be summarized as, "Here's a collection of really intelligent stories about right & wrong, and human behavior, as edited and organized by a couple thousand years of social thought. Moral mythology, if you will."
(No, my thoughts weren't that coherent in high school. That's just the best summary I can provide here.)
I certainly respected aspects of the Christian faith; in particular, the teachings concerning how to treat an enemy. The idea that, 'if you treat them the same way they treat you, how are you any better," really struck home with me. Still, on the more supernatural aspects of Christian faith, I was simply unconvinced.
My last year in high school was a turning point. I had really reached a crisis point, and one night I prayed a very specific prayer (the first sincere one I had prayed in years): "God, I don't know if you're there, but I'm sick of not knowing. God, make this worth my while, or I'm out."
Yeah... dumbest prayer I ever prayed...
I really can't go into specifics (there are a lot of confidence issues involved), but within a few months, I was dealing with life & death issues: severe drug addiction, abuse, attempted suicides, a nearly fatal accident, etc...
In the course of that time, I encountered several miracles. No, not "I found a parking spot," or "I prayed and they got better," miracles. I'm talking "prophetic dreams," "strange commands," "go-visit-this-person-RIGHT-NOW-and, you just saved a life," type miracles. Science don't allow for ESP, and there were times I knew things I shouldn't have been able to know.
These encounters don't happen too often any more (though I did scare a friend out-of-town a few months back...), but there's no amount of skeptic in me that can deny what I personally saw & experienced. And, all of that weird stuff threw me into the Bible, where I discovered some important truths that I had missed during the ugly split at my church.
Now, before I go any farther, I want to say that I really don't expect anyone to take the miracles argument too seriously here. As far as you know, I may be lying, or if I'm telling the truth, I may have just gotten outrageously lucky. Since none of you were around, it's not like you can independently confirm anything I'm claiming. I realize and accept that, 100%.
I just know that, through faith, I have seen things that step outside the realm of normal experience, and that I have literally saved lives. It's a weird world that I live in, but I've done a lot of rewarding work.
Right now, these are the things that I hold dear about Christianity:
1) The Nature of Sin & Human Choice
-Endless debates about the source of Evil aside, the Bible makes one thing clear; sin/evil/whatever-else-you want-to-call-it is the result of Human Action. C.S. Lewis points out that the 'central sin' of Christianity is Pride, and in my reflections, I've found that I strongly accept the idea that the vast majority of suffering in the world is a result of Pride, and the choices we make because of it.
Realizing accountability for our 'sins' is really the first, and most critical, step to resolving the major problems of our world.
2) Forgiveness
-I learned this lesson the hard way, many times over. Still, Christianity emphasizes that forgiveness is necessary for life, spiritual or mundane. If we allow that pride & human error causes so many problems, then the worst thing we can do is insist on being offended by the hurts others have inflicted upon us (bowing to our injured pride). Restoring broken relationships & resolving bitter disputes is something that every level of our society needs.
"...forgive us our trespasses, as we forgive those who trespass against us..."
3) Human Interaction is (to a point) Divine Interaction
-How do you relate to a god who is invisible, eternal, and well outside the realm of our normal experiences? According to Jesus, you feed the hungry, give shelter to the homeless, visit the lonely, cloth the naked, etc...
While I get the idea that God is a spirit, and should be worshiped in the spirit, I also really love this aspect of Christian faith. It's as if God said, "I know you're going to have some trouble understanding how to relate to me, so I'll tell you what, I'll set a standard you can understand. How you treat others is how you've treated Me."
Also, as I noted earlier, I really like the fact that this standard applies to all people, including my enemies. IMO, this may be the most profound thought in all of Christianity (short of the Incarnation & Resurrection).
I still have a lot of questions about my faith, and I'm still exploring, but I see the world in a different light. This isn't just a collection of moral stories, at least not anymore.
The latter is impossible, Islam didn't exist until the 7th century AD. Mohammad wasn't even born until the early 600s* so a muslim war couldn't burn down the library of Alexandria in the 3rd century.
Sorry, meant 600's AD.
This was a good read.
Nagasaki was chosen partially for it's population and partially for it's historical significance. It was the only city in which foreign traders were allowed to land by law from the Tokugawa era until after Meiji restoration. During it's isolation, the Japanese would put to death any foreigner outside of Nagasaki. By removing the city that foreigners could walk about freely in, the US said quite clearly that we didn't need their permission anymore, we were coming in.
Emphasis mine.
Gee I don't know man. I'm not saying you're wrong, but I just don't think that this had much to do with the decision to nuke the place. Population, yes. It was specifically kept of the firebombing list so it would remain intact until the A-bomb was ready, so that more folks would die. But this symbolism seems to me to be an unlikely thing to base such a war crime on.
Emphasis mine.
Gee I don't know man. I'm not saying you're wrong, but I just don't think that this had much to do with the decision to nuke the place. Population, yes. It was specifically kept of the firebombing list so it would remain intact until the A-bomb was ready, so that more folks would die. But this symbolism seems to me to be an unlikely thing to base such a war crime on.
Nagasaki was a secondary target and wasn't the primary target that day. When the primary was discovered to be clouded over (visual bombing was ordered instead of radar directed) the plane switched to the secondary target. The Mitsubishi Torpedo Plant at Nagasaki.
Not that I feel religion was the motivation for the whole schbang, but I don't think this line of reasoning was what he intended so to speak.
But it is, in fact, what was 'spoken.'
"We wanted to destroy the religious, therefore religion is at fault."
"She was wearing a skirt and a sexy outfit; therefore it's her fault she was raped."
"Maybe if gays would keep that crap to themselves, we wouldn't have to beat them nearly to death."
Etc.
In fact, you express exactly this in your analogies:
"We wanted to destroy the religious, therefore religion is at fault."
"She was wearing a skirt and a sexy outfit; therefore it's her fault she was raped."
In the first example you put the blame on religion, not the religious. In the second example you put the blame on the woman.
There's a difference between blaming religion and blaming the religious.
So sort of like a "Blame the sin, not the sinner" mentality?
It's not gays that are evil, just homosexuality? Sort of thing?
EDIT: I guess I don't see a difference between blaming the religious or religion.
Perhaps this is oversimplified, by a decent maxim nonetheless.
Any tool can be subject to (ab)use from its intended function. Be it using an iron to make grilled cheese to fronting a war for economic gain, not freedoms.
So sort of like a "Blame the sin, not the sinner" mentality?
It's not gays that are evil, just homosexuality? Sort of thing?
EDIT: I guess I don't see a difference between blaming the religious or religion.
Well, it depends. When you say "the religious", do you mean all of them, a small subgroup, or a couple of people.
If it's all of them, then there's little difference.
With the other two, I'd say there is.
Incidentally, the root idea of the mentioned mentality is that people can commit wrong actions; it doesn't excuse us from extended God's love to them, no matter how hard it may be for us. Trust me, some of us can struggle, at least conceptually, with it. I'm certainly not perfect in the matter myself.
Emphasis mine.
Gee I don't know man. I'm not saying you're wrong, but I just don't think that this had much to do with the decision to nuke the place. Population, yes. It was specifically kept of the firebombing list so it would remain intact until the A-bomb was ready, so that more folks would die. But this symbolism seems to me to be an unlikely thing to base such a war crime on.
No war crime occurred. Go to any place occupied by the Japanese. Find someone old enough to remember Japanese occupation. Ask them what they think of the Japanese.
Alternatively, ask anyone who was a POW in Japan during WW2.
I'm not saying that America did the "right thing" every time, but dropping a couple of nukes and detaining Japanese-Americans is a drop in the bucket compared to what those "people" did.
Perhaps I'm biased. My Grandfather is a WW2 vet, I was close to a Chinese girl at one point who had elderly relatives living in America, I've been friends with Koreans and Filipinos. But it still literally sickens me when they try to portray the Japanese as victims.
No war crime occurred. Go to any place occupied by the Japanese. Find someone old enough to remember Japanese occupation. Ask them what they think of the Japanese.
Yeah, still alot of bitterness about Nanking, Manchuria, Batan, Ainu "comfort women" and what not. This is a big jump point for current N. Korean sabre rattling as their missles can't reach L.A., Tokyo on the otherhand...
Alternatively, ask anyone who was a POW in Japan during WW2.
Funny thing about decapitating UK/American POWs, marching them to death, starving them, etc. The Pacific Theatre was way way worse. Germans (not nazis, there's a difference) at least were a bit more civilized in accordance to the Geneva Convention. Of course alot of those Jewish, Polish, gypsie noncombatants might beg to differ.
I'm not saying that America did the "right thing" every time, but dropping a couple of nukes and detaining Japanese-Americans is a drop in the bucket compared to what those "people" did.
If you could graph out the injustices each committed so to speak, yeah, I concur. The internment camps are a historical blemish we gotta' live with truly, but we're comparing apples and oranges. Totally different culture (at the time).
Horrible all around, but they're in a better place now. That old legacy is long gone and you can't hold them accountable now a' days. Not fair. Now, it's totally different; good, productive people. Anyone that makes Playstations, kick ass animation, sake & salmon nigri, and high end horror/drama cinema has my vote...though I'm still bitter about Pokemon and battling seizure robots.
Perhaps I'm biased. My Grandfather is a WW2 vet, I was close to a Chinese girl at one point who had elderly relatives living in America, I've been friends with Koreans and Filipinos. But it still literally sickens me when they try to portray the Japanese as victims.
Ditto, grandfather on my dad's side was a Sgt. (army) in the Pacific. Always felt bad in my later years about, "Tell us a war story gramps" and bla bla bla. Yeah, little kids don't realize that making you relive the worst moments of your life for entertainment's sake is probably not cool.
And they were horrible. The things he'd say. Namely torching caves to asphyxiate them (the smell and what not), fighting w/ marines all the time (they'd land, sweep across island 'x', and say "All clear!" ;) , then the army lands and actually removes the fortified [nastiest fighting] positions, snipers, units in caves, etc., they really resented that), can't sleep in your hole cuz' Japanese creep in under jungle noise/dark and gut you, finding the remains of an allied prisoner and realized their respect for human life.
On the upside though (my favorite story), during the occupation, gramps was in Okinawa in this small village. People were freaking out one day; rabid dog attacking villagers to which they were petrified of them beyond what we are for some reason. Shot it, it's dead, "no big deal" he thinks.
Next day, he's showered w/ little gifts (still have the little fish skeleton ornament he gave me) and thank you's and he couldn't figure out why cuz' he didn't appreciate the gravity of their fear of rabies, only the resentment of having been defeated by Yankees.
And they were scared too. They thought of us as barbarians w/ a big axe to grind. Black G.I.'s slandered to have had tails, we'd eat the kids, etc. But namely, afraid cuz' of all the war crimes. The civilians that took the brunt, yeah, I feel for that, especially the Japanese internment ones, but the military, my God...a litany of atrocity to be sure.
That's why I don't feel remorseful for fat man/little boy. If it saved more lives than it took, so be it, it's not like diplomacy had worked very well, right?
No war crime occurred.
Yeah well thats a "history is written by the victors" point.
Go to any place occupied by the Japanese. Find someone old enough to remember Japanese occupation. Ask them what they think of the Japanese.
I hear you. The japs (as a country) weren't saints by any means. But thats no excuse. We all learn that two wrongs don't make a right at preschool. What the Japanese did in the rest of Asia, while despicable, has no bearing on how bad the A-bombs were.
Alternatively, ask anyone who was a POW in Japan during WW2.
Not meaning to cheapen the POW experience, but ask a survivor of Hiroshima, and you will get a story that is no less sickening.
I'm not saying that America did the "right thing" every time, but dropping a couple of nukes and detaining Japanese-Americans is a drop in the bucket compared to what those "people" did.
"Drop in the bucket" is kinda harsh dontcha think? Sure, the Japanese Military, and the asshats in charge of it, were evil bastards. That has no bearing on the innocent civilians who died in those two cities. I don't mind you using the world people in inverted commas to discribe the military, but if you are using it in connection with the innocents who died in Hiroshima and Nagasaki then I have to admit to not knowing what to say to you. I'll give you the benefit of the doubt and assume you don't mean to dehumanise the civilians.
Perhaps I'm biased. My Grandfather is a WW2 vet, I was close to a Chinese girl at one point who had elderly relatives living in America, I've been friends with Koreans and Filipinos. But it still literally sickens me when they try to portray the Japanese as victims.
We (South Africa) had some of our guys over there too. Unfortunatly none of the people in my family who went to the war came back. It was a tragedy all round.
For what its worth man, Im not exalting the japanese as the great victims of WW2. But the people of Hiroshima and Nagasaki were, by and large, victims. Those were civilians; women and children and grandparents, just like you find anywhere else in the world.
Well, it depends. When you say "the religious", do you mean all of them, a small subgroup, or a couple of people.
If it's all of them, then there's little difference.
With the other two, I'd say there is.
Incidentally, the root idea of the mentioned mentality is that people can commit wrong actions; it doesn't excuse us from extended God's love to them, no matter how hard it may be for us. Trust me, some of us can struggle, at least conceptually, with it. I'm certainly not perfect in the matter myself.
Here's my problem, though. Why make a reference to the religious if there's a difference? Why not just say that individuals are a problem? Or use some other categorization?
It's like saying "Let's kill gays because homosexuality is bad. Gays aren't bad, just homosexuality."
There is a difference, depending on context. But within the context we're discussing, it's just semantics.
Raised 1, am now 2 JW.
D&D could use a few religious people.
Wait wait wait... You are a Jehovah's Witness and play D&D???
Man, I was raised JW and let me tell you that in 1992 or so, the JW's thought playing D&D was equivalent to selling your soul to satan.
Have things changed, or do you just ignore that particular "rule"? Just curious.
First:
The Japanese military "asshats" killed a hell of a lot of civilians pretty much everywhere they went. The **** of Nanking wasn't a military conflict, for example. In all theaters of WWII, civvies were fair game. Germany started it with the Brits - accidentally - and Japan started it with the entire Pacific theatre - intentionally.
Second:
The a-bombs were in no way war crimes. The death toll from the firebombings that preceded them and the material destruction were far greater than anything the two bombs did. Far greater. Unless you consider the firebombing campaign a war crime as well, of course. Though, if you did, it would certainly undermine the case for the atom bomb being one as well since the bombs actually prevented more firebombings.
The atomic bombings saved lives and they helped Japan to save face as well. If the Allies were to have landed they would have faced incredible losses. The entire first wave scheduled to land on Japanese home soil was told that they were all expected to be casualties. All of them. The Japanese instructed every man, woman and child to arm themselves with whatever they could find (spears, shovels, etc) and fight a very well armed enemy. Would killing those civvies have been more to your liking? Cuz that's the decision the Americans were faced with.
while despicable, has no bearing on how bad the A-bombs were.
I always find it interesting that people concentrate on the "A bombs". More Japanese civilians were killed by conventional bombing than were by the A bombs...
I always find it interesting that people concentrate on the "A bombs". More Japanese civilians were killed by conventional bombing than were by the A bombs...
Exactly.
The A bombs were not the first case of civilian losses in the war by any stretch. As a matter of fact, it's this very thing modern wars lack and why they turn into quagmires every time. Bring the war to the people. Sounds awful, I know. But guess what. War is awful.
I always find it interesting that people concentrate on the "A bombs". More Japanese civilians were killed by conventional bombing than were by the A bombs...
I know. I believe the Tokyo firebombing alone resulted in casulaties than both A bombs. The A bombs were still bad though.
I'm just not approaching this as a relativist. If someone asks me if something was bad I don't immediatly ask "compared to what?"
Right...
First thing's first;
Would killing those civvies have been more to your liking? Cuz that's the decision the Americans were faced with.
Dude, chill. I have no intention of getting into a flamewar, but I don't appreciate the cheap shot at my character.
The Japanese military "asshats" killed a hell of a lot of civilians pretty much everywhere they went. The **** of Nanking wasn't a military conflict, for example. In all theaters of WWII, civvies were fair game. Germany started it with the Brits - accidentally - and Japan started it with the entire Pacific theatre - intentionally.
"Two wrongs don't make a right". Just because we all learn it when we are like 3 years old doesn't mean it isn't true.
Right man, a few things
First, I understand full well the reasons for the A bombings. But its not as if options A) nuke them all to hell, and B) invade and get slaughtered, were the only options. The Japanese wanted the invasion so that they could cause enough casulaties to force the US to accept their surrender on terms that were favourable, or rather, acceptable, to them. They were not planning on dying to the last man. There were other options.
Secondly, I don't think that the A bombs preventing further fire bombings vindicates the A bombs. Excessive force and really excessive force are both forms of excessive force. Killing lots of civilians is still bad, even if one of the other options is killing lots and lots of civilians.
As a matter of fact, it's this very thing modern wars lack and why they turn into quagmires every time. Bring the war to the people.
My personal opinion here is the exact opposite of yours. Rather the quagmire than mongolian-style civilian killing terror. I don't subscribe to "the end justifies the means", so yeah.
There is no "right". Only lesser wrongs. The atomic bombs were less wrong that what would have/did happen to anyone under Japanese rule.
They needed to be stopped. And civilians aren't innocent people, if they didn't want the military doing that, they would have revolted. The fact that they didn't meant that they were pretty much okay with what the military was doing.
Dude, chill. I have no intention of getting into a flamewar, but I don't appreciate the cheap shot at my character.
Where's the cheap shot? It was an honest question. A ton of civvies were going to die no matter what. Why is one method of death better than another?
*Dammit. I sound overly agitated again. It honestly was not meant to be a shot at your character. I apologize if it came off that way.
"Two wrongs don't make a right". Just because we all learn it when we are like 3 years old doesn't mean it isn't true.
War is an ugly business. All of the handy truisms we learn through life generally get tossed right out. And rightly so. But the main point here is that you cannot classify a barbaric aggressor as a victim. The civvies may (and only may) be a victim of their leaders, but not of what we did to combat them. Ask yourself this: would we have firebombed and nuked Japanese civvies if they had not first attacked us? The leaders of Japan brought death from abve to their people by choosing to start a war. Deaths resulting from strategic bombing are a far cry from intentional rapes and murders as well.
First, I understand full well the reasons for the A bombings. But its not as if options A) nuke them all to hell, and B) invade and get slaughtered, were the only options. The Japanese wanted the invasion so that they could cause enough casulaties to force the US to accept their surrender on terms that were favourable, or rather, acceptable, to them. They were not planning on dying to the last man. There were other options.
The fact is that we would have killed a crapton of civvies this way, too. We'd still be firebombing and we'd also be mortaring, shelling, rocketing, machine-gunning, stabbing, etc on top of it. And it would have lasted longer. Much longer. And, instead of three guys in a plane that would have to live with the thought of A bombing children, we'd have platoons and battalions of poor guys that had to look 'em in the eye and shoot 'em. Or flamethrower 'em. Far worse.
There were also plenty of upper level Japanese military minds that did plan on fighting to the last man. The idea was to go out with a bang. If the empire was to die, so be it. And if it couldn't win, it was undeserving of existance. These guys killed themselves after surrender. Oh, almost forgot, they even went so far as to try to kill their living god of an Emperor to prevent him from making the radio address saying it was all over. They were for real and we are all lucky that they did not succeed.
Secondly, I don't think that the A bombs preventing further fire bombings vindicates the A bombs. Excessive force and really excessive force are both forms of excessive force. Killing lots of civilians is still bad, even if one of the other options is killing lots and lots of civilians.
It's a war, man. Excessive force is the only force. It's not a polite gentleman's disagreement. Especially here with the indoctrinated racism from both sides. It's awful. Truly. But that's the way it is. If we did not bomb those poor civvies, many more would have died. Many, here, doesn't mean a couple of thousand more, either. It means millions (men, women, etc from both sides). I'll trade that loss to the world for a few hundred thousand any day of the week.
The sad fact is we certainly could have avoided the second bombing. Poor translation of a not oft-used word and the confusion resulting from it killed a hell of a lot of people. But that's the fog of war for ya'.
you keep chanting "two wrongs don't equal a right, two wrongs don't equal a right, blah blah blah".
Why the hostility? Is it just that I touched your national pride nerve, or what? Im a bit surprised to be honest.
There is no "right". Only lesser wrongs. The atomic bombs were less wrong that what would have/did happen to anyone under Japanese rule.
They needed to be stopped. And civilians aren't innocent people, if they didn't want the military doing that, they would have revolted. The fact that they didn't meant that they were pretty much okay with what the military was doing.
That justs sounds to me like an over simplification of events to avoid dealing with the fact that the entire nation wasn't comprised of baby-eating murderers.
Regardless, we seem to have an irreconcilable difference in our moral approach to things, so I'm willing to let it lie.
Where's the cheap shot? It was an honest question. A ton of civvies were going to die no matter what. Why is one method of death better than another?
*Dammit. I sound overly agitated again. It honestly was not meant to be a shot at your character. I apologize if it came off that way.
Ok cool man. No worries. I took offensive where it was not intended, so no harm done. Considering other responses, I'm glad to come to an understanding with someone.
I hear you. It was a horrrible thing, the whole war. And the japanese military was full of evil maniacs. But, just so you can understand my mindset; I live my life with the deliberate choice to be an idealist, even though its usually impractical and just makes my life more difficult, but personally the alternative is not an option for me. Therefore, I just can't accept that the A bombings were the best alternative to full scale invasion. From my personal readings on the matter, peace could still have been possible if the terms for surrender had not been so severe. The A bombs prevented a horrible alternative, but the A bombs themselves could have been prevented. And I wonder if it will be another treaty of versailles; as in, peace now at the cost of strife later. But hey, who knows?
Ask the Catholics what religion is right and they'll say, "Catholicism."
Ask the Baptists and they'll say, "Baptist."
Ask the Jews who is right, and they'll say, "Judaism."
Ask the Muslims and they'll say, "Islam."
Ask the Hindus and they'll say, "Hiduism."
Who really knows who, if anyone, is right? How can each religion be so certain that the others are wrong?
P.S.
And yes, I have mostly agree with the OP about the YEC. While I won't take it to the extreme he did, I will say the Bible is not meant to be taken literally in all cases. Not believing mountains of scientific evidence just because the Bible says something different is, in my opinion, foolish.
Personally, I'm just tired of organized religions. I'm not sure if I believe in a god or not (name him/her/it what you will), but I know I don't trust any organized religion anymore. Too many people have been pointlessly killed because of religious disagreements.
Ask the Catholics what religion is right and they'll say, "Catholicism."
Ask the Baptists and they'll say, "Baptist."
Ask the Jews who is right, and they'll say, "Judaism."
Ask the Muslims and they'll say, "Islam."
Ask the Hindus and they'll say, "Hiduism."
Who really knows who, if anyone, is right? How can each religion be so certain that the others are wrong?
P.S.
And yes, I have mostly agree with the OP about the YEC. While I won't take it to the extreme he did, I will say the Bible is not meant to be taken literally in all cases. Not believing mountains of scientific evidence just because the Bible says something different is, in my opinion, foolish.
Who really knows who, if anyone, is right? How can each religion be so certain that the others are wrong?
You seem pretty certain that they can't know. What if one of them does? How can you be so certain that you're right?
I know that 75% of them have never had proper bible study -or havn't even opened a bible. Or people who have had too controlling religious parents who ruin their childrens faith.
I'm very good at analyzing people and also I'm a fairly honest person. People use the excuse of being atheist to have a clean conscience. Or/and to state their "different", much the same way teens say "I'm goth or "I'm punk".
This doesn't apply to everyone.
As for me not being atheist is simple. Being the stubborn person I am, couldn't deny that the bible was wrong, because I didn't know anything about it. I wanted to prove it wrong, so I started studying the bible. I've been studying now for along time and its had the reverse affect on me. My faith is growing.
All of my encounters w/ atheists have been over the internet... let's just say that I won't judge you by the standards I've seen set in that manner.
As for non-Christians, the vast majority of encounters have been w/ neo-pagans, and particularly, Wiccans. (Man, I really hate that I missed some of the earlier comments... typically, I've found that the 300lbs/Lesbian version of the Wiccan faith are actually fairly intelligent and interesting to talk to, whereas the Bombshell Femme Fatale version of the Wiccan movement are typically arrogant and annoying to be around for more than a half-hour. Yeah... I don't care if you're good looking, you're still being rude.) There are a remarkable number of pagan faiths in my area, though none as well main-streamed as the various Christian denominations.
A lot of my current religious frustration stems from the fact that I now work for a system that once back-stabbed me pretty badly. Still, I had an important realization a while back: if all the people who take Christian faith seriously leave b/c of the problems, that leaves the church in the hands of the people who are abusing it.
Since I'm young, I have to walk a fine line, but I've done a bit of good in reshaping the church in my area. In an ironic twist, I consider modern atheism to be an ally in my quest: by pointing out areas of hypocrisy and abuse, and training a hyper-critical eye on the church, they are actually helping me draw attention to the problems that originally drove me away from the church (and drive others away, to this day).
And while I'm Baptist, I figure I can cheat and cover several bases since I was baptized Catholic as a child... :D
I know that 75% of them have never had proper bible study -or havn't even opened a bible. Or people who have had too controlling religious parents who ruin their childrens faith.
Really? 75% of them, huh?
And who cares if they've never opened a Bible? Have you meticulously studied the Q'uran, Tanakh, Upanishads, or Satanic Bible? Why should atheists be held to a higher standard?
I haven't really met any atheists personally. Living in the Bible Belt, I can honestly say that most of my encounters w/ the areligious have been either Agnostics or Lazy Agnostics. (I use the second term for people who basically have never taken the time to actually think about religion & belief at all... usually b/c they are more interested in going to get a beer...)
So they were agnostic theists I take it?
Still, I had an important realization a while back: if all the people who take Christian faith seriously leave b/c of the problems, that leaves the church in the hands of the people who are abusing it.
Heh, that is a pretty nifty realization, actually. Right on.
So sort of like a "Blame the sin, not the sinner" mentality?
It's not gays that are evil, just homosexuality? Sort of thing?
EDIT: I guess I don't see a difference between blaming the religious or religion.
My point is this: if religion hadn't existed there would have been no religion-based reason to kill anyone. That is different from saying that "if those people hadn't been religious there would have been no religion-based reason to kill them". One is putting the blame on the existence of religion, the other is putting the blame on the victims.
And I have in no way said anything about evil in relation to this, but just to make it clear: I don't consider homosexuality to be evil or a sin or anything else bad.
However, the analogy with homosexuality works if you remove the word "evil", and will perhaps serve to illustrate my point better. If homosexuality hadn't existed, then nobody would have had homosexuality as a reason to kill anyone. That's different from saying "if those guys hadn't been gay then gay-haters wouldn't have had a reason to kill them".
And please note that in neither example do I condone the use of violence or think that any of those reasons to kill anyone is a good reason.
Religion as a concept and homosexuality as a concept are separate from the people who are religious and/or homosexual.
However, when drawing this further than to a basic analogy it breaks down, since in both cases there are other motivations than religion and homosexuality involved, primarily social and political factors. You could just as easily say that the human propensity for violence is to blame.
I hope this makes things a bit more clear. If you have any further questions, feel free to send me a message. I'm leaving this thread now since I have very little patience for the national-chauvinistic posturing that's cropped up.
A lot of my current religious frustration stems from the fact that I now work for a system that once back-stabbed me pretty badly. Still, I had an important realization a while back: if all the people who take Christian faith seriously leave b/c of the problems, that leaves the church in the hands of the people who are abusing it.
Since I'm young, I have to walk a fine line, but I've done a bit of good in reshaping the church in my area. In an ironic twist, I consider modern atheism to be an ally in my quest: by pointing out areas of hypocrisy and abuse, and training a hyper-critical eye on the church, they are actually helping me draw attention to the problems that originally drove me away from the church (and drive others away, to this day).
And while I'm Baptist, I figure I can cheat and cover several bases since I was baptized Catholic as a child... :D
Good on you. God bless your efforts!
As for me not being atheist is simple. Being the stubborn person I am, couldn't deny that the bible was wrong, because I didn't know anything about it. I wanted to prove it wrong, so I started studying the bible. I've been studying now for along time and its had the reverse affect on me. My faith is growing.
Good for you! I always like seeing someone convert because of their own choice to study the Word. Somehow it seems more meaningful when faith is a pool you decide to jump into yourself, rather than being pushed in by parents or one's community.
My point is this: if religion hadn't existed there would have been no religion-based reason to kill anyone. That is different from saying that "if those people hadn't been religious there would have been no religion-based reason to kill them". One is putting the blame on the existence of religion, the other is putting the blame on the victims.
My point (and this is where the A-bomb derailment came from) was that, even if you took religion completly out of the picture of human existence, the world's worst wars and tragedies would still have happened, since those were not related to religion. Therefore I feel the pros of Religion, as a practice, far outweigh the cons.
Was I just called a nationalist? Wtf?
I think he was talking about the A-bomb derailment, not you.
Ok cool man. No worries. I took offensive where it was not intended, so no harm done. Considering other responses, I'm glad to come to an understanding with someone.
Me too. This is a topic I have done a lot of research on and something I enjoy learning and talking about. It was late in the day and, since it's one of my more understood areas I came off a little hot. At least it got no worse and I thank you for your understaning.
I hear you. It was a horrrible thing, the whole war. And the japanese military was full of evil maniacs. But, just so you can understand my mindset; I live my life with the deliberate choice to be an idealist, even though its usually impractical and just makes my life more difficult, but personally the alternative is not an option for me. Therefore, I just can't accept that the A bombings were the best alternative to full scale invasion. From my personal readings on the matter, peace could still have been possible if the terms for surrender had not been so severe. The A bombs prevented a horrible alternative, but the A bombs themselves could have been prevented. And I wonder if it will be another treaty of versailles; as in, peace now at the cost of strife later. But hey, who knows?
War is something I "get". WWII is the one I understand the most about. From political motivations to the people in the streets. Since I'm coming from that side of it, idealism is simply not in the picture. It can't be. Cold, practical reality is the only way I can see this stuff. And I'd not have it any other way. So I can't agree with you completely. I can, however, say that I understand and respect where you're coming from and leave it at that. There's no need to go any further with this stuff here. We've simply reached different "conclusions" from looking at the subject in two very different ways. As this thread was about religion and this topic was born of that discussion, your way of seeing this is a perfectly valid one here. And I happen to agree with your assertion that - with or without religion - man's greatest crimes against man would still have happened. I don't happen to think the A bombings fit the bill of "crime", but that's not important to this discussion. And not as important overall. Religion or not, man would harm man. So I'll leave this alone and let the thread get back to whatever it's become. And feel better for doing it. :D
You seem pretty certain that they can't know. What if one of them does? How can you be so certain that you're right?
I think that's the point.
Kind of foolish to say that we know when we don't. If anyone could prove beyond a reasonable doubt that a supreme being exists or does not exist, I'd love to see it. So far, however, it hasn't happened, nor is it likely to happen. It's more or less inherently unprovable unless God actually pops down from the skies to say hi, and even then we wouldn't have any indication that he/she/it is anything like what we think it is like.
Think about it. Even if there is an omnipotent, omniscient being floating around up there, what reason do we have to trust it? This whole Bible thing could be just one hugely elaborate scheme (of which, given the aforementioned omniscience, he would be perfectly capable) just to make people worship him for his own amusement. For all we know he actually doesn't give two damns about us and we'll all just go to oblivion when we die.
And frankly, if you ask me, the "not giving a damn" idea makes a lot more sense. If he actually cared about our wellbeing, you'd think he could do something to, for example, put a stop to the endless swarm of hurricanes plaguing the US. I'm sure that more than one person has prayed for just that, and chances are that some of those people have ended up dead, bereaved or maimed regardless.
And frankly, if you ask me, the "not giving a damn" idea makes a lot more sense. If he actually cared about our wellbeing, you'd think he could do something to, for example, put a stop to the endless swarm of hurricanes plaguing the US. I'm sure that more than one person has prayed for just that, and chances are that some of those people have ended up dead, bereaved or maimed regardless.
Sure, He could. By completely and routinely violating the basic workings of weather and physics.
Hurricanes, tornadoes, earthquakes...all results of a conglomeration of individual forces in nature that come together in regular patterns.
I mean, we don't want a world without air and sea currents, or without rainstorms (or even thunderstorms, as lightning is part of the nitrogen cycle), do we? Those are all factors that contribute to hurricanes and/or tornadoes. Action and reaction.
If you feel like blaming an entity, blame Satan and humanity for bringing sin, corruption, and death into the world.
Hmm, I think I will say a bit on this issue.
Actually, he is right on the money on that one. The Crusades had as much to do with religion as the current war in Iraq has to do with WMDs. Sure, we all heard a lot of talk about WMDs, but thats not really what its about. The Crusades were ultimatly the manifestation of a conflict that stems from a time before both Christianity and Islam; the conflict between Euro-centric western civilisation and non-western culture. Certainly, religions came into this as the ideology of the day, but ultimatly the Crusades were about two things. On a practical level, they were about the acquisition of wealth and power. On an idealogical level, they were about about Western civilisation coming into conflict with a relatively new threat to its security.
I keep hearing this but have seen no evidence to support it. Again, why were the holy sites so important then? Why didn't they just attack Tyre, or Haifa and hold them? We also see that the branches of Christianity were sure that one or the other were the "right" one and that also contributed to the Crusades. There indeed were power plays and desires from wealth, however, they were minor to the religous factor. I did find this paper http://www.uwgb.edu/dutchs/WestTech/xcrusade.htm on how it was more between Christian religions and only peripherally involved Islam.
And if it was about "western civilization" coming into conflict with "non-western"(which means what exactly?) why did many places have no conflict when this occured e.g. Spain, Egypt, etc. Eventually, there was conflict e.g. the Reconquista, but intially people lived without warfare.
I know alot about atheists, because for most of my life I was one. Also I have alot of atheist friends. If I talk negatively about atheists, know the I direct it at me and my friends as well.
I know that 75% of them have never had proper bible study -or havn't even opened a bible. Or people who have had too controlling religious parents who ruin their childrens faith.
I'm very good at analyzing people and also I'm a fairly honest person. People use the excuse of being atheist to have a clean conscience. Or/and to state their "different", much the same way teens say "I'm goth or "I'm punk".
This doesn't apply to everyone.
As for me not being atheist is simple. Being the stubborn person I am, couldn't deny that the bible was wrong, because I didn't know anything about it. I wanted to prove it wrong, so I started studying the bible. I've been studying now for along time and its had the reverse affect on me. My faith is growing.
Reading the Bible was a major contribution to me becoming an atheist. It is full of contradictions, unkept promises and claims like bats are birds. I was a Christian, a Presbyterian to be precise. Many atheists have read the bible and studied it, even to the point of actually formerly being pastors. If you'd like to meet some of them, come here: http://www.whywontgodhealamputees.com/forums/
I also do not have controlling parents. I do not use it to have a clean conscience, for I do not believe in "sin" against what amounts to an invisible friend. I also do not use the term atheist to be "different". For being such a good people analyzer, you don't seem know atheists at all.
Sure, He could. By completely and routinely violating the basic workings of weather and physics.
None of which an omnipotent being should have to concern themselves with.
You're telling me that he can create a planet out of nothing and fill that planet with plant, animal and human life in flagrant violation of the law of conservation of energy and yet he can't stop one poxy hurricane without screwing up the weather?
EDIT: Incidentally, I was not placing "blame" on God for the world's problems as you seem to suggest. I'm merely saying that we don't know if he's benevolent or not, if indeed he does exist in the first place.
None of which an omnipotent being should have to concern themselves with.
You're telling me that he can create a planet out of nothing and fill that planet with plant, animal and human life in flagrant violation of the law of conservation of energy and yet he can't stop one poxy hurricane without screwing up the weather?
When should He stop it?
The instant before it hits the coast?
While it's still a storm system over Africa?
After all, I'll freely admit, I don't know what potentially beneficial effects a hurricane has while over open ocean, if any. But I'd say we can preclude that stage.
So we're left with "right before it hits the Carribean". Perhaps He could stop it every single time. But then, on the flip side, it's a natural process, a normal storm occurance. Why not just ask Him to make us all invincible and immortal? There's a point where we enter the stage of "how the world works". Recall my earlier statement; death, destruction, and decay have entered our world because of our own actions, and secondarily the actions of Lucifer. Death is an immediate result, but I believe that difficulty with the environment is a secondary effect.
At the same time, I can't claim to have the answer for each and every bad thing that happens. I am, after all, only human.
But it wouldn't really matter here, would it? I can give my stance, but it's not like you guys are accepting of debate. You're just throwing these things out there, back in my/our face(s). Maybe in a different setup, progress could be made, but in an environment like this...eh.
When should He stop it?
The instant before it hits the coast?
While it's still a storm system over Africa?
What are you asking me for? He's God. He should know. He should just be able to snap his fingers and say "Right, nobody's going to get hurt by this" and it should be so, regardless of how nature and physics may work.
Why not just ask Him to make us all invincible and immortal?
Why not indeed? If he loves us all so very much then why not just bring heaven down here and make the world a utopia?
Recall my earlier statement; death, destruction, and decay have entered our world because of our own actions, and secondarily the actions of Lucifer.
So you're saying that hurricanes are our fault.
I mean, if it's Lucifer's fault, it shouldn't matter. God is all-powerful. Why let Lucifer have his way? He could so easily just smite the bugger. It's not like he hasn't gone down the "righteous wrath" route before.
I can give my stance, but it's not like you guys are accepting of debate.
"You guys"? Who am I? Do you know me? Have we ever talked before? I don't think so.
I am perfectly accepting of debate.
Reading the Bible was a major contribution to me becoming an atheist. It is full of contradictions, unkept promises and claims like bats are birds. I was a Christian, a Presbyterian to be precise. Many atheists have read the bible and studied it, even to the point of actually formerly being pastors. If you'd like to meet some of them, come here: http://www.whywontgodhealamputees.com/forums/
I also do not have controlling parents. I do not use it to have a clean conscience, for I do not believe in "sin" against what amounts to an invisible friend. I also do not use the term atheist to be "different". For being such a good people analyzer, you don't seem know atheists at all.
Could not have summed up my experiences growing up any more concisely. The complete wrongness of many passages is what did it for me. That and the apparent bipolar disorder that the Almighty has (Old/New Testament).
I was also drilled with the "fact" that God preserves His Word through the generations, with all meanings intact, despite numerous translations. Imagine my surprise when something as simple as the number of oxen in Solomon's temple was mentioned multiple times with different numbers provided.
That led me to look into more possible contradictions, and it snowballed from there. Did I mention that I was working at a Christian radio station when I became an atheist?
Oh, and as a disclaimer, I don't care what anyone else believes or doesn't believe; I just get fed up with the reverse discrimination when it comes to being atheist - at least that's what I have been met with. Just open hostility that I would DARE not believe in some unprovable deity. Yay for the Bible Belt.
I think that's the point.
Kind of foolish to say that we know when we don't. If anyone could prove beyond a reasonable doubt that a supreme being exists or does not exist, I'd love to see it.
It wouldn't matter. There's enough ostrich ppl w/ their stubborn heads in the sand that they would refuse to believe it/him/her anyway.
Goes both ways. I believe in God, but I acknowledge Evolution as probaby the most likely canidate among creation mythoi. God still kicked the ball off so to speak, but Adam & Eve is just an interpretation to me; primitive desert dwelling folks couldn't have understood the deific complexity of DNA, eons of time, natural selection, etc. God can though. They just took a guess to try and explain "where we come from" cuz' that's what sentient folk do. That and breed like rats...
So far, however, it hasn't happened, nor is it likely to happen. It's more or less inherently unprovable unless God actually pops down from the skies to say hi, and even then we wouldn't have any indication that he/she/it is anything like what we think it is like.
It's a double-edged sword and horrible idea IMO. For those w/ belief, it is enough, but there are so many nay-sayers that must see, touch, hear anything for it to be possible, much less real...not good. Even in the natural world there is enough scientific phenomenon that breaks w/ reality and tradition and ppl still can't cope w/ that, how do you expect them to cope w/ a super entity? It blows minds. I mean, just being in a near death experience, going to war, seeing the birth of your kid, whatever, big experiences that can totally change you as a person, psyche and all...they would be nothing compared to this.
That amount of sudden change isn't natural. Things must evolve more gradually like the growth of the planet, seaons, birth to death. It's just all the spoiled, entitled gimmie gimmies of today's world want answers now that they totally aren't prepared to receive.
Still consider what would happen if He/She/It did come down...
You thought WWII was bad. Ppl, being human and you know, finite/weak, would snap under the awesome magnitude of the situation. Many would rejoice and exult, but you know some crazy folks in power would start making some extreme decisions and poof...no more planet.
Pehaps He knows if he were to manifest in no uncertain terms, the massive social, religious, humanitarian fallout would be catastrophic. Care enough to distance yourself from the kids you gave freedom of choice to anyway. A theory, no more no less. God kinda' like the God from the Age of Enlightenment; the Great Clockmaker that's gonna' kick back and watch, it's just he's probably choking back the tears is all.
Like mamma bird, sometimes you gotta' leave them to fly on their own. Too much interference and you have a coddeled child that can't cope/adapt. Who knows, just a guess.
Think about it. Even if there is an omnipotent, omniscient being floating around up there, what reason do we have to trust it?
Depends on your degree of cycism. Do you trust your parents? G/f, wife, best drinking buddy? This isn't a person we're talking about so you need to entertain thought on a scale you can't even imagine on your best day. Head go explodey...
I trust the situation (cuz' I can't fathom the Being) cuz' I must. You can do what you will, and that's the beauty of it. It won't matter. But if it gives you peace of mind, so be it. Your life is just that, your's. Just don't trample what others hold dear if it's not infringing on your world/reality.
This whole Bible thing could be just one hugely elaborate scheme (of which, given the aforementioned omniscience, he would be perfectly capable) just to make people worship him for his own amusement. For all we know he actually doesn't give two damns about us and we'll all just go to oblivion when we die.
It is highly unlikely, even by scientific (purely secular) standards. W/ so many people involved in organized religion, so many w/ differing ideas and agendas, to assume they all synch up seamlessly to form a big ruse is unrealistic at best.
Religion is simply a tool humanity has achieved to reconnect w/ the existential, explain the important stuff of life, cuz' we're rabidly obsessed w/ the trivial and inconsequential. This election, the war, AIDS, Darfor even, meaningless in the big scheme. Bigger concerns/mysteries, bigger fish.
And frankly, if you ask me, the "not giving a damn" idea makes a lot more sense.
It does cuz' you're only human, albeit very cynical and exacting, but human nonetheless. NOthing wrong w/ that. But when you begin to consider more than what you know now, which is alot for anyone, your POV may change. Like being a child, you think you know how something works in the world, but your mental schema aren't fully developed, you don't have the tools to receive the wisdom yet...it would be too much to bear. You cease to become a child and more like a grossly developed adult in a little body.
Some things ppl just aren't ready to receieve. In much the same way not every juicy tidbit out of world govt's reaches us in the masses. It often must be parceled out in controlled doses, or we OD so to speak. A rough approximation to be sure and not applicable to all knowledge, but...
If he actually cared about our wellbeing, you'd think he could do something to, for example, put a stop to the endless swarm of hurricanes plaguing the US. I'm sure that more than one person has prayed for just that, and chances are that some of those people have ended up dead, bereaved or maimed regardless.
Again, you're thinking as you, Joe Doe, plain vanilla citizen. When you achieve demigod, even epic lvl human in the earth campaign setting so to speak, you might have a better understanding of why thigns are the way they are. Implying a divine callousness just cuz' you're bitter about 'x' isn't fair cuz' you have no idea if He's actively engaged right now guiding your keystrokes, or wrote you off before you were even a zygote.
For me, "God kills moms and puppies cuz' He has to." War, famine, etc., but he gave us Gift: that's pretty much everything now and ever will be. Tree, air, family, D&D, your thoughts, your entire existance, a gift. We're allowed to do w/ it as we see fit (for now). I'd say that's pretty generous.
Dominion is how we use it. We're given dominion over the planet that was gifted, but we're expected to take care of it like each other. We're tenants to be more precise, not likely to get out security desposit back on the Earth, but a select few will get glowing letter of recommendation for helping out the neighbors and such.
Alright, enough metaphor for now.
I'll IM God about all of this and see what he says when I'm off work.
It wouldn't matter. There's enough ostrich ppl w/ their stubborn heads in the sand that they would refuse to believe it/him/her anyway.
It's interesting how you only suggest that the people who would refuse to believe it it he was proven to exist are the stubborn ostriches, and not the people who would refuse to believe it if he was proven not to.
It's also incredibly silly to say it wouldn't matter. It does matter, because we would then know the truth. There are those that would deny the truth out of pure stubborness as you say, but there are also those who would not.
Even in the natural world there is enough scientific phenomenon that breaks w/ reality and tradition and ppl still can't cope w/ that, how do you expect them to cope w/ a super entity? It blows minds.
And yet we're all expected to believe in and worship him, because if we don't then we go to Hell, or are at least forbidden from entering Heaven, depending on how you interpret it.
So all the people who can't cope...screw 'em? Essentially?
Depends on your degree of cycism. Do you trust your parents?
I know my parents, my family and my girlfriend. I interact with them frequently. I know their personalities and how they behave, and I can ascertain whether they are worthy of trust or not based on that.
How often do I get the chance to chat with God and find out what he's like?
I trust the situation (cuz' I can't fathom the Being) cuz' I must. You can do what you will, and that's the beauty of it. It won't matter.
Except that if you do the wrong thing you get punished with eternal torment. That's freedom alright.
It is highly unlikely, even by scientific (purely secular) standards.
You appear to forget that THIS IS GOD WE'RE TALKING ABOUT. "Unlikely" does not exist. If I was suggesting that a human being somehow orchestrated all this then yes, that would be absurd, but this is an all-powerful being. He can do it.
Like being a child, you think you know how something works in the world, but your mental schema aren't fully developed, you don't have the tools to receive the wisdom yet...it would be too much to bear. You cease to become a child and more like a grossly developed adult in a little body.
Again, this is God we're talking about. "How the world works" doesn't matter because he can change "how the world works" at his whim. Anything he wants, he can make it happen, so why isn't it happening unless he doesn't want it?
Implying a divine callousness just cuz' you're bitter about 'x' isn't fair cuz' you have no idea if He's actively engaged right now guiding your keystrokes, or wrote you off before you were even a zygote.
That's exactly my point. Maybe he is benevolent. Maybe he isn't. We don't know and we can't know, so the fact that people presume to know and behave as thought they do know baffles me.
I think that's the point.
Kind of foolish to say that we know when we don't.
And that's my point. How do you know that everyone else doesn't know?
And that's my point. How do you know that everyone else doesn't know?
Well now, this is getting into different philosophical territory altogether. How do we know anything? How do I know you exist? How do I know I'm sitting here typing on a computer? How do you know that the question you ask is pertinent?
Reading the Bible was a major contribution to me becoming an atheist. It is full of contradictions, unkept promises and claims like bats are birds. I was a Christian, a Presbyterian to be precise. Many atheists have read the bible and studied it, even to the point of actually formerly being pastors. If you'd like to meet some of them, come here: http://www.whywontgodhealamputees.com/forums/
I also do not have controlling parents. I do not use it to have a clean conscience, for I do not believe in "sin" against what amounts to an invisible friend. I also do not use the term atheist to be "different". For being such a good people analyzer, you don't seem know atheists at all.
Had you of read my WHOLE post, you would have noticed "This doesn't apply to everyone." I don't know you personally, but I do know ALOT of people who don't believe in God (more then half). Yes, they fit into what I was describing very well, maybe its the area where I live, who knows. I'm pretty good at analyzing people who I used to mirror.
Well now, this is getting into different philosophical territory altogether. How do we know anything? How do I know you exist? How do I know I'm sitting here typing on a computer? How do you know that the question you ask is pertinent?
No, this is not getting into extreme epistemological skepticism. I am only pointing out one's hypocrisy (not specifically yours, as you're not the person who originally posited that others can't know, although you do seem to support it).
You can't make claims about what other people know unless you can back it up.
Just to be clear, I'm not criticizing the "No one can know" position itself, and concerning the god-question, it's actually the very position that I hold. What I'm criticizing is the way it's presented.
I believe Daniel Dennet said something along the lines of, "There is nothing I like less than a bad argument for a position I hold dear."
its a shame i saw many things people were saying that were completely wrong. and i wasn't here to refute the point with scripture.
i guess i can start with this one. some of you questioned why god does not actively cure diseases, stop hurricanes, fix governments....etc...
well the answer is quite simple.
god does not rule the world. 1 john 5:19 informs us that satan rules the world.
perhaps that clears up some misunderstandings for some of you...and when you watch the morning news you will think.."Ahhhh that makes perfect sense now that i know satan rules the world!"
God allows satan to rule to prove a point.
A question of sovereignty came up in the garden of eden, and he is being allowed to rule for a time to prove who is fit to be worshiped..
Who is fit? god or satan.
In essence he put satan in the driver seat, and said "you try for a while and we will see who is a better driver."
The bible refers to a "Kingdom" some of you may have heard of it in the lords prayer..."his kingdom come, his will be done, on earth as is in heaven."
this kingdom we pray for refers to the time when he takes the steering wheel back and kicks out satan.
SO...yes the world sucks now...and no god is not a passenger seat driver so he is not interfering.
SO...yes the world sucks now...and no god is not a passenger seat driver so he is not interfering.
It's been thousands of years.
I think the point has kind of been made.
Besides, even if Satan is responsible, I don't see how this proves to anyone that God is worthy of worship. What this says is that he's happy to sit back and relax while some evil dude wreaks havoc on the world. When is this kingdom going to come along? When is God going to decide that enough is enough?
Is it going to happen in my lifetime? Probably not. It hasn't happened in the lifetimes of all the people that have died before me, so what have they seen to show them that God is worth any praise at all? Nothing. What does it prove to me if I die before God takes the reins again? Nothing. I will die and be punished for being true to logic and true to myself because God refuses to lift a finger to show me the truth.
And you still think he's nice?
It's been thousands of years.
I think the point has kind of been made.
hah hah!!! well i agree it has been made myself, but its not my choice to decide when the point is made....
the scriptures do however tell us what things will be like in the "last days" or shortly before satans rulership will end. At Matt. 24:7-14, Luke 21:11 there is a list of conditions that must be met. When all conditions are met than we can expect it will be soon....Currently all conditions are pretty much met. So you will hear many christians saying we are living in the "end times, or last days" Conditions were only met in this last few decades.
Besides, even if Satan is responsible, I don't see how this proves to anyone that God is worthy of worship. What this says is that he's happy to sit back and relax while some evil dude wreaks havoc on the world. When is this kingdom going to come along? When is God going to decide that enough is enough?
Well its not to prove if God is worthy of worship or not... its to prove who is better at ruling mankind, and who is sovereign.
Satan thinks that he deserves worship, and that he is potentially a better ruler than God. If god just smote him from existance then the question of sovereignty would not have been answered.
i know this seems a bit hard to take in, but the truth is the more you study the more you learn...i have a lot of time vested in the bible.
Is it going to happen in my lifetime? Probably not. It hasn't happened in the lifetimes of all the people that have died before me, so what have they seen to show them that God is worth any praise at all? Nothing.
hmmm..i didnt want to comment on your last part...but.....
It may or may not happen in your lifetime....i personally feel it will happen within 50 years...God will not allow us to destroy the earth he created, and we are on the fast track to destroying it so it will happen before then...THATS GUARANTEED.
What does it prove to me if I die before God takes the reins again? Nothing. I will die and be punished for being true to logic and true to myself because God refuses to lift a finger to show me the truth.
we are not told the full details of the ressurection, but there WILL be one...during this time the people who have never had a chance to learn about god will ALL have a chance to learn. Then they will have a choice to listen or to ignore it.
there are 3categories of people:
righteous people....heard the truth and accept and follow it.
wicked people...heard the truth and do not accept it. These people will not be ressurected.
Unknowing people...never had a chance to learn..will be ressurected for a chance.
i know people think "but what about children who died?" and as i said in the beginning we are not told all the details of the ressurection...just that there will be one. Perhaps everyone will be ressurected as healthy adults. I dont know.
It's been thousands of years.
I think the point has kind of been made.
Besides, even if Satan is responsible, I don't see how this proves to anyone that God is worthy of worship. What this says is that he's happy to sit back and relax while some evil dude wreaks havoc on the world. When is this kingdom going to come along? When is God going to decide that enough is enough?
Is it going to happen in my lifetime? Probably not. It hasn't happened in the lifetimes of all the people that have died before me, so what have they seen to show them that God is worth any praise at all? Nothing. What does it prove to me if I die before God takes the reins again? Nothing. I will die and be punished for being true to logic and true to myself because God refuses to lift a finger to show me the truth.
And you still think he's nice?
Fathers are not always nice. Imagine Satan as a son, and God as a father. If the son rebels, what is the father to teach his son ? If the father beats his son right away that proves nothing . Gods rulership was challenged, by letting Satan have rulership over the world, in time he will see that he is not a suitable ruler.
I'm sure that Satan is trying as hard as he can to prove that he is a suitable ruler, but by the state the world is in its obvious he's not.
You may not agree with or understand God's methods, but its not our place to understand every detail.
When God flooded the earth, Noah and his family were the only righteous people left. I'm not saying thats going to happen now, but it took along time for the world to get that way.
You may not agree with or understand God methods.
Oh, right. Obviously if I theorise that God is not benevolent then it's just because I "don't understand his methods", not because it's actually quite possible that he actually is not benevolent.
Don't be silly.
we are not told the full details of the ressurection, but there WILL be one
You. Don't. Know. That.
Have you any proof whatsoever that this is going to happen? Even if God himself descended and spoke to you directly to say "Yes, it will happen", you don't know that he's telling the truth. You just assume that he is benevolent because that's what he said.
Why?
Suppose some complete stranger came up to you and said "Hey, buddy, listen. I need you to do me a favour. I really need to borrow ten thousand dollars from you. If you loan it to me, I'll pay it back to you tomorrow, plus an extra five thousand for helping me out. I'm a good guy. You can trust me."
Would you lend him the money or would you tell him to sod off? Probably the latter.
Now suppose that the complete stranger is God (and he is a complete stranger unless you're claiming to have met him), the ten thousand dollars is your devotion and worship, and the five thousand dollar reward is permission to enter Heaven.
What's the difference?
You. Don't. Know. That.
Didn't we just have a conversation about this?
Can you back up that you know he doesn't know?
(Yes, I'd have asked him to back up his claim too, but I didn't see it as I have shamurai on ignore and don't wish to discuss anything with him.)
It's been thousands of years.
I think the point has kind of been made.
Besides, even if Satan is responsible, I don't see how this proves to anyone that God is worthy of worship. What this says is that he's happy to sit back and relax while some evil dude wreaks havoc on the world. When is this kingdom going to come along? When is God going to decide that enough is enough?
Is it going to happen in my lifetime? Probably not. It hasn't happened in the lifetimes of all the people that have died before me, so what have they seen to show them that God is worth any praise at all? Nothing. What does it prove to me if I die before God takes the reins again? Nothing. I will die and be punished for being true to logic and true to myself because God refuses to lift a finger to show me the truth.
And you still think he's nice?
The "end of days" will, as the others said, occur when certain conditions are met. Chief among these is the Gospel being spread to all nations, men, and languages. Has this been met? Not fully; there are still people groups and languages barren of the Word. Are we closer? Yes. Will it happen withing a century or so? I'd say it's quite possible; we're very close. But things will get Worse before they get Better. A Really Bad Dude will take over, and essentially, mankind will get what he wants: fullest reign over earth, likely more than he's ever had.
It's not so much about "who runs this show", in the sense of "Satan vs God"; it's "Man vs God". Mankind keeps rejecting Him; thus, He says "Ok, rule yourselves. I won't stop you, I gave you free will for a reason."
Incidentally, I lean towards the idea that Hell is often less of a "punishment", and more of a "here's exactly what you want". That is, for those who rejected God, He gives them total separation from Himself. You say "how's that different than now?" Even in this twisted, fallen world, He's still here, in seen and unseen ways.
Remember, God is both ultimately just, and ultimately merciful. His utter holiness cannot allow sin in His presence, but His Son is the bypass to this. It's free, we just have to take it.
Incidentally, as far as I'm concerned, all logic I've ever used points to God.
The universe and nature shout out His existence.
Humanity's condition and behavior shout out the existence of sin, evil, our fallen nature, and Satan.
And the stories of many that I know point to the intercession of God in our lives. I can turn to many in my church and ask them about their lives; lives that were once broken, filled with pain, loneliness, and addiction, are now filled with peace an joy, free from the chains of sin and addiction. I can turn to the stories of men like Brother Yun, who preached the Gospel in China for many years. For this, he was beaten and imprisoned. Clearly a dangerous criminal, that guy.
Once they had him in a cell in one of their larger, more secure prisons. They had hobbled him, breaking both legs rather badly. One night, he had a vision of Jesus, who told him to get up and walk out of the prison. So he did. He stood up, legs healed completely, and walked right out. No guards stopped him. All the doors opened. There was a car waiting outside. Now he cannot return, because he's a wanted criminal. Just for preaching the Gospel. Weird, huh?Oh, right. Obviously if I theorise that God is not benevolent then it's just because I "don't understand his methods", not because it's actually quite possible that he actually is not benevolent.
Uh no...Self quote: "You may not agree with or understand God's methods". Obviously you do not agree. I wasn't singling you out, but addressing anyone.
Didn't we just have a conversation about this?
Yes, we did. My initial response still stands. I can't "back up" my assumption that he does not know any more than I can "back up" my assumption that he isn't a purple unicorn communicating to me via a magical computer made of pixie dust and enchanted tree bark.
Nevertheless. If that assumption can be proven wrong I will accept that.
Remember, God is both ultimately just, and ultimately merciful.
How do you know that? Because he told you so?
His utter holiness cannot allow sin in His presence
How do you know that? Because he told you so?
but His Son is the bypass to this.
How do you know that? Because he told you so?
I don't think you do know any of this.
Do you claim to "know" all of this for any reason other than because God himself supposedly said so?
If not, I point you to my hypothetical situation of a stranger asking for money.
Uh no...Self quote: "You may not agree with or understand God's methods". Obviously you do not agree. I wasn't singling you out, but addressing anyone.
Completely ignoring the point.
Do you deny that there is a strong possibility that God, if he does exist, is not benevolent?
Completely ignoring the point.
Do you deny that there is a strong possibility that God, if he does exist, is not benevolent?
Hey you brought it up
I believe that God is love, to say that he is bad in anyway.. no I don't think so.
If you have any other questions, you are more then welcome to ask me.
You. Don't. Know. That.
Have you any proof whatsoever that this is going to happen? Even if God himself descended and spoke to you directly to say "Yes, it will happen", you don't know that he's telling the truth. You just assume that he is benevolent because that's what he said.
well...in fact i do.
the reason is...past truths... If you knew someone your whole life, and that person had never lied to you.....and this person told you that "tommorow i will buy a new car."
would you have a reason not to believe him?
what if this same friend explained that "the world was round and suspended upon nothing" when everyone at that time claims the world is flat and supported by infinate turtles? then next week an astronaut tells everyone the world is in fact round and floats in space!
i think you would credit your friend.
what if your friend told you that Los Angeles would be destroyed in 2015 by a man named Cyrus and no one will inhabit the city EVER again, and then sure enough 2015 rolls around and HOLY KRAP random dude named Cyrus destroyed Los Angeles...
well...Babylon (real city ruins discovered along the Euphrates river) was destroyed In 1 day in a predicted year by a man called out by name. And TODAY (real life now) the city is a ruin and was never again inhabited.
Those are just a few of the reasons why i know there will be a ressurection.....
the big guy upstairs has a good track record of telling the truth and keeping promises. With some of the things he called out in the past i would believe him if he said i would see purple flying elephants next week.
just popped in my head a more recent prophesy that is coming about......
mind you this was written about 2 thousand years ago... rev. 11:18 refers to people ruining the earth.
do you really think that about 2000 years ago the person writing this thought it was possible to RUIN the earth?
His idea of ruining the earth was not burying his own feces..lol He didnt understand what he was writing, and yet...in the last few years we are certainly ruining the earth..
I may have added wrong, though
You may not care about your soul but God and I do...
You seem pretty certain that they can't know. What if one of them does? How can you be so certain that you're right?
Most of them ARE certain they're right. That's the problem.
All you Atheists really need to pray and try to find Jesus before it is too late.
You may not care about your soul but God and I do...
While your sentiment is admirable, it brings up another point.
How does an all-loving and all-forgiving God send anyone to Hell?
While your sentiment is admirable, it brings up another point.
How does an all-loving and all-forgiving God send anyone to Hell?
Like I said earlier, by giving them exactly what they want: separation from Him.
Also, while all loving, He is also all just. He gives us a way to forgiveness, but sin doesn't just "go away" on its own.
I think the whole is God good...or evil thing is kinda silly...
A being such as god is beyond such polarities...
Really you got to make the choice whether you accept the belief of Heaven and Hell that came into the picture when Persian's invaded Europe. The belief as far as history shows first started with the Persian's and only began to appear after they entered Europe.
Satan is a aspect of God and just doing what God intends him to do...
I think the whole is God good...or evil thing is kinda silly...
A being such as god is beyond such polarities.
....No. Sorry.
Satan, aka the Devil, aka Lucifer, was at one time one of the high archangels of God. He decided that he knew better, and led a rebellion. He lost, and was cast out. His temptation of man thing flowed from his dissatisfaction from God, or at least that's a strong correlation.
God is self-describing as good and holy. Now, yes, you can take Wight's "because He said so" approach, but you can't claim this idea as core Christian, or even Hebrew, belief.
the big guy upstairs has a good track record of telling the truth and keeping promises. With some of the things he called out in the past i would believe him if he said i would see purple flying elephants next week.
According to the Bible. You know, a big book of the stuff that God wanted people to write down.
So, again, you believe he has a good track record because he told you he had a good track record.
I have a good track record. Lend me ten thousand dollars?
well...Babylon (real city ruins discovered along the Euphrates river) was destroyed In 1 day in a predicted year by a man called out by name. And TODAY (real life now) the city is a ruin and was never again inhabited.
And how do you know that God himself is not responsible for this?
Think about it. Suppose I told you that within the week, the front window of your house would be shattered by a brick with the number "7" scratched into it. A couple of days later, I scratch the number "7" into a brick and throw it through your window. Am I now a prophet? Does this make me worth trusting?
I could do this as many times as I wanted, making "predictions" and then bringing them about myself. You wouldn't know that I was the one behind it all; all you'd know is that it is completely within my power to make my own predictions come true.
According to your reasoning, then, I can see into the future with complete infallibility and you should be hinging upon my every word! Now lend me ten thousand dollars. I'll pay it back, with interest.
do you really think that about 2000 years ago the person writing this thought it was possible to RUIN the earth?
Uh, yes? I don't know if you realise this, but people believed all kinds of crap back in the day. Just look at the vast number of myths and legends surrounding the Greek pantheon, all of which we now dismiss as silly. And that's just one example.
I believe that God is love, to say that he is bad in anyway.. no I don't think so.
I didn't ask you if you thought he was bad.
I asked you if you deny the possibility that he isn't as benevolent as you think he is.
If so, then frankly, you're being foolish. Unless you can claim to have met God and read his mind, you have no idea whatsoever what his motives are, how he thinks, anything. You just assume that he's good and just and is telling the absolute truth in all things because...why? Because you're afraid to accept the consequences of the alternative?
All you Atheists really need to pray and try to find Jesus before it is too late.
You may not care about your soul but God and I do...
All you Christians need to come to your senses and embrace agnosticism before it is too late.
You may not care about the state of your brain, but I do.
How do you know that? Because he told you so?
I don't think you do know any of this.
Do you claim to "know" all of this for any reason other than because God himself supposedly said so?
If not, I point you to my hypothetical situation of a stranger asking for money.
Because He told me so. Because He's told millions of people so, and we've seen the results of that. Miracles. Martyrs. Changed lives.
It's not like "some random guy asking for a loan, saying he'll pay me back with interest, with nothing to back it up".
It's like a guy, who countless people and friends have had dealings with, coming along with an offer that's better than anything out there. I can turn to lots of friends, and they can tell me how much better their life is now.
Do I know for certainty the future? No, but I don't really claim an exact timeline. The things I do claim, I believe because of things I've seen, heard, and experienced in my time, as well as have been recorded for thousands of years.
I'm sure I could refine the analogy more, but still.
....No. Sorry.
Satan, aka the Devil, aka Lucifer, was at one time one of the high archangels of God. He decided that he knew better, and led a rebellion. He lost, and was cast out. His temptation of man thing flowed from his dissatisfaction from God, or at least that's a strong correlation.
God is self-describing as good and holy. Now, yes, you can take Wight's "because He said so" approach, but you can't claim this idea as core Christian, or even Hebrew, belief.
Yes...the Morning Lord...like all other angels...and all other of God's creations are apart of God. As a creation of God and a part of God, Lucifer is merely acting as he was intended to act. Do you honestly believe that God did not know what Lucifer was going to do before he even made Lucifer?
Uh, yes? I don't know if you realise this, but people believed all kinds of crap back in the day. Just look at the vast number of myths and legends surrounding the Greek pantheon, all of which we now dismiss as silly. And that's just one example.
Do you know that it is now considered silly to dismiss myths and legends as nonsense because more and more they are finding that there was a reason why they are there?
Because He told me so. Because He's told millions of people so, and we've seen the results of that. Miracles.
Have you seen miracles?
I haven't.
Moreover, if you have, can you prove that they were acts of God and not just a scientific phenomenon that we don't have an explanation for yet?
Remember back when we didn't know what fire was? I'm sure that would have been considered "miraculous". This strange, red, glowing energy that soothes and hurts and has such destructive power! Surely it is a manifestation of a divine being!
And now we know better.
Or maybe they were acts of god, but not *the* God that you worship. Maybe there are other gods out there that like to stay behind the scenes, remaining mostly unknown to mankind, and your God is just stealing the credit for their acts.
Martyrs.
Martyrs are NOT exclusive to Christianity. There are plenty of people out there willing to die for their beliefs.
Such as suicide bombers.
Changed lives.
Guess what? These aren't exclusive to Christianity either. Plenty of people have had their "lives changed" by Buddhism, for instance, or without any kind of religion at all. I know I started feeling a whole lot better once I stopped being a Christian, and I know others who feel the same. Doesn't really gel with your theory, does it?
as well as have been recorded for thousands of years.
According to God.
Prove he didn't make all that stuff up.
Have you seen miracles?
I haven't.
Moreover, if you have, can you prove that they were acts of God and not just a scientific phenomenon that we don't have an explanation for yet?
Remember back when we didn't know what fire was? I'm sure that would have been considered "miraculous". This strange, red, glowing energy that soothes and hurts and has such destructive power! Surely it is a manifestation of a divine being!
And now we know better.
Martyrs are NOT exclusive to Christianity. There are plenty of people out there willing to die for their beliefs.
Such as suicide bombers.
Guess what? These aren't exclusive to Christianity either. Plenty of people have had their "lives changed" by Buddhism, for instance, or without any kind of religion at all. I know I started feeling a whole lot better once I stopped being a Christian, and I know others who feel the same. Doesn't really gel with your theory, does it?
According to God.
Prove he didn't make all that stuff up.
I haven't seen many, if any, direct miracles first hand. However, I did receive a secondhand account from the gentleman Brother Yun. (He's on wiki; while apparently there's some controversy on his orthodoxy, there's none on his escape, which was my specific point).
I'm sure we could dig up multiple reports of terminally ill people who simply got better.
You'd be right in that many miracles skirt the line, but I suppose that's perhaps the point.
You're right that martyrs aren't necessarily exclusive, and neither are changed lives. Nonetheless, they are part of the weight of evidence I presented.
I suppose that, strictly speaking, I can't "prove He didn't make all that stuff up". But then again, you can't prove the reverse, and this has essentially devolved into a game of "uh huh" "nuh uh". I don't really feel like going back and forth any more; I don't think it'll do either of us any good.
Moreover, if you have, can you prove that they were acts of God and not just a scientific phenomenon that we don't have an explanation for yet?
Can you prove scientific phenomenon is not a act of god...or that the theories and laws that we find are not acts of god?
Do you know that it is now considered silly to dismiss myths and legends as nonsense because more and more they are finding that there was a reason why they are there?
Nevertheless, by and large, we do it anyway.
Never said I agreed with it, but it happens.
Yes...the Morning Lord...like all other angels...and all other of God's creations are apart of God. As a creation of God and a part of God, Lucifer is merely acting as he was intended to act. Do you honestly believe that God did not know what Lucifer was going to do before he even made Lucifer?
Again, we come to the poin where I'll say that, no, they're not "part of God". They're distinct, separate beings.
God's knowledge of events, in my best understanding, comes from the fact that He exists outside of time, observing it in a totally different manner than we do.
As well, even with that knowledge, the point is that He gave Lucifer the choice, just like He gives us the choice. He doesn't want robots, He wants willing servants. I believe He's grieved by the choices many makes, but He gives us that ability nonetheless.
Nevertheless, by and large, we do it anyway.
Never said I agreed with it, but it happens.
More and more people are kicking themselves as scientific evidence shows that places/people were indeed real...or that some events did in fact happen...
Irregardless this is not true for all things...
Also...you have to take into account what a Allegory is...and that sometimes these stories were meant to convey multiple hidden meanings who's secrets were either lost or are "believed" to be known...regardless you can never be too sure if what you know of a allegory is what the allegory intended you to know.
For example...and I use this a lot...
Hades and Persephone
Again, we come to the point where I'll say that, no, they're not "part of God". They're distinct, separate beings.
God's knowledge of events, in my best understanding, comes from the fact that He exists outside of time, observing it in a totally different manner than we do.
As well, even with that knowledge, the point is that He gave Lucifer the choice, just like He gives us the choice. He doesn't want robots, He wants willing servants. I believe He's grieved by the choices many makes, but He gives us that ability nonetheless.
k...so stuff can exist outside of God...and God didn't know what was going to be choosen even before the being who made the choice was created?
This is Dogma...Think about it. I may be not understanding what you are trying to convey but from the past few things you wrote...you have got to believe that God is more powerful than that.
For example...and I use this a lot...
Hades and Persephone
I always thought that was a story to explain winter...
I can't "prove He didn't make all that stuff up". But then again, you can't prove the reverse
And I don't need to, because I'm not saying he did.
Maybe he did, maybe he did not. That is what I'm saying. We don't know. There's no way to know, because when you're dealing with an all-powerul being, everything goes out the window. Even if you were able to find proof one way or the other, you can't know if God put it there himself.
With the countless (literally) possibilities that the existence of an omnipotent being produces, I cannot be the only one who finds it profoundly silly to select one and behave as though it is absolute truth just because it's neatly written down in a book. I cannot be the only one who finds it incredibly naive to discount the possibility that God is a liar.
Maybe (and this is just one of infinite theories I could put forward) all of this is a test. Maybe God doesn't actually want to be worshipped. Maybe what he wants is for us to admit the truth to ourselves; that we don't know and that we have no way of knowing. Maybe what we're truly supposed to do in order to bring about the kingdom of heaven is to start trusting in ourselves, as humans, and our own ability to improve our situation, rather than counting on external forces to make everything better for us. Once we put our faith in the human spirit, rather than in God, then we will truly prosper.
If nothing else, I find that idea much more inspiring. Don't you?
I always thought that was a story to explain winter...
Same...though when I got into it I found out that it also has a metaphysical meaning that is deeper than the "seasons" thing.
If so, then frankly, you're being foolish. Unless you can claim to have met God and read his mind, you have no idea whatsoever what his motives are, how he thinks, anything. You just assume that he's good and just and is telling the absolute truth in all things because...why? Because you're afraid to accept the consequences of the alternative?
Believe what you will, it matters not to me. I smile knowing that I can show kindness to anyone who dislikes me, hates me or points at me - its my way.
I believe in the holy scriptures and what I read from it. I don't make up assumptions.
Yeah I think God is good, proof; John 3:16 "For God loved the world so much that he gave his only-begotten son..."
If you want answers read the bible. As for your assumption, I'm not going to agrue with you about it. Nothing good will come for that assumption and there for is irrelevant.
Believe what you will, it matters not to me. I smile knowing that I can show kindness to anyone who dislikes me, hates me or points at me - its my way.
You don't have to be a Christian to do that.
I believe in the holy scriptures and what I read from it. I don't make up assumptions.
Yeah I think God is good, proof; John 3:16 "For God loved the world so much that he gave his only-begotten son..."
Ugh. Have you been paying any attention at all? This is exactly what I'm talking about. You don't know that "God loved the world so much blah blah blah". You've only got his word for it. This is not "proof". HOW DO YOU KNOW THAT HE IS NOT LYING?
You're just going in circles here. It's saddening to watch.
As for your assumption, I'm not going to agrue with you about it. Nothing good will come for that assumption and there for is irrelevant.
What assumption? I haven't made any assumptions. What I'm doing here is trying to dispel the assumptions that you are making.
Please cite your sources.
again, Taoist, so this thread makes me chuckle.
you are either wise and you believe the scriptures, or you are foolish and you read the truth and disbelieve it.
science has not disproven anything in the bible, and it is widely recognized as a reliable source of information....
you must be one of the people that believes in the big boom theory instead of creation... you think life is a coincidence... that there was no intelligence involved.
there is a darn good reason why scientists can not even create 1living cell in what they call the mostideal situation.
our perfect distance from the sun, the earths tilt, the protective atmosphere, our brains(the most complex thing)
Now if you really want to sound like an tard, then you can say all this stuff happenned on accident.
nah....theres no way there was intelligence behind it. right?
im done here i refuse to argue to someone unwilling to listen to reason. I dont do this for the sake of arguing.
can any one find me an example of any human soul ever winding up in hell? in any canon scriptures, I mean. to the best of my recollection, I can't find a single example of this in the bible.
Please cite your sources.
again, Taoist, so this thread makes me chuckle.
well i will talk to you, just not the wight chocolate guy...as long as your reasonable..lol
Acts 2:22-27 explains that during the 3 days Jesus was dead, he was in hell.
To ease some possible confusion, different translations use different words, but Sheol, Hades, and Hell are the same thing. Sheol is a hebrew word, Hades is a Greek word.
All 3 words are translated to "death" "destruction" or "common grave" it can also mean "cut off" symbolizing separation from god. When you are in hell "the grave" you are cut off from god. you are not conscious or aware of anything...you cease to exist.
notice it does not say eternal destruction. an example is fire and paper...if you burn paper it does not eternally burn. however it IS burned eternally.
the thought of hellfire is a VERY common missperception that is not supported by the bible. It was made up a few hundred years ago as a tool to scare people into christianity.
hell is the same thing that happens to a dead animal...its GONE!
i think i provided sufficient PROOF in my post # 220,,,,which you probably did not even read..
Yes, you're right. I didn't read it, and that is how I was able to quote it and respond to it thoroughly.
Pay attention, please.
you must be one of the people that believes in the big boom theory instead of creation... you think life is a coincidence... that there was no intelligence involved.
No really, pay attention.
I am not making any claims to the truth of anything. All I'm saying is that we don't know. That is all.
im done here i refuse to argue to someone unwilling to listen to reason.
What a happy coincidence! So do I.
Your loss, kid. If you're so quick to shy away from having your ideals and beliefs challenged then maybe your faith isn't as strong as you think.
You don't have to be a Christian to do that.
Never said that you did.
Ugh. Have you been paying any attention at all? This is exactly what I'm talking about. You don't know that "God loved the world so much blah blah blah". You've only got his word for it. This is not "proof". HOW DO YOU KNOW THAT HE IS NOT LYING?
With your way of thinking, you'll never get anywhere. "blah blah blah", I'm not trying to being rude with you so stop it.
Sure I don't know for sure, don't you know what FAITH is ! The bible is the inspired word of God, I believe in it, nor could I say its wrong.
If you know little about the bible, don't flaunt.
"blah blah blah", I'm not trying to being rude with you so stop it.
Neither am I. I just didn't feel like typing it all out.
Sure I don't know for sure, don't you know what FAITH is !
In the context that you use it? Yes, I know exactly what it is.
Arrogance.
You don't know you're right, you're aware that you don't know you're right and you're aware that there's no way of finding out if you're right, and yet you go ahead and assume you're right anyway, and furthermore, you have the gall to tell others that they are wrong, whilst refusing to even entertain the possibility that everything is not what you think it is. It's arrogance, and it's not something to be proud of.
If you know little about the bible, don't flaunt.
That's the beauty of my argument, though.
Do you know if I've read the Bible? No. I did mention that I used to be a Christian. Maybe I've read the whole thing cover to cover several times. But it doesn't matter. It's irrelevant, because neither you nor I nor anyone can know if a single word of it is true.
Because maybe God is a liar. You just refuse to consider the possibility.
Remember when 1 ton ghost was talking about ostriches with their heads buried in the sand?
Also, science has proven many things wrong with Scripture. Bat's aren't birds, rabbits don't chew cud, Moses would have had to travel hundreds of miles south to be anywhere near the red sea. The bible makes outlandish and ridiculous claims constantly.
Alright, find one thing that proves the Abramaic deity exists that didn't come from scripture.
Also, science has proven many things wrong with Scripture. Bat's aren't birds, rabbits don't chew cud, Moses would have had to travel hundreds of miles south to be anywhere near the red sea. The bible makes outlandish and ridiculous claims constantly.
On the bats birds thing...Okay, sure. But when exactly were the animal kingdom classifications laid down? 3000 BC? Or in the last few centuries? The point here being that the writer likely made the statement that was in the same vein as "whales are big fish"; technically wrong, but a potentially understandable mistake, especially to people who didn't have a high school biology education. I mean, the bat's about bird size, has wings that let it fly, it eats bugs and/or fruit...Sure, it's furry, not feathery, but hey, it was probably a vague comparison anyways. It's not like the Bible sets itself as a taxonomic authority.
As for rabbits...I'd need to see the reference. I don't recall anything about rabbits and cud, but my memory's a rusty bear trap at times.
And I'm kind of curious what you mean by "hundreds of miles...the Red Sea is right next to Egypt. I suppose I could look at a detailed map and try to plot the miles, but...
i see many people use this site when they have little scriptural knowledge, and they are just attempting to prove the bible has contradictions.
why do they want to prove this? im not sure. but this website is not creditable, and makes some wild accusations in a sad attempt to discredit the bible.
if the bible is inspired by god, then this website is inspired by satan.
i have not found anything on that site that proves a contradiction... and if you try to write in the forums there it is pointless because it is full of unreasonable people who mock faith.
if you feel anything on that site is proof then ask me and i will show you otherwise with REAL PROOF. not some fabrication or a play on words without context.
Also, science has proven many things wrong with Scripture. Bat's aren't birds, rabbits don't chew cud, Moses would have had to travel hundreds of miles south to be anywhere near the red sea. The bible makes outlandish and ridiculous claims constantly.
The Bible isn't a textbook and shouldn't be treated like one. That's like saying science contradicts Leaves of Grass or something. We can learn a lot from Leaves of Grass, regardless of its scientific accuracy or lack thereof.
if the bible is inspired by god, then this website is inspired by satan.
Bloody hell.
Square, we obviously don't agree on everything, but I completely understand why you put this person on ignore.
Behaviour like this is exactly why Christians have managed to get themselves a bad name, folks.
Remember when 1 ton ghost was talking about ostriches with their heads buried in the sand?
You would do well to leave me out of your tirades when you borrow from me or other people and twist context of wording and meaning. That's not proof so much as artful editing. This isn't about religion btw so much as common decency, savvy? Don't drag me down w/ you.
Seriously, it looks like you have your hands full w/ enough people you've "engaged". I don't think you want my undivided attention in this regard.
That's not proof so much as artful editing.
What are you talking about? I wasn't trying to "prove" anything with that statement. I'm saying that intentionally ignoring the vast multitude of possibilities that exist simply because of a stubborn refusal to accept that the fact that you don't know means that you could be wrong is precisely the sort of "head buried in the sand" mentality to which you alluded.
I'm not "dragging you down" at all.
Seriously, it looks like you have your hands full w/ enough people you've "engaged". I don't think you want my undivided attention in this regard.
Bah. I'll take ye all on.
I'm confident that my stance is impenetrable. Nobody seems able to provide any sort of counter point. The best I've got so far is "Yeah, well, I guess you have a point, but I don't care." The worst was someone calling me a tard and then ignoring me because they couldn't muster a response.
Stirring.
Next: Why do we have to follow a certain religion to get into heaven? If God rewards the just and punishes the wicked, then people who have done more good than evil in their life should go to heaven, while evildoers get hell. Why is it necessary to believe in God to get a nice afterlife, if there is one? Doesn't that seem to be a better system?
And here's another question: What about the people BEFORE your religion came into existence? They're just condemned? Or did their faith in their diferent religion allow them into heaven? If it's the latter, why is their faith no longer valid?
Again, I did not mean to offend, I just want answers.
The more I have looked into various things, the more it has become apparent.
Wight -
What if it was not god lying but man changing the things here or there to help gain power over others.
Bloody hell.
Square, we obviously don't agree on everything, but I completely understand why you put this person on ignore.
Behaviour like this is exactly why Christians have managed to get themselves a bad name, folks.
And we probably disagree even less than you think. I'm just stubborn when I do find that point of disagreement with someone. ;)
You should have seen what he said about women, and even my wife, in other threads. He's made some very sexist remarks and implied that my wife will cheat on me. It's pretty bad.
What if it was not god lying but man changing the things here or there to help gain power over others.
Maybe that's what happened. Maybe the whole thing was fabricated by priests who just wanted power. Or maybe God really did get people to write it, but didn't tell them the truth. Or maybe God wrote it himself. Or maybe it's all true. Or maybe the Bible was actually written by Satan in an attempt to deceive the world. That sounds like his style, after all.
Who knows? I don't, and I have the courage to admit it and the wisdom to reserve my judgement until I do know.
Ok, lemme ask the Christians here a question. Hopefully I won't say something stupid/offensive again. Why is the Christian religion the right one? Each one says they're right, so how the hell are we supposed to pick the right one?
Next: Why do we have to follow a certain religion to get into heaven? If God rewards the just and punishes the wicked, then people who have done more good than evil in their life should go to heaven, while evildoers get hell. Why is it necessary to believe in God to get a nice afterlife, if there is one? Doesn't that seem to be a better system?
And here's another question: What about the people BEFORE your religion came into existence? They're just condemned? Or did their faith in their diferent religion allow them into heaven? If it's the latter, why is their faith no longer valid?
Again, I did not mean to offend, I just want answers.
no problem... christians believe that the path to rightiousness is narrow and few are the ones finding it....this does reason that there is only 1 correct way, and 1 true religion....
the bible does not teach that it is ok to worship however you want.. it is quite specific. (im not going to details unless requested)
and for your second question. there were NO people before christianity...because it began with the very first man and woman. God was involved from the very beginning. maybe i am not understanding your question correctly....
i suggest going back a page and reading some of my posts in this thread, i think they will answer some of your questions...
in a post i mentioned 3 types of people..
rightious, wicked, and unknowing....
read that one.
and for your second question. there were NO people before christianity...because it began with the very first man and woman. God was involved from the very beginning. maybe i am not understanding your question correctly....
i suggest going back a page and reading some of my posts in this thread, i think they will answer some of your questions...
What about the people who predated Christ and the advent of Christianity?
I think the bible has been corrupted with time...
The more I have looked into various things, the more it has become apparent.
Wight -
What if it was not god lying but man changing the things here or there to help gain power over others.
actually when the dead sea scrolls were discovered, the most impressive thing about them was that they were almost identical to the versions we had before then...
the scrolls dates range from 300 years before christ was born to 100 years after he died.
it is quite reassuring to find almost ZERO discrepencies.
This finding of the dead sea scrolls is valuable for the Old Testament.
Have you by chance read any Gnostic Gospels? Some interesting stuff that does put things in different light, yet is still very logical.
Really...there is a lot of stuff that was amended...like Joseph and Aseneth who was a Egyptian priestess that converted to Christianity...
Or Peter and Thecla
Gospels of Judas is also very interesting
Sure it is apocryphal...yet I still believe it is valid to look into. It is apart of history and seriously take a look at events such as the Council of Nicea as well as other events to see how segments of Christianity were suppressed.
What about the people who predated Christ and the advent of Christianity?
ahhh i see....well they did something similar to what we do now....but backwards...
we look back at the christ...
they looked forward...
there was prophesy that foretold of christ before Adam and Eve even had children. so they would have known about his coming.... people followed the prophesy closely, and as more books were written people were actually searching around the town of Bethlehem for the messiah... they didnt know what he looked like, but they knew the year and the place where he was to appear.
while it is not detailed or relevant to us, it is commonly accepted that before ANY books of the Hebrew scriptures were written that God would verbally speak to people... we cant be certain though so dont take my word for fact.
i do know that god verbally spoke to Adam, Eve, and several other individuals in the Hebrew scriptures.
basicly they used christ before he was born like we use him after he died.
i hope that helps answer your question.
True...Although a few of the biblical manuscripts found at Qumran differ significantly from the Masoretic text, most do not. The scrolls thus provide new variants and the ability to be more confident of those readings where the Dead Sea manuscripts agree with the Masoretic Text or with the early Greek manuscripts.
This finding of the dead sea scrolls is valuable for the Old Testament.
Have you by chance read any Gnostic Gospels? Some interesting stuff that does put things in different light, yet is still very logical.
Really...there is a lot of stuff that was amended...like Joseph and Aseneth who was a Egyptian priestess that converted to Christianity...
Or Peter and Thecla
Gospels of Judas is also very interesting
Sure it is apocryphal...yet I still believe it is valid to look into. It is apart of history and seriously take a look at events such as the Council of Nicea as well as other events to see how segments of Christianity were suppressed.
wow sounds like you are more familiar with it than i am....i did a few days study about the scrolls and thats all.. not to mention i can not read greek, hebrew, or aramaic. i was just interested to know if there was anything that would change some of the scripture i was currently studying... and was satisfied to find that although it was an amazing discovery, it really did not change anything.
i think the big deal surrounding the scrolls was that people were expecting a huge difference from "the chinese telephone" effect.... but it never happenned...
maybe over the next few weeks i will look into it more...
Sure it is apocryphal...yet I still believe it is valid to look into. It is apart of history and seriously take a look at events such as the Council of Nicea as well as other events to see how segments of Christianity were suppressed.
Yeah, let's discuss the books of the Apocrypha. Let's take a moment to look at the holy texts that were ripped from the bible because they painted a slightly different picture than the one that the bishops of Rome wanted for the faith. Nicea is a prime example, even recorded and corroborated by history, of the editing process in Christianity.
Based on my readings of the Nag Hammadi library, early christianity was more akin to Buddhism than modern christianity. The Jesus of the Gnostic texts appears more as a teacher and student than as a messiah. He preached a gospel that was far from the approved teachings of the priests of the Sanhedrin and for that he was crucified. It's a bit amusing to think about the Catholic church executing heretics when it was founded on a faith in an executed heretic.
A normal person knowing the prophesy could ride into Jerusalem and do everything else the prophesy entails...It is interesting none-the-less and lets you see why the separation happened.
I guess this could be why many are Christian and not Jewish like Jesus. At least give a little credit to muslims...they believe in Jesus.
Yeah, let's discuss the books of the Apocrypha. Let's take a moment to look at the holy texts that were ripped from the bible because they painted a slightly different picture than the one that the bishops of Rome wanted for the faith. Nicea is a prime example, even recorded and corroborated by history, of the editing process in Christianity.
Based on my readings of the Nag Hammadi library, early christianity was more akin to Buddhism than modern christianity. The Jesus of the Gnostic texts appears more as a teacher and student than as a messiah. He preached a gospel that was far from the approved teachings of the priests of the Sanhedrin and for that he was crucified. It's a bit amusing to think about the Catholic church executing heretics when it was founded on a faith in an executed heretic.
Also take into account 250 to 318 out of 1800 attended...the minority may not have constituted the views of the majority. Yet they determined what we know today...
Sadly even today the minority dictate how the lives of the majority are lived...and because of that power...sometimes they abuse it to gain more power.
Believe what you will, it matters not to me.
This caught my eye while I was giving the thread a quick skim to consolidate my arguments.
It doesn't matter to you what I believe? Can I take it from this that you'd be OK with me going to hell, then?
Correct me if I'm wrong, but aren't Christians supposed to be trying to bring the "good word" to the people who need it most...which would be the people who don't understand or outright deny it? Hardly seems very virtuous to just give up like that simply because I happen to pose an actual challenge to you.
Or does "spreading the good word" only go as far as people that are willing to blithely accept it without question after a few minutes of emotional appeals?
there was prophesy that foretold of christ before Adam and Eve even had children. so they would have known about his coming.... people followed the prophesy closely, and as more books were written people were actually searching around the town of Bethlehem for the messiah... they didnt know what he looked like, but they knew the year and the place where he was to appear.
Where?
If you're going to say it exists, where is it so that I can go and have a look myself. If you're refering to the messiah foretold by Daniel, that wasn't before Adam and Eve. And the references don't mention Bethelehem, they say the "house of David" which isn't a reference to genealogy, it's an allegory refering to god choosing a humble shepard over a king as his "annointed one" (messiah).
If you read the old testament, god never chooses a priest or a king to lead his people. God's messiah is always, without exception, a man of low status within society. An Assenic Rabbi isn't lowly enough, so along comes Jesus the wanderer, son of a simple Carpenter. It never occurs to people that John the Baptist and Jesus knew each other before the events in the new testament, even though the words are there that say it. John the Baptist was an Assene, a sect of Judaism that is sadly gone from the modern world.
I find it terribly ironic that modern christians fail to understand that Jesus lived in opposition to the accepted religious practices of the day. It's an irony that the Christians speak out against the rebels that question the theology when they worship a messiah (their word) that did just that. And the ultimate irony is that modern christians revile the angel that, according to their dogma, had the unabashed gall to question god.
This caught my eye while I was giving the thread a quick skim to consolidate my arguments.
It doesn't matter to you what I believe? Can I take it from this that you'd be OK with me going to hell, then?
Correct me if I'm wrong, but aren't Christians supposed to be trying to bring the "good word" to the people who need it most...which would be the people who don't understand or outright deny it? Hardly seems very virtuous to just give up like that simply because I happen to pose an actual challenge to you.
Or does "spreading the good word" only go as far as people that are willing to blithely accept it without question after a few minutes of emotional appeals?
no, there are guidelines for this....and she followed them fairly well...it informs us to go to people who are meek, and willing to reason. im sure she doesnt want anyone to "go to hell" as you put it, but she certainly wont lose sleep over it....lol
we are in no way obligated to cry ourselves to sleep if someone simply will not listen...
in fact we are told to "go to the next house" or skip over you like a pebble..
we cant waste our efforts on people who dont care...only give them a chance, and if they dont listen then that is their fault...it puts them into the "wicked" category i mentioned earlier.
I find it terribly ironic that modern christians fail to understand that Jesus lived in opposition to the accepted religious practices of the day. It's an irony that the Christians speak out against the rebels that question the theology when they worship a messiah (their word) that did just that. And the ultimate irony is that modern christians revile the angel that, according to their dogma, had the unabashed gall to question god.
Adding to it...
There is irony that a lot of the same practices Jesus was against were practiced in his religion.
Seriously take the time to look at other belief sets from the ancient days...be they Persian, Egyptian, Odinic, Eleusinian, Bacchic, Babaloynian, etc etc...
There is a lot of parallels...some predate and influence...others like Odinic come later and are influenced.
Also take into account that maybe...just maybe reading something might help you understand the symbolism and allegories better.
Seriously...God will not smite you if you read up on history.
no, there are guidelines for this
I wasn't asking you, champ. I'm sure she can speak for herself.
When I seek the opinion of someone who doesn't even have the common decency to read and address my points before insulting my intelligence, I will have abandoned all integrity, and I formally request to be shot dead should this ever occur.
You just be a good little ostrich and keep your head buried in the sand. After all, I'm just some nasty, wicked agnostic who won't listen to reason.
At least give a little credit to muslims...they believe in Jesus.
And the Prophet Mohammad was a man, just like Jesus. A prophet, but still a man. The muslims didn't make him the son of God, any more than the rest of us can claim that mantle.
Islam allows that the one true god may answer to other names, does Christianity?
And the Prophet Mohammad was a man, just like Jesus. A prophet, but still a man. The muslims didn't make him the son of God, any more than the rest of us can claim that mantle.
Islam allows that the one true god may answer to other names, does Christianity?
And that is another thing the Council of Nicea was about...so yes...after the Council, Jesus became God-like.
Where?
If you're going to say it exists, where is it so that I can go and have a look myself. If you're refering to the messiah foretold by Daniel, that wasn't before Adam and Eve. And the references don't mention Bethelehem, they say the "house of David" which isn't a reference to genealogy, it's an allegory refering to god choosing a humble shepard over a king as his "annointed one" (messiah).
sheesh...ok you make me work hard...lol
genesis 3:15...this is the very first prophecy in the bible...referring to jesus and satan. also throughout the entire first book of genesis god is giving orders....he is giving these orders to Jesus. Jesus is the one actually doing the work.... This agrees with John 1-3 that explains ALL things were created through jesus.
kind of like how an architect designs a skyscraper, the carpenters build it, but the architect gets the credit.
and when god says 'let US create man in our image' he is speaking to Jesus.
Jesus is the 'firstborn' of all creation..and existed as a spirit creature long before the earth was even a thought.
firstborn does imply that unlike god, Jesus did have a beginning.
now if you want to put the entirety of the bible and christian religion into a nutshell it would be genesis 3:15...
we cant waste our efforts on people who dont care...only give them a chance, and if they dont listen then that is their fault...it puts them into the "wicked" category i mentioned earlier.
Waste your efforts? That's hardly christian is it? Did you forget that the wicked are the ones most in need of salvation? Did you forget that Mary Magdalen was one of the wicked? What if Jesus ignored her because of her sinfulness?
If you're going to claim the mantle of righteousness, you can't take it off because you meet someone that disagrees. Just because someone won't listen you can't just move on down the road. Or are you not truly christian? Do you forget that everyone is a child of god? Or will you follow Cain's example and say simply that "I am not my brother's keeper"?
sheesh...ok you make me work hard...lol
genesis 3:15...this is the very first prophecy in the bible...referring to jesus and satan. also throughout the entire first book of genesis god is giving orders....he is giving these orders to Jesus. Jesus is the one actually doing the work.... This agrees with John 1-3 that explains ALL things were created through jesus.
kind of like how an architect designs a skyscraper, the carpenters build it, but the architect gets the credit.
and when god says 'let US create man in our image' he is speaking to Jesus.
Jesus is the 'firstborn' of all creation..and existed as a spirit creature long before the earth was even a thought.
firstborn does imply that unlike god, Jesus did have a beginning.
And I will put enmity between you and the woman, and between your offspring/[seed] and her offspring/[seed]; they/[he] will strike your head, and you will strike their/[his] heel.
This?
It should be evident that the expression "her offspring/seed" (, zar’ah) in Genesis 3:15 is a generic reference to mankind, since the Bible is speaking of Eve’s descendants. Thus there is implied a plurality, which is likely to be the reason that some Jewish translators have used the pronoun they instead of he, since this is not referring to any one specific person exclusively.
Now this is cool...Gensis 16:10
And the angel of the LORD said unto her I will multiply thy seed exceedingly that it shall not be numbered for multitude...
So did Christian's translate it to singular instead of plural in the instance of 3:15...and then everywhere else (like 16:10 for instance) have it back to plural?
Just because someone won't listen you can't just move on down the road.
I realise this wasn't necessarily an accusation, but nevertheless, I would like to make it clear that I am listening. I am listening very intently. Some people are just pretending that I'm not because they don't know how to answer me, I suppose.
I realise this wasn't necessarily an accusation, but nevertheless, I would like to make it clear that I am listening. I am listening very intently. Some people are just pretending that I'm not because they don't know how to answer me, I suppose.
You took a malleable stance saying that you really don't know and that you take many possibilities into account. Not saying it is bad...but there really isn't much way to answer it.
Jesus is the 'firstborn' of all creation..and existed as a spirit creature long before the earth was even a thought.
Incorrect.
Genesis 1:1
"In the beginning there was formlessness and void and God said, 'Let there be light' and it was good."
And thus was created Lucifer, the Light-bringer (latin). In the beginning there was nothing and when god began the creation, he formed angels with his words. As god spoke, the universe formed. The universe of Christian theology is a place of wonder, where angels are created whenever god speaks. Sounds strangely animistic, but that's prior to Abraham, so it's ok.
Sorry, chum. Jesus was not the first creation of God. Unless of course you'd like to throw out Lucifer from the creation story. However, if you toss good ol' Lucifer from the mix, you have to rip out all the things that relate to the "firstborn". That Satan guy from revelation, yeah, not so important if you remove the first of the angels from his place as the first creation of god. There's a reason Lucifer is called the firstborn and it's a sad translation of the text if you have Jesus in Genesis.
Again belief...my beliefs are not set in stone and they may change with proper information...
Not saying it is bad...but there really isn't much way to answer it.
I wasn't asking for someone to "answer" my entire stance, but nevertheless I've put some questions forward that have been ignored, (not necessarily by you) along with accusations that *I* am the one unwilling to listen.
The mind boggles.
For example:
And how do you know that God himself is not responsible for this?
Think about it. Suppose I told you that within the week, the front window of your house would be shattered by a brick with the number "7" scratched into it. A couple of days later, I scratch the number "7" into a brick and throw it through your window. Am I now a prophet? Does this make me worth trusting?
I could do this as many times as I wanted, making "predictions" and then bringing them about myself. You wouldn't know that I was the one behind it all; all you'd know is that it is completely within my power to make my own predictions come true.
According to your reasoning, then, I can see into the future with complete infallibility and you should be hinging upon my every word! Now lend me ten thousand dollars. I'll pay it back, with interest.
And so I ask: why be so utterly convinced that God is perfect and good and merciful when you literally have nothing to go on but his word for it?
You're telling me that this question can't be answered? You're seriously telling me that you can't explain your belief? And yet this is something upon which you base your entire life?
And I will put enmity between you and the woman, and between your offspring/[seed] and her offspring/[seed]; they/[he] will strike your head, and you will strike their/[his] heel.
This?
It should be evident that the expression "her offspring/seed" (, zar’ah) in Genesis 3:15 is a generic reference to mankind, since the Bible is speaking of Eve’s descendants. Thus there is implied a plurality, which is likely to be the reason that some Jewish translators have used the pronoun they instead of he, since this is not referring to any one specific person exclusively.
Now this is cool...Gensis 16:10
And the angel of the LORD said unto her I will multiply thy seed exceedingly that it shall not be numbered for multitude...
So did Christian's translate it to singular instead of plural in the instance of 3:15...and then everywhere else (like 16:10 for instance) have it back to plural?
the only one the enmity applied to was Jesus, and he is in fact a single person...though a far off descendant of Eve. The verse does not imply all of eves children would be perfect like Jesus. So it would translate to english as He and His, not they and their. (hence the brackets so the verse makes sense...)
many translations keep this singular.
I realise this wasn't necessarily an accusation, but nevertheless, I would like to make it clear that I am listening. I am listening very intently. Some people are just pretending that I'm not because they don't know how to answer me, I suppose.
Sorry mate, that was an accusation. I'll admit to it with no shame. Nothing is more foul than a person that preaches a doctrine but fails to live by it.
Don't claim to be christian and then tell the world that someone is "wicked" so you gave up on them. Only God has the right to judge. If you're so perfect in your righteousness that you can judge the wicked, then why don't you turn them back to the righteous path? Again I ask, are you your brother's keeper? Are you a shepard of men? Are you a fisher of men? Too many will claim the righteous path and fail to walk it, are you among them?
the only one the enmity applied to was Jesus, and he is in fact a single person...though a far off descendant of Eve. The verse does not imply all of eves children would be perfect like Jesus. So it would translate to english as He and His, not they and their. (hence the brackets so the verse makes sense...)
many translations keep this singular.
Christian translations keep it singular...
This is not a messianic prophecy by any stretch of the imagination. Nothing in this verse refers explicitly to the Messiah other than in the generic sense, that the Messiah will be a human being who descended from Adam and Eve, i.e., someone of mankind. Other than that, this verse describes the general notion that people will have a dislike for snakes and hit them in the head, while snakes will bite people in their feet.
It could also be made out as Christ defeating Satan...or it could be humanity that defeats Satan.
Also
The pronouns – (hu), he, and (atah), you – appear many times in the Hebrew Bible, and are used interchangeably in both the singular and plural context, i.e., as they and [plural] you. To be sure, the singular applications are the most common ones for both pronouns, yet the plural occurs as well.
also
zar’ah is plural and what is used in the passage
zera is singular...and is not used in the passage
Incorrect.
Genesis 1:1
"In the beginning there was formlessness and void and God said, 'Let there be light' and it was good."
And thus was created Lucifer, the Light-bringer (latin). In the beginning there was nothing and when god began the creation, he formed angels with his words. As god spoke, the universe formed. The universe of Christian theology is a place of wonder, where angels are created whenever god speaks. Sounds strangely animistic, but that's prior to Abraham, so it's ok.
Sorry, chum. Jesus was not the first creation of God. Unless of course you'd like to throw out Lucifer from the creation story. However, if you toss good ol' Lucifer from the mix, you have to rip out all the things that relate to the "firstborn". That Satan guy from revelation, yeah, not so important if you remove the first of the angels from his place as the first creation of god. There's a reason Lucifer is called the firstborn and it's a sad translation of the text if you have Jesus in Genesis.
interesting stance you take there....The old testament was written in Hebrew and Aramaic, lot latin....... but thats beside the point.
my name is christopher which in latin is "christs bearer" and yet i never bore christ......
Col 1:15....'jesus is the firstborn of all creation'
its quite clear there.....
however if you take the meanings of everyones' name quite literally, and apply your own context to it, then you are in a world of confusion.
heres a short list of bible names and meanings for you:
Gad=good fortune
Caleb=dog (funny i dont think he was literally a canine)
Cane=cane, or branch (was cane an inanimate object? did eve birth a branch or a human?)
Bathsheba=daughter of plenty
Solomon=peace
Mered=rebellion
Judas=slave of jesus, or brother of james (hardly known as a slave of jesus...methinks traitor)
you can not elaborate on the meaning of lucifer to contradict a straightforward verse that states jesus existed first.
Gen 1:1
In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth.
It does not read "In the beginning God created Jesus, the heavens, and the earth."
count arioch found these things at a web site called 'infidels.org' using a web search.
No I didn't. I have never even heard of such a site until you just mentioned it. That is a lie to try to discredit me.
I'm not researching that site, because as you mentioned in the post, it's biased against religion. I prefer unbiased sources.
About the red sea thing: Egyptians hated foreigners. If you weren't Egyptian, you were crap. (Note that some would argue that since the Egyptians don't have records of the exodus, that it didn't exist. I make no claims, it's actually well documented that the Egyptians were sore losers, and didn't make any record of any events that made them look bad. It is entirely logical that any defeat of the Egyptians are only recorded by the people that beat them and not by the Egyptians themselves.)
Anyway, they did not allow large numbers of slaves in the southern portion of the country. Slaves were kept in the Nile delta region for the most part. Moses would have had to come south a good ways before he reached the Red Sea.
Now here's the thing: I'm not saying that religion is without merit. The Greeks held the Hebrew faith in such esteem they made sure it was recorded and they didn't even follow the Hebrew faith! (Before the Greeks wrote it down, the faith was passed down from generation to generation orally. That's a notoriously poor way of keeping records. The bible has changed a lot through translational issues, but it would have changed even more if it was recorded orally.)
People slam the church for stuff that happened in the dark ages. I'm not saying that there weren't buttholes in the church. However, the church did in fact keep the knowledge of the Romans and Greeks safe through the time. ("Dark Ages" doesn't mean it was evil, it means that there wasn't a lot of records from that time period.) They were the only educated people for the most part, they kept the knowledge alive. In fact, in those times knowledge of the world and how it worked was considered a REQUIREMENT to be a member of the clergy.
Now, I don't follow the Abramaic faiths. However, if you do good things, and the Abramaic faiths are your motivation, that's not a bad thing. Again, there are many people of faith that want to destroy our way of life, but it seems that most people of faith actually are trying to do good. If you use the teachings of Yeshua and go out and help the needy, bring hope to the downtrodden, and do other good works, what harm is there in that?
I just have issue with being told I'm going to hell because I believe what my eyes can see and ears can hear. And I have issue with people telling me I went to a hate group's website when I disagree with someone. And I have issue with people that don't recognize that people have taken the Bible and used it as motivation to kill people.
Honestly my belief that he is neither good nor evil. A being that exists outside of space and time...I think that he above paradoxes.
Assuming this was in response to me, that's fair enough, but it doesn't answer my question.
Can you explain why you believe this? Is it because of the Bible? If so, can you explain why you're so willing to trust the Bible and assume that it is not a book of lies or some other fabrication?
On a slightly different note, I would like to pose a simple challenge to the Christians still perusing this thread.
I want you to prove that the Bible as we know it today was not written by Satan.
One stipulation, however, is that you may not use the Bible itself to do so, because that's circular logic. If you claim that something in the Bible proves that the Bible was not written by Satan, you're effectively saying "Satan didn't write the Bible, so we can trust the Bible to be true, and the Bible says that Satan did not write the Bible." Such an argument is invalid.
Go. Seriously. I'm interested in what you have to say on this.
Wait, you were asking Christians, never mind. :P
Christian translations keep it singular...
This is not a messianic prophecy by any stretch of the imagination. Nothing in this verse refers explicitly to the Messiah other than in the generic sense, that the Messiah will be a human being who descended from Adam and Eve, i.e., someone of mankind. Other than that, this verse describes the general notion that people will have a dislike for snakes and hit them in the head, while snakes will bite people in their feet.
It could also be made out as Christ defeating Satan...or it could be humanity that defeats Satan.
i guess there are 3 ways you can look at it initially....
1.people will hate and beat up snakes
2.humans will defeat satan
3.jesus will defeat satan
now process of elimination time.....he is speaking specifically to satan, not snakes in general. so that rules out #1, also its kinda silly.
#2 has absolutely NO harmony with the bible whatsoever so rule that out.
#3 has pefect harmony with the scriptures and actually makes sense.
ding ding ding!!! we have a winner!!!
satan challenged god and said that people will follow him, jesus was gods answer to that challenge, and jesus will defeat satan.
please dont ask me to pull scripture for everything....i feel my words should hold some water after backing up everything i said ALL day...
(im not speaking to you in particular, but everyone)
no problem... christians believe that the path to rightiousness is narrow and few are the ones finding it....this does reason that there is only 1 correct way, and 1 true religion....
the bible does not teach that it is ok to worship however you want.. it is quite specific. (im not going to details unless requested)
and for your second question. there were NO people before christianity...because it began with the very first man and woman. God was involved from the very beginning. maybe i am not understanding your question correctly....
i suggest going back a page and reading some of my posts in this thread, i think they will answer some of your questions...
in a post i mentioned 3 types of people..
rightious, wicked, and unknowing....
read that one.
Christianity existed since the beginning of time?
Before Jesus. . .? Now that raises some questions. How can you be a Christian before Christ even existed? That makes no sense. And what do you mean there were no people before Christianity? Then why have we found nothing that shows that Christians existed before Christ? You have a flawed explanation. And as for your thing about how there is only 1 correct way and religion. . .that means EVERY other religion is wrong. I have a hard time believing that. Why is Christianity right, and all others are wrong? What PROOF do you have?Also, you said earlier that the bible has no contradictions. . have you read the bible? In the ten commandments they say "thou shalt not kill" and THEN there's a section telling you to kill anyone that worked on the sabbath, homosexuals, anyone of a different faith. . .and they were considered what a 'good christian' should be. Now people say they were sinners. Well, who's right? It seems that a sinner is merely a manner of perspective now. For example, there is a child predator I know. He's now in jail, and he is Christian. So basically, you're saying he gets into heaven because of his beliefs, and not his actions. He's a horrible, despicable man, and he gets the nice afterlife, while all I get is oblivion, since I have a moral code that directs me, not a religion.
I'm not sure if you really know what you're talking about. You haven't really answered any of my questions. You say things, but that doesn't mean they're true. Several other posts prove how you don't know what you're talking about. I don't understand why we aren't judged for our actions, instead of our beliefs. Also, for Adam and Eve, after they committed the 'first sin', god immediately punishes ALL humans, not just the ones who committed the crime. That's like a tyrant who tortures an entire family just because one member of that family spoke against him. That's like a person who got robbed (hurt, whatever) by one person of a different ethnicity, and decided to punish all of them for that. Punishing an entire race for the crimes of one person. That's messed up.
That's why the bible cannot be taken literally. The basic message is a good one, but it got distorted by people that wanted power, or had some other kind of agenda.
So, I will re-iterate my initial question. Why is Christianity the 'right' religion? Why not Islam? Buddhism? Judaism? Wicca? Shinto? Why not the ancient Egyptian gods? Why not the Greek ones? It seems to me that humans feel a need to have a god, and make them up. Just look at all the gods that have ever been worshipped. How do we know it's not one of the others? All you've told me is that Christianity is right because the Bible says so, and because you say so. That's arrogance. Now I think I'll stop. Can you actually answer these questions?
So, the Levites killing homosexuals and people who broke Sunday blue laws weren't breaking a commandment. They were just being royal douchebags.
Then again, the hebrews were about average in terms of brutality, the middle east is flat, with few natural barriers, and the people had to fight for everything they had on a regular basis. That makes cultures fierce and warlike.
#3 has pefect harmony with the scriptures and actually makes sense.
Jesus is not perfect. EVERYONE has flaws. Jesus is a human, and therefore, not perfect. Anyone who claims perfection just proved they're arrogant. Wait. . .if you're arrogant, that's a flaw, meaning you're NOT perfect. And I read earlier that God is letting Satan rule earth, causing suffering. Well, what's the greater evil, performing the evil deed, or watching, and not stopping it? Basically, we're all punished because of Adam and Eve. Wow. That's just great. I get punished for the actions of others initially, then because of the way we became, my own actions on top of that. Basically god gave us free will, but then says "behave this way or I'll punish you" Shows how mature he is. What's the point of freedom of will if things are this way, hmm?
i will leave on these notes....
'christ's true followers will be objects of hatred by all nations on acount of his name' Matt. 24:9
and Matt. 7:14 'narrow is the gate, and cramped the road leading to life, and there are very few finding it."
so i understand that many of you are just fulfilling prophecy....
i can hope that the next time someone offers the truth some of you will be more willing to listen to reason, and be less hatefull.
well i think im out of this thread, as it has lost all reason, and is full of spitefullness.
"Oops, suddenly I can't provide a good answer to your questions, guess I'll just call you all unreasonable jerks and take off."
What a loss we have suffered. And what a shock! I never saw this coming at all.
Don't worry, I don't think you're all like this; just misguided.
So. Anyone else up for my challenge?
NOTE: Saying 'it's true b/c I believe it is, or it's true b/c it's in the bible', is not what I consider a valid argument.
Rant mode turning off.
Last thing: remember how everyone thought the world would end in 2000? Why are we still here? Now I think they're saying 2012 God's gonna destroy everything and true christians go to heaven. Seems like they're just playing a guessing game. Honestlly, I think the events in the Terminator Movies are more likely about how humans will die off, or we just nuke the world.
EDIT: I don't hate christians. I like the basic message. To do good. I know several christians that I admire. However, people that cannot answer my questions, act high and mighty, and then run off when he can't take the heat. . well, you all know how I feel about people like them.
the 2012 thing is a mayan prophecy, and people gloss over the fact that it's more of a beginning than an ending.
Seriously dude, I believe in the smiting of people who can't think things out, but you really need to get some facts straight. Take the log out of your eye before you take the speck out of your brothers, and so forth.
If an atheists says anything about their beliefs its fine, but if a person with faith says anything their persecuted, really its true. Its okay, really its fine and I can live with it. Know that I truely value and respect your opinions. Because I believe in God, I believe that anything is possible (DO NOT quote me on that, ooh no, this docile woman can shoot laser beams out of her middle fingers !!!!).
I had a Christian tell me that Ol' Dirty Bastard died because he got pulled over while carrying around crack, and he ate it and OD'ed. That doesn't make it a Christian belief, just what that particular Christian thought.
I hardly think having faith makes me arrogant. I never claimed to be right, I only claimed to have faith. I am not Mrs. Arrogent, I'm not sitting on a throne drinking wine saying,"mm yes, I am right."
If an atheists says anything about their beliefs its fine, but if a person with faith says anything their persecuted, really its true. Its okay, really its fine and I can live with it. Know that I truely value and respect your opinions. Because I believe in God, I believe that anything is possible (DO NOT quote me on that, ooh no, this docile woman can shoot laser beams out of her middle fingers !!!!).
I never called you arrogant for your faith. That was someone else I think. As I have said many times before, I like the religions basic message. I just can't stand other things about it. At times I just get a bit too agressive, and put my foot in my mouth. And as for shooting lazers out your middle fingers. .
That might be the case, but neither are christian teachings. The 2000 thing was an over-reaction to the Y2K bug, and the 2012 thing was predicted by the mayans thousands of years ago, long before they even knew what a Christian was.
I had a Christian tell me that Ol' Dirty Bastard died because he got pulled over while carrying around crack, and he ate it and OD'ed. That doesn't make it a Christian belief, just what that particular Christian thought.
You are right. I realize I DO need to get my facts straight. So, yeah, um apologies to Rizen Isstaria, Shamurai7, Knights Disciple, and any other christians here. We can ignore my previous posts.
I never claimed to be right
So you believe it but you don't think it's right?
How does that work?
If an atheists says anything about their beliefs its fine, but if a person with faith says anything their persecuted, really its true.
Actually, for the record, I think atheists...that is, strong atheists who claim to know that there is no God...are just as bad, because when pressed to prove their assertions they are as much at a loss as a Christian is.
Again, all I've been saying is that we don't know. That goes both ways.
I also reject the notion that the majority is persecuted. If Christians are persecuted, why are they such a dominant political force in this country? That's all I want to know.
The Romans fed Christians to the lions. That's a little bit more extreme than modern Christians being chastised on message boards for using circular logic. No Christian is being persecuted anywhere in this country.
The Romans fed Christians to the lions.
This is off-topic, but apparently there isn't actually any evidence to suggest that this really happened. It's an unsubstantiated myth.
That's not to say the Romans didn't do horrible things to them, but feeding them to lions probably wasn't one of them.
Just thought I'd throw that out there.
I don't claim there is no God. I do claim that everything that happens happens for a logical reason that can be figured out. Now, there are things that have happened that why don't know why, but that doesn't mean there is a supernatural reason for it, only that our understanding of the event is lacking.
I also reject the notion that the majority is persecuted. If Christians are persecuted, why are they such a dominant political force in this country? That's all I want to know.
The Romans fed Christians to the lions. That's a little bit more extreme than modern Christians being chastised on message boards for using circular logic. No Christian is being persecuted anywhere in this country.
Right, but numerically speaking, there's more of us spread across the world, and we are being persecuted there. Especially in parts of the Middle East and southeast Asia, as well as China.
There may be no liong-feedings occuring, but there's plenty of roundups and executions or torture.
Wight_Chocolate; So you believe it but you don't think it's right?
How does that work?
I believe in God and believe he's right. I'm not trying to prove anything (better worded). I'm simply not saying your wrong, I'm not that kind of person.
Actually, for the record, I think atheists...that is, strong atheists who claim to know that there is no God...are just as bad, because when pressed to prove their assertions they are as much at a loss as a Christian is.
Again, all I've been saying is that we don't know. That goes both ways.
This is out of personal experience (and many others I know). I was an atheist most of my life. No one ever gave me a hard time about it, but when I declared that I believe in God, I was instantly persecuted. I lost friends and family.
Your right it can go both ways, but I've never known an atheists to have it bad though.
This is for anyone reading. Remember that there are different types of Christians and churches. Some are very alike and some are very different. Some are judgemental and some are open and understanding. Always keep that in mind.
This is off-topic, but apparently there isn't actually any evidence to suggest that this really happened. It's an unsubstantiated myth.
That's not to say the Romans didn't do horrible things to them, but feeding them to lions probably wasn't one of them.
Just thought I'd throw that out there.
Point taken. I should have done research and found something unpleasant that the Romans actually did do.
Ah, and Christians aren't as bad off in China anymore, they're allowing people to practice religion as long as they don't oppose the government.
And people in the Middle East technically don't like anybody.
Don't know enough about southeast asia to comment.
Point taken. I should have done research and found something unpleasant that the Romans actually did do.
Ah, and Christians aren't as bad off in China anymore, they're allowing people to practice religion as long as they don't oppose the government.
And people in the Middle East technically don't like anybody.
Don't know enough about southeast asia to comment.
That's brand new, then, since we had a lady over at our church a couple of months ago telling us it's still pretty bad for people not in the big state sponsored churches. As in, young people being arrested and questioned long and hard, just for having a house church meeting.
I have to wonder how China defines "opposing the government".
Example of southeast Asia: Vietnam. Good luck openly preaching there, or having more than...1 Bible. Not to say we can't get them in, but still.
I'm simply not saying your wrong, I'm not that kind of person.
But you obviously think I am wrong. If you didn't think I was wrong then you'd agree with me, surely.
Don't get me wrong; there is absolutely nothing wrong with thinking that other people are wrong. (Far too many "wrong"s there.) The problem is when you do so without any justification.
You do not have any justification. You've said as much yourself; you cannot prove anything. In spite of this, however, you have taken a position and you believe that position to be right; and by extension, you believe that those opposed to that position are wrong, even if you haven't actually said it out loud.
That is arrogance, plain and simple.
That's brand new, then, since we had a lady over at our church a couple of months ago telling us it's still pretty bad for people not in the big state sponsored churches. As in, young people being arrested and questioned long and hard, just for having a house church meeting.
I have to wonder how China defines "opposing the government".
Yeah, in China, the churches answer to the government. Your church can be of pretty much any faith, as long as you have government approval.
Yeah, if you start a church that's not sponsored by the state, you're in deep trouble. The thing is with strict governments is that they restrict both religion and education, because they don't want to the people to challenge them. Religion provides hope, and education provides power.
And the Chinese use a pretty broad definition of opposing the government. For example, they're not allowed to access our internet unless filtered by some pretty strict software.
However, things are improving, the old guard are dying out and they're getting some new blood in the Chinese government. Things have been loosening up for the past 20 years or so.
So you believe it but you don't think it's right?
How does that work?
Actually, for the record, I think atheists...that is, strong atheists who claim to know that there is no God...are just as bad, because when pressed to prove their assertions they are as much at a loss as a Christian is.
Again, all I've been saying is that we don't know. That goes both ways.
And how is that not as bad as the Christians and strong atheists you mention?
I've pressed you to prove your assertion, but you've been at a loss to do so.
And how is that not as bad as the Christians and strong atheists you mention?
I've pressed you to prove your assertion, but you've been at a loss to do so.
Say what now?
Say what now?
I'm saying don't be a fundy agnostic. http://www.squarecirciality.com/2007/10/fundy-agnostics-beware.html
Your first problem is your incorrect assumptions that atheists believe that there is no God.
Uh, some of them do. I have met people who believe just that, and furthermore, I was referring specifically to those people in my statement.
Perhaps "atheist" is the wrong term for such people (although it's defined as that pretty clearly in the dictionary, so I suspect that *I'm* not the one mixing things up), and if so, my mistake, but nevertheless, it is this particular group that I was talking about.
When someone says that the believe God exists, or believe God doesn't exist, I don't jump to conclusions and make an ass of myself
Am I jumping to conclusions?
Consider this. Suppose you throw a coin into the air one hundred times. Obviously it's going to land each time you throw it. After throwing the coin a hundred times, is it "jumping to conclusions" to assume that the coin is going to land the next time you throw it?
I don't see how this situation is any different. I've discussed this issue with more people than I can remember and not one of them has been able to demonstrate that they know anything about God, so why is it jumping to conclusions for me to assume that the next person won't either?
The difference between my assuming that someone doesn't know that God exists or what he's like and blah blah blah and someone else assuming that they do know is that my assumption actually has something substantial to go on; not only has there not been a shred of evidence to suggest that people do know, but I have seen for myself that many people do not know. Same with the coin. There's nothing to suggest it won't land when you throw it, but you've seen for yourself that it probably will.
I fail, therefore, to see how this is any more unreasonable than my (and your, I suspect) "assumption" that the people I meet and talk to on a daily basis are human beings and not purple unicorns, because not only is there nothing to suggest that purple unicorns exist, but I have witnessed with my own two eyes that they're bloody well not purple unicorns.
On the topic of arrogancy, arrogancy goes hand in hand with pride. In no way am I buffed up with pride. I don't find pride in my faith, but strength.
If I were to call someone arrogant in front of my parents, I'd be smacked in the faces.
I don't know why I keep talking to you about this.. since your always right, so :surrender ...... Wait, how about I flip this around. Why don't you prove that God doesn't exist . Just one real piece of evidence, since you were demanding this of me.
Wight_Chocolate, I don't understand why you wish to fight (argue) with me so badly.
This is a simple debate, not an argument. There's no need to take it to heart.
You can't say someones right or wrong when it comes to religious believes -you can't and I never tryed -that I am right about !
Um.
I seriously do not understand this sentence.
On the topic of arrogancy, arrogancy goes hand in hand with pride. In no way am I buffed up with pride. I not find pride in my faith, but strength.
Just because you don't think you're being arrogant doesn't mean you aren't.
If I were to call someone arrogant in front of my parents, I'd be smack in the faces.
Even if they're actually being arrogant?
Your parents need to straighten themselves out, then.
Wait, how about I flip this around. Why don't you prove that God doesn't exist ..
I thought we just covered this.
Listen closely, please.
I am not asserting that God does not exist. I have never once claimed that God does not exist in this thread, and if you think I have then show me where I've done it. Seriously. Go through my posts and find the part where I said there was no God.
You can't, can you? Right. Because I didn't say that. That has never been my stance. So why are you asking me to prove something that I haven't claimed to be true?
Or maybe that's my headache/funky hours talking....
Also explain how having faith is being arrogant and not having faith means you were not being arrogant ? You make it sound like everyones arrogant. In that case I can remove this burden you've placed on me, I don't like feeling like I'm being arrogant(<- please don't quote me on that, its annoying).
Saying someone is arrogant is a personal opinion. My parents would see that I was being rude and immature, thats why they'd punish me. Maybe you were not disciplined as a child.
This is a simple debate, not an argument. There's no need to take it to heart.
Perhaps if it were not for the provocation. This isn't the first time though.
Not that you are openly hostile at first, no. But I think it's safe to say you're not the most courteous antagonist in debate. Not that I'm one to talk, still...
You can say what you wanna say, but why pi$$ off other like-minded gamers just cuz' you disagree on religion, which is a personal matter IMO.
Bad form. Keep it analytic, scholastic, clinical if you must, not personal.
Just because you don't think you're being arrogant doesn't mean you aren't.
Please consider this for future posts.
Even if they're actually being arrogant?
Your parents need to straighten themselves out, then.
Um, stop me if I'm out of line Rizen/Wight, but that seems kinda' arrogant, right there, yes? God may not be off limits here, but family...?
Don't want to but in if I'm not wanted, but c'mon...pot, kettle, bla bla bla.
You can't, can you? Right. Because I didn't say that. That has never been my stance. So why are you asking me to prove something that I haven't claimed to be true?
I believe reciprocity is the phrase.
Wight_Chocolate, you were claiming that there was a possibility that god might not have "good intentions" or may not be benevolent. Isn't that what being benevolent means "having good intentions"? In that case, I say again prove it.
You still don't seem to get what I'm saying here.
Again, I'm not saying "God is not benevolent." I'm saying it's possible that he isn't. Do you understand the difference between these two assertions?
I do not need to prove that he is not benevolent because I haven't claimed this to be true; all I'm saying is that he MIGHT not be.
Let me give you an example. Maybe this will help.
Suppose three scientists are discussing what causes things to fall towards the ground.
Scientist 1 proposes that there is a force called gravity that causes all objects to exert a "pull" on one another, and so objects fall because they are drawn towards the Earth.
Scientist 2 proposes that there are invisible ghosts everywhere that cause things to fall.
Scientist 3 says "I guess either one of those could be true. We don't really know yet."
Now what does Scientist 3 have to prove? Nothing. All he's said is that either theory is possible. He has not taken a stance either way.
However, Scientists 1 and 2 have made a definite claim that something is true, and they must therefore present valid evidence in order for their theories to have any merit.
Do you understand now? I am Scientist 3. I don't have anything to prove. The fact that both theories are a possibility is already proven by virtue of the fact that neither one of them has actually been proven true yet. Ergo, it could be either one; it is not yet known.
Also explain how having faith is being arrogant and not having faith means you were not being arrogant ?
See above. Was Scientist 3 being arrogant when he said what he did? Of course not.
Now look at Scientists 1 and 2. Suppose they didn't bother trying to prove their theories and simply claimed that they were true because they had "faith" in them. That is arrogance, is it not?
Saying someone is arrogant is a personal opinion. My parents would see that I was being rude and immature, thats why they'd punish me. Maybe you were not disciplined as a child.
"You're wrong and I'm right. I'm right because I'm just better than you. I'm better than you in every way conceivable. I cannot possibly be wrong because I'm so great."
Do you seriously think it'd be rude and immature to call someone arrogant if they said what I just said there? That is the very definition of arrogance, and you'd be absolutely CORRECT in saying that someone who said such a thing is arrogant.
Perhaps if it were not for the provocation.
What provocation?
The only person I've been disrespectful to is shamurai7, who flagrantly ignored everything I had to say and simply condemned me as being immoral and stupid. I think a lack of respect in that instance is warranted.
You can say what you wanna say, but why pi$$ off other like-minded gamers just cuz' you disagree on religion, which is a personal matter IMO.
If people are getting "pi$$ed off" then that's their problem. I'm certainly not going out of my way to make it happen.
Please consider this for future posts.
If you think I'm being arrogant, demonstrate it. Show, don't tell.
I am NOT going down this road with you again. You're thrown these baseless accusations at me in numerous threads several times in the past, constantly dodging the question every time I asked you what I was supposedly doing that was so terrible, and frankly I'm sick of it.
Either back up what you're saying or kindly keep quiet. If someone has a problem with what I'm saying or how I'm saying it then they can take it up with me themselves; you are not in a position to speak on someone else's behalf and I will not indulge your doing so.
Now look at Scientists 1 and 2. Suppose they didn't bother trying to prove their theories and simply claimed that they were true because they had "faith" in them. That is arrogance, is it not?
Basically what your saying is I have to stop having faith in God to not be arrogant ? I'm arrogant because I believe in God?
.. Oh also in post 301 "I believe that anything is possible'. (I am annoyingly optimistic)"You're wrong and I'm right. I'm right because I'm just better than you. I'm better than you in every way conceivable. I cannot possibly be wrong because I'm so great."
Do you seriously think it'd be rude and immature to call someone arrogant if they said what I just said there? That is the very definition of arrogance, and you'd be absolutely CORRECT in saying that someone who said such a thing is arrogant.
Wow, if you think that I'm in anyway like that, your insane. In my older posted I've been only reasonable and fair to you. Just because I put my faith in god and not in mankind doesn't make me arrogant or bad. I've only shared my beliefs with you and you've always shot them down. I've never shot down yours. Not to try to sound arrogant, but I think I'm a good nice person.
Basically what your saying is I have to stop having faith in God to not be arrogant ?
I'm saying that it's arrogant to believe that you are right without any evidence to support your claims.
You don't have any evidence. You've admitted to this yourself.
Surely believing in something goes hand in hand with thinking that it is right, and that you are therefore right for believing it. Throughout this discussion I've been getting the impression that you're somehow suggesting that you believe in God without thinking that you're right to believe in God, and I honestly can't even begin to comprehend how that works. If you believe something then you must think it is right. If you don't think it's right, why believe it?
Oh also in post 301 "I believe that anything is possible'.
Then I refer you to a question I asked earlier:
And so I ask: why be so utterly convinced that God is perfect and good and merciful when you literally have nothing to go on but his word for it?
Why indeed?
Again, I'm getting very confusing mixed messages from you.
Wow, if you think that I'm in anyway like that, your insane.
I was just using that quote as an example to illustrate my point. I did not mean that that is what I thought you were saying.
. I can't find physical proof, sorry if thats not enough.Know that I'm simpy happy with my faith, I feel good about it. If that means Im being arrogant, then so be. At least I'm kind and arrogant ;) . I agree to disargee, is the term I hear so much lately. Mind taking me up on it ?
I'm saying that it's arrogant to believe that you are right without any evidence to support your claims.
I can see where you are coming from here, and to a certain extent it makes sense, however I think you are confusing a lack of "showable" evidence with a lack of evidence that lead to an opinion being formed. Show me a law of physics? You cant. You can show me what you alledge to be one in action, but that could just as easily be God making it so (the label "law of physics" is an example of an assumption that biases perception).
Religious experience is notoriously hard to 'prove' (although, if my master's thesis pans out right, its not impossible :D ) but part of the problem is that the atheist has a block which stops them from seeing the divine (and just to confuse matters, some who claim an experience of the divine seem to be either decieved or decieving....).
Then I refer you to a question I asked earlier:I ask: why be so utterly convinced that God is perfect and good and merciful when you literally have nothing to go on but his word for it?
Its perfectly possible to show how God is perfect, good and merciful, its just:
* more than a little complicated (especially for the medium of a message board)
* requires the person being spoken to getting past a block in their perceptions built up by constructed assumptions of what the answer will look like
.I can't find physical proof, sorry if thats not enough.
You don't need to find physical proof. The bible doesn't have to be a true account of history for you to find truth in it. It doesn't matter if it's litteral or figurative, if the message comes to you from it. So you can't prove that god exists, no one expects you to. Alternatively, no one should be expected to prove that god doesn't exist.
Another thing, while I'm thinking about it. If you want to prove god exists, there is no better proof than you. If you say god is good, be good. If you say god is just, be just. If you say god is forgiving, be forgiving. If you say god is kind, be kind. If others look to you as an example of what a righteous and just person is, you will have proven the value of your beliefs without needing to validate them. If belief in an unprovable entity makes you a person worthy of respect and admiration, do you really need to prove anything?
Remember for a moment the Samaritan. The story of the Samaritan is one of the most important stories in the New Testament. It shows that even a non-believer can be more good than even the most devout believer. Words mean nothing if your actions betray your beliefs. Don't preach the gospel, live it.
Too many Christians say that Jesus said, "The way to the kingdom of heaven is through me". I say he said "The way to the kingdom of heaven is mine". Don't look for salvation from outside, the path to heaven is in your deeds. Remember always that it is you that confirms or condemns you.
Just my two cents, for what it's worth. You can agree or disagree. In the end, I could be wrong. I have been before, so I can't discount that possibility. And at the end of the day, what do I know, I'm just a cab driver. Heck, I'm not even Christian.
You don't need to find physical proof. The bible doesn't have to be a true account of history for you to find truth in it. It doesn't matter if it's litteral or figurative, if the message comes to you from it. So you can't prove that god exists, no one expects you to. Alternatively, no one should be expected to prove that god doesn't exist.
Another thing, while I'm thinking about it. If you want to prove god exists, there is no better proof than you. If you say god is good, be good. If you say god is just, be just. If you say god is forgiving, be forgiving. If you say god is kind, be kind. If others look to you as an example of what a righteous and just person is, you will have proven the value of your beliefs without needing to validate them. If belief in an unprovable entity makes you a person worthy of respect and admiration, do you really need to prove anything?
Remember for a moment the Samaritan. The story of the Samaritan is one of the most important stories in the New Testament. It shows that even a non-believer can be more good than even the most devout believer. Words mean nothing if your actions betray your beliefs. Don't preach the gospel, live it.
Too many Christians say that Jesus said, "The way to the kingdom of heaven is through me". I say he said "The way to the kingdom of heaven is mine". Don't look for salvation from outside, the path to heaven is in your deeds. Remember always that it is you that confirms or condemns you.
Just my two cents, for what it's worth. You can agree or disagree. In the end, I could be wrong. I have been before, so I can't discount that possibility. And at the end of the day, what do I know, I'm just a cab driver. Heck, I'm not even Christian.
For the most part, I totally agree. (I'd quibble on the salvation from deeds, but eh).
Thankfully, people inside the church are preaching this too, at least at my chruch, but how bad is it when somebody completely outside our belief structure gets this better than we do?
Man, now I feel bad or something. ;)
(I'd quibble on the salvation from deeds, but eh).
Why so?
I can't claim any intimate knowledge of these things, but I would assume that since it's your misdeeds that condemn, it would stand to reason that your deeds would save you. Think about it for a moment. Unless your deeds and misdeeds are weighed in the final judgement, even the most depraved, villainous of people will find no punishment in the afterlife simply because they asked for salvation. Where is the purpose in living a righteous life if simply paying lip service at the end of your days will be all that's taken into account?
There is a world of difference between knowing what is right and doing what is right. I would imagine that if there is a god, he would be far more likely to elevate and reward those that did what they knew was right over those who only knew what was right. Still farther, I would imagine he would be more likely to punish those that knew what was right and still did that which they knew was wrong. Asking forgiveness wouldn't save the soul of a truly wicked man any more than not asking would condemn a righteous man. To think otherwise seems silly to me.
Lets consider this from another angle.
Would you say that mother Teresa would go to heaven? Certainly, she was Christian, right and just. She would ask for forgiveness, she goes. How about the Dalai Lama? Gandhi? Would you say that good, righteous and just people of faiths other than Christianity are condemned to punishment simply because they didn't know to ask forgiveness? I can't see a forgiving god holding the righteous from eternal reward simply for not asking forgiveness after a lifetime of righteous deeds.
I would say that any god that would discard a lifetime of good deeds because that person didn't ask forgiveness is not worthy of the adoration and veneration heaped on him. The Judeo-Christian god would've spared Sodom and Gamorrah had there been a mere ten righteous men within their walls, remember? That alone tells me that righteous deeds are worth more than the adoration and homage of the multitudes.
I do not believe in heaven and hell. I believe the purpose of life is to grow and mature...it is nothing more than learning and you decide whether you want to learn things easy or learn things tough. I also think that if you don't learn something it tends to keep popping up again and again until you get it right.
When it comes to interactions with others, sometimes you are the teacher and are trying to teach them something...sometimes you are the student and learning. Sometimes you are both and by teaching or learning, you are learning and teaching. It is my honest opinion that you need to assist others to help break them from their cycles so that they can move on and learn other lessons and not be stuck in the rut.
Is there a higher consciousness in the universe? Who knows yet the universe does exhibit consciousness in the minimal through us. What do we do with it?
It seems currently we try and separate ourselves. We find differences in skin color, sex, belief, region, and the list goes on. This has been the cycle for humanity for the longest time, and it has been a cycle that keeps repeating and appears to be never ending. Maybe one day we, humanity, will learn the lesson and break the cycle and move on to some other lesson. The only real thing you can do is do it for yourself and help people around you grow and mature and hopefully by doing so humanity will grow and mature.
I believe he went by more then his word, read enough examples in the bible. I pointed one out earlier. If your really want me to hunt some more down I can, not right now,
No, I do not. Again, we've been over this. You do not know if the Bible is true or not.
I can see where you are coming from here, and to a certain extent it makes sense, however I think you are confusing a lack of "showable" evidence with a lack of evidence that lead to an opinion being formed. Show me a law of physics? You cant.
No, I can't pluck a law of physics out of the air and just show it to you, but they can be demonstrated as true.
If you feel that you can give me a demonstration that proves that God exists and is what you think he is, by all means, do so.
but part of the problem is that the atheist has a block which stops them from seeing the divine
Oh, how convenient.
So what you're essentially saying here is that in order to understand why agnosticism is wrong, I have to believe in God first, thus removing the point of showing me why agnosticism is wrong.
Its perfectly possible to show how God is perfect, good and merciful, its just:
* requires the person being spoken to getting past a block in their perceptions built up by constructed assumptions of what the answer will look like
Again, I'm afraid I'm extremely skeptical of this. This sounds awfully like "The person must stop expecting a logical answer and instead make a blind leap of faith based on emotions and 'gut feelings'."
Another thing, while I'm thinking about it. If you want to prove god exists, there is no better proof than you. If you say god is good, be good. If you say god is just, be just. If you say god is forgiving, be forgiving. If you say god is kind, be kind. If others look to you as an example of what a righteous and just person is, you will have proven the value of your beliefs without needing to validate them. If belief in an unprovable entity makes you a person worthy of respect and admiration, do you really need to prove anything?
Being good and just and forgiving is COMPLETELY SEPARATE from believing in a divine being. Atheists and agnostics and be just as good as Christians are. Your belief in God is not what makes you a good person; it's the fact that you choose to be a good person. Simple as that. Some people believe in God and still choose to be bad people regardless.
Being a good person makes you worthy of admiration, not your beliefs in some unknown being.
So I'm arrogant because I believe in god, so that makes it inevitable that I'm arrogant. Its inescapable like some handicap and your pointing that out, which is insulting. You were way out of line. Don't try and pretty up your words, when its true. If I'm arrogant, then I'm the least arrogant person ever ! In that case I'm fine with it.
I argee with Gobin_Pride in post 331.
People can see what kind of person I am by the way I live my life. My friends would probably say I'm a fairly nice gal. About my faith they'd probably wouldn't say much, since I usually keep it to myself.
Wight_Chocolate, you are officially are the biggest nitpicker I've ever meet. You can't be happy unless you get the last word in.
If you don't want to continue the discussion then why do you keep coming back and responding to me?
If you want to bow out, bow out. I'm not keeping you here.
If you don't want to continue the discussion then why do you keep coming back and responding to me?
If you want to bow out, bow out. I'm not keeping you here.
Bowing out, hmm how odd of you to say that, reminds me of another tread...
So your not denying what I said in post 336? So your proud of it. I just got out the thread Help! Player is ALWAYS RIGHT! Hmm maybe you could learn something .
I'm not staying in this tread because of you. If I find something worth talking about I'll post. If you can't act like a gentleman, then I'm not going to talk to you anymore. There are others here who I'd like to talk to. I'm not going to bow to you, because you've insulted me.
well i will talk to you, just not the wight chocolate guy...as long as your reasonable..lol
Acts 2:22-27 explains that during the 3 days Jesus was dead, he was in hell.
To ease some possible confusion, different translations use different words, but Sheol, Hades, and Hell are the same thing. Sheol is a hebrew word, Hades is a Greek word.
All 3 words are translated to "death" "destruction" or "common grave" it can also mean "cut off" symbolizing separation from god. When you are in hell "the grave" you are cut off from god. you are not conscious or aware of anything...you cease to exist.
notice it does not say eternal destruction. an example is fire and paper...if you burn paper it does not eternally burn. however it IS burned eternally.
the thought of hellfire is a VERY common missperception that is not supported by the bible. It was made up a few hundred years ago as a tool to scare people into christianity.
hell is the same thing that happens to a dead animal...its GONE!
alright, fair enough, though Jesus was, in the context of the scripture, a divine being, and what applies to the son of god may not necessarily be the same thing that applies to mere mortals such as you or I. Jesus being in Hell may have been part of the act of 'dying for our sins' as opposed to the natural order of existence. Is there an example of a mortal human (not a divine prophet or avatar of the almighty) finding their way Tantaphus style to Satan's underworld? from the portion of your post regarding Hellfire, I would guess not.
is your assertion that being in hell is an end of consciousness and existence as opposed to residing eternally in a state of nirvana in paradise? if so, Hell/hades/et. al. isn't nearly as terrifying as those televangelists would have me believe.
Why so?
I would like to put my two cents in here, goblin, if you don't mind.
I can't claim any intimate knowledge of these things, but I would assume that since it's your misdeeds that condemn, it would stand to reason that your deeds would save you. Think about it for a moment. Unless your deeds and misdeeds are weighed in the final judgement, even the most depraved, villainous of people will find no punishment in the afterlife simply because they asked for salvation. Where is the purpose in living a righteous life if simply paying lip service at the end of your days will be all that's taken into account?
I approach this from a protestant perpective (which is to say, that the religious life is about a personal relationship with the divine, and not a list of good deeds that is supposed to make one's case for one), so they way I see it is this; good deeds are the natural fruit of a good character, therefore, its not in the deeds themselves, but in the moral character of the individual, that salvation is earned. This is not to diminish good deeds, of course, but a good deed does not always make a good individual. People are perfectly capable of displays, i.e., doing good deeds for the sake of PR or something else. Furthermore, a religious person might undertake good deeds, but not for the sake of doing good deeds, but rather for the sake of simply getting into heaven, or for the service of the Church as a political entity, or something other than genuine righteousness. Therefore, those deeds don't count. What does count it whether or not one is actually a good person, which God can perceive.
There is a world of difference between knowing what is right and doing what is right. I would imagine that if there is a god, he would be far more likely to elevate and reward those that did what they knew was right over those who only knew what was right. Still farther, I would imagine he would be more likely to punish those that knew what was right and still did that which they knew was wrong. Asking forgiveness wouldn't save the soul of a truly wicked man any more than not asking would condemn a righteous man. To think otherwise seems silly to me.
A wicked man would not receive forgiveness if his repentance was not 100% genuine. Therefore lip-service does not cut it. And, yes, God surely looks kindly on those that do what they know is right. But because good deeds themselves can be undertaken by the wicked to deceive, it is more appropriate to judge on the basis of the righteousness of one's character, rather than a littany of accomplishments.
Lets consider this from another angle.
Would you say that mother Teresa would go to heaven? Certainly, she was Christian, right and just. She would ask for forgiveness, she goes. How about the Dalai Lama? Gandhi? Would you say that good, righteous and just people of faiths other than Christianity are condemned to punishment simply because they didn't know to ask forgiveness? I can't see a forgiving god holding the righteous from eternal reward simply for not asking forgiveness after a lifetime of righteous deeds.
I have no argument to offer to this part. I don't believe that the Divine would punish the Dalai Lama, for example.
I would say that any god that would discard a lifetime of good deeds because that person didn't ask forgiveness is not worthy of the adoration and veneration heaped on him. The Judeo-Christian god would've spared Sodom and Gamorrah had there been a mere ten righteous men within their walls, remember? That alone tells me that righteous deeds are worth more than the adoration and homage of the multitudes.
I do agree with you; righteousness is more important than lip service. My personal Christian tradition says its more about the righteous character than the deeds. I see it as something akin to Virtue Ethics. Christianity is not about "do this, that, and this, and you will be rewarded". Hmm, I haven't slept much lately so Im probably not making too much sense, in regards to what you are talking about. I just felt I would draw a distinction between being good and doing good deeds. People aren't always genuine. A good deed may just be an act, but a good character is not something of which one can trick God. A righteous man might dedicate his life to good deeds, and that it great. Another righteous man may just live out his life, farming or something, minding his own business, internalising his faith/code/morals. The first guy isn't (neccesarily) a better person than the second; they each just channel their goodness in different ways.
Meh, I think I am rambling. Anyhow, thats my two cents on that.
I'm not staying in this tread because of you. If I find something worth talking about I'll post. If you can't act like a gentleman, then I'm not going to talk to you anymore. There are others here who I'd like to talk to. I'm not going to bow to you, because you've insulted me.
I can't say I blame you. If it helps, I think you have represented yourself rather well. So good on ya. The thing about "arrogance" is something I have been bludgeoned with similiarly in real life. Don't let it get you down (though, I'm guessing you wouldn't anyway). Its ironic though, because in many ways Christianity is specifically about humility. Ah well. ;)
So your not denying what I said in post 336? So your proud of it.
Proud of what, exactly?
I just got out the thread Help! Player is ALWAYS RIGHT! Hmm maybe you could learn something .
Well you haven't shown me anything to suggest that I'm not right as of yet, have you?
I'm not staying in this tread because of you.
I never said you were, but the fact is you keep coming back talking to me to tell me how much you do not want to talk to me. Why?
If you're no longer interested in discussing anything with me because you're so convinced that I'm just some jerk without a point then stop responding to my posts. It's that easy.
If you can't act like a gentleman, then I'm not going to talk to you anymore.
Again, that's entirely up to you. I think I've been perfectly civil, but some people take offence more easily than others, I suppose.
I'm not going to bow to you, because you've insulted me.
*sigh*
The term "bow out" does not have anything to do with "bowing to me", or to anyone. It just means to withdraw gracefully.
Wight_Chocolate: Again, that's entirely up to you. I think I've been perfectly civil, but some people take offence more easily than others, I suppose.
How is this civil , its insulting. Since apparently I can't help it.
Wight_Chocolate: Arrogance.
You don't know you're right, you're aware that you don't know you're right and you're aware that there's no way of finding out if you're right, and yet you go ahead and assume you're right anyway, and furthermore, you have the gall to tell others that they are wrong, whilst refusing to even entertain the possibility that everything is not what you think it is. It's arrogance, and it's not something to be proud of.
Proud of what, exactly?
Calling me arrogant. Since you say anyone with faith is arrogant, so basically I help but be arrogant. Don't forget what you've said. Because of your personal opinion, you've labeled me arrogant. You went out of your way to insult me.
Well you haven't shown me anything to suggest that I'm not right as of yet, have you?
Like it or not this is all a matter of opinion. I'm not going to comment on your opinion. You think because I say I have faith that I'm saying I'm right. I've already told you that I believe that anything is possible. So why continue ?
*sigh*
The term "bow out" does not have anything to do with "bowing to me", or to anyone. It just means to withdraw gracefully.
I know that. I also think it will make me look like a coward.
Also this is what I think of online arguments: http://www.penny-arcade.com/comic/2004/03/19/
Keep in mind, Wight, that my blog wasn't written directed at you, and I didn't link it to you as a way to call you a "fundy agnostic." I didn't mean to actually imply that you're the same as those I mentioned in my blog. With that out of the way--
Uh, some of them do. I have met people who believe just that, and furthermore, I was referring specifically to those people in my statement.
That's all well and good. Yes, some atheists do specifically claim that no gods exist. However, these atheists are a minority and do not represent atheists (such as myself) on the whole.
Perhaps "atheist" is the wrong term for such people
No, it's not wrong, though you might want to clarify that you're speaking about strong or "positive" atheists. It'd be like me talking about Protestants but just referring to them as Christians and thereby including Catholics, Orthodox, Gnostics, and all manner of other Christians, as well.
(although it's defined as that pretty clearly in the dictionary, so I suspect that *I'm* not the one mixing things up),
Which dictionary? Perhaps you should read http://www.squarecirciality.com/2007/10/defining-atheism.html "Defining Atheism" as well. Because if you're using AskOxford, then your definition of agnosticism is incorrect if you want to stick with the same dictionary. And if you're using Encarta, then your definition of atheism is incorrect. Either way, you shouldn't rely on a dictionary, as I outlined in the blog I just linked.
and if so, my mistake, but nevertheless, it is this particular group that I was talking about.
Okay.
Am I jumping to conclusions?
In what sense? If you're assuming that all atheists claim that no gods exist, then yes.
Consider this. Suppose you throw a coin into the air one hundred times. Obviously it's going to land each time you throw it.
Yes but we know this because we have a scientific understanding of physics, not because of probability.
After throwing the coin a hundred times, is it "jumping to conclusions" to assume that the coin is going to land the next time you throw it?
No, that specifically is a pragmatic assumption based on probability, although a better argument in favor of assuming the coin will land is to simply refer to physics. Simple probability doesn't gain you much in the way of arguments. It only grants you a certian amount of room to make personal pragmatic assumptions, but it does not give you any room to make assertions based on personal probabilities you have witnessed.
Furthermore, you're making a bad comparison. At least, in my own personal experience (and thus my own anecdotal evidence ;) ), Christians have told me that they've had it personally revealed that God exists. Personal revelation is not something that can be proved to someone else. I can tell you about a bad motorcycle accident that I had last year, but if I can't prove that I had that accident, does that mean that I can't personally know that it happened to me? Does that mean you can claim that I don't really know I was in an accident?
Of course not. Just because I can't prove it to you doesn't mean it didn't happen, and it certainly means that I can't be sure it happened. I can be very sure it happened. It can, in fact, have happened, and I just can't provide evidence for it (my wounds have healed, my bike is fixed, etc).
I don't see how this situation is any different. I've discussed this issue with more people than I can remember and not one of them has been able to demonstrate that they know anything about God, so why is it jumping to conclusions for me to assume that the next person won't either?
Just because they can't demonstrate that they know doesn't man that they don't know. That's a non-sequitor.
The difference between my assuming that someone doesn't know that God exists or what he's like and blah blah blah and someone else assuming that they do know is that my assumption actually has something substantial to go on;
No, it doesn't. I've asked you to provide evidence for your assumptions and you've been at a loss to provide any. You have nothing substantial to go off of. The best you can do is to say that "You probably can't demonstrate that you know, even if you do, in fact, know." That's all probability does for you in this case.
not only has there not been a shred of evidence to suggest that people do know, but I have seen for myself that many people do not know.
Anecdotal evidence. I have not seen the same.
Same with the coin.
No, this is totally different than the coin. You're making assumptions about what people know based on their inability to demonstrate it. I have memories as far back as when I was 3 years old, but I'd be completely inable to demonstrate that to you. Does this mean that I'm lying, or that I "can't be sure" of my own memories?
All the coin analogy provides you with is a pragmatic way to personally assume that people cannot demonstrate their knowledge of God's existence, assuming they even have such knowledge. It does not provide you with a way to say that those people are liars, or that they personally know as little as you.
There's nothing to suggest it won't land when you throw it, but you've seen for yourself that it probably will.
Great. Then this is what your analogy says: "There's nothing to suggest that someone can demonstrate their knowleddge of god." It doesn't say anything about whether or not they do actually know anything.
I fail, therefore, to see how this is any more unreasonable than my (and your, I suspect) "assumption" that the people I meet and talk to on a daily basis are human beings and not purple unicorns, because not only is there nothing to suggest that purple unicorns exist, but I have witnessed with my own two eyes that they're bloody well not purple unicorns.
That has nothing to do with anything. It's irrelevant.
What you are doing with your arguments is a non-sequitor. You're essentially saying, "You cannot demonstrate your knowledge of god; therefore, you have no such knowledge." As I've said, this is a non-sequitor. You have no reason to assume that just because people cannot demonstrate something they may or may not know, means that they therefore don't know.
It's like saying that because people are inable to describe pain, that pain therefore doesn't exist.
Now, I'm not saying that it's impossible to prove the assertion that no one can know if god exists. In fact, my own position is pretty damn similar. However, your method is the incorrect way to go about it.
To ease some possible confusion, different translations use different words, but Sheol, Hades, and Hell are the same thing. Sheol is a hebrew word, Hades is a Greek word.
k so no matter who you are when you die you go to hell to await judgement day.
as afterlives go, this isn't bad. though I'm still a fan of the nordic view of Valhalla. heroes show up, and have women, wine, and music until ragnarok when they do what Vikings do best; fight. sounds like one of my college fraternity's parties.
that being said, the use of the word Hades in christian biblical context is probably not consistent with this original definition, otherwise the cosmology is totally wonky.
What would Raptor Jesus do?
-Joni
Yes but we know this because we have a scientific understanding of physics, not because of probability.
And suppose this was before we had any understanding of physics.
Is it still jumping to conclusions?
Personal revelation is not something that can be proved to someone else. I can tell you about a bad motorcycle accident that I had last year, but if I can't prove that I had that accident, does that mean that I can't personally know that it happened to me?
Here's the thing though. How many of these "personal revelations" have actually amounted to "I met God and spoke to him"?
Let's assume that in your bad motorcycle accident, you crashed into a wall. If you think you crashed into a wall because you remember crashing into a wall, that's one thing.
However, it's a different thing if you wake up in a hospital bed with a head wound, not remembering what happened to you, and immediately think "I must have crashed into a wall."
How do you know that you crashed into a wall? Certainly it's entirely possible that you did, but maybe you actually crashed into a tree or just fell off the bike.
The same thing applies here. If someone is, for example, mysteriously cured of cancer, what that means is that they were mysteriously cured of cancer. It's only a "personal revelation" that God exists because they have filled in the gaps and chosen to interpret it that way.
For this reason, such revelations are flawed. I mean, I could say that I've had a "personal revelation" that God doesn't exist because I like spaghetti. That would be a complete logical fallacy, of course, but if your reasoning here is any indication, you would have to acknowledge and accept that the fact that I like spaghetti means that I know that God doesn't exist.
Just because they can't demonstrate that they know doesn't man that they don't know. That's a non-sequitor.
I should make that clearer and say that in these past discussions, the person I am talking to has actually invariably admitted that they do not know, as opposed to saying "I know, but I just can't show you."
Poor phrasing on my part, I fear.
Anecdotal evidence. I have not seen the same.
So? That's you. This is me.
Look at the coin again. Suppose I have thrown the coin a hundred times, but you have not thrown it once. *I* have reason to believe that the coin will fall if I throw it; you do not.
That has nothing to do with anything. It's irrelevant.
No it isn't.
I mean, suppose we're locked in two separate rooms. I've never seen you, you've never seen me, neither of us can see the other, and there's absolutely no means of escape.
In that scenario, can you demonstrate to me that you are not a purple unicorn? If so, should I be giving any serious thought to the possibility that you are?
Now, I'm not saying that it's impossible to prove the assertion that no one can know if god exists. In fact, my own position is pretty damn similar. However, your method is the incorrect way to go about it.
I'd be interested in knowing what your method is, then, because right now you appear to be saying "You don't know if no one can know, but no one can know."
How is this civil , its insulting. Since apparently I can't help it.
It's only insulting because you have chosen to take offence to it.
I, for one, expect and appreciate it when people point out to me that I'm doing something stupid or behaving arrogantly, because I have no desire to do stupid things. If they can convince me of the error of my ways, I come away from that experience more enlightened than I was before. If it turns out that they were wrong, well, no big deal.
Like here, for example. Squarecircle seems to think that the methods I'm using to argue with are stupid. If he can prove that to me, good for him. I will put that knowledge to use in the future. He is explaining why he thinks I'm being stupid, and so I stand to learn something here. I am not going to feel insulted because of this.
You, on the other hand, seem content to just get very upset and complain about how offensive you find it to be told that you're doing something wrong. If that is how you wish to behave then so be it, but it's your problem, not mine.
Being a good person makes you worthy of admiration, not your beliefs in some unknown being.
True, but you'll forgive the eccentricities of a good person sooner than those of a bad person. In that regard you'll forgive a good person's belief in something you can't fathom.
It's only insulting because you have chosen to take offence to it.
I, for one, expect and appreciate it when people point out to me that I'm doing something stupid or behaving arrogantly, because I have no desire to do stupid things. If they can convince me of the error of my ways, I come away from that experience more enlightened than I was before. If it turns out that they were wrong, well, no big deal.
Like here, for example. Squarecircle seems to think that the methods I'm using to argue with are stupid. If he can prove that to me, good for him. I will put that knowledge to use in the future. He is explaining why he thinks I'm being stupid, and so I stand to learn something here. I am not going to feel insulted because of this.
You, on the other hand, seem content to just get very upset and complain about how offensive you find it to be told that you're doing something wrong. If that is how you wish to behave then so be it, but it's your problem, not mine.
So I'm supposed to appreciate you saying that I'm stupid for having for faith? Can anyone make sense out of that ? Even if I whole heartedly agreed with you, you seem like the type who enjoys these kind of discussions, and continue even when theres no point anymore.
you're doing something wrong
, Saying that I have faith is wrong? You make no sense. You too unreasonable. I'm bowing out of this ridiculous discussion.
You fit this too well. http://www.penny-arcade.com/comic/2004/03/19/
...and yet *I'm* the one being insulting.
See what I have to put up with, folks?
Goodbye, then.
On the plus side, the more ridiculous arguments people make, the more likely they are to find their whole belief system collapsing like a house of cards thatched with bull manure and realize that their God will not save them.
People die every day over religious disagreement. Frankly, I find it a waste of human lives.
I'm not an atheist, but I'm close. I have only one thing left that I cling to that gives me any belief of an afterlife (I heard my grandfather speak to me at his funeral). I wonder about the nature of God (call him/her/it what you will) and I try to research all the religions, the archaeology, the real discoveries that have been made from Biblical times to give some idea of the truth.
I don't belive any religion is right. I think there are parts of each that are right, and the real truth lies in a combination of each.
That is, if God even exists. I'm not sure if I believe He/She/It does, but I hope so.
Funny enough, this entire thread is a perfect example of why I no longer claim a religion. No one can agree on anything, and once a person has decided on their beliefs, no one can change them regardless of how good your point for or against something may be.
Understandable. I wouldn't say everyone is in dissension, but I'd be lying if I said it's a great big pow wow PC (not player character btw) fest.
I wouldn't say beliefs can't change either. I'm Lutheran for the most part, but still struggle w/ the Trinity, Hell, etc. No biggie though, I get by...
People die every day over religious disagreement. Frankly, I find it a waste of human lives.
Most of the killings under religious pretext these days are purely political motivations w/ religious veneers (Al-Quida for one). There's plenty that are genuine, but CNN likes the big headlines, you know? Suddenly no one is talking about Darfor much w/ the election and hurricanes about. Flavor of the we(a)ek I'm sad to say, but I feel you.
I'm not an atheist, but I'm close. I have only one thing left that I cling to that gives me any belief of an afterlife (I heard my grandfather speak to me at his funeral). I wonder about the nature of God (call him/her/it what you will) and I try to research all the religions, the archaeology, the real discoveries that have been made from Biblical times to give some idea of the truth.
Ah, funerals...don't get me started. No sense in rehasing some of "out take sections of your life"...especially at the end of someone else's. I sympathize though and hope you're right. I'd like to see my sister, older family, and some young friends that didn't make it...but I don't think it's one big collective in the classical sense. I imagine it alot like Barker's "Hellraiser" (Heaven and Hell), everyone gets their own personal afterlife/reward/etc.
Atheist, agnostic, whatever...seems the human spirit, it's lifetime capacity, all that potential & kinetic energy, the immense complexity and magnitude, it's not winking out IMO. Kind of like energy not dying/creating, just changing forms, but I'm not sure that's a good metaphor for the soul, psyche, whatever that is transitioning off of the dead shell. Just a theory.
I don't think there's a Christian Heaven, Muslim Heaven, etc. A Heaven, sure, but we can't conceive it's majesty due to this little handicap we have called "being alive still". Not a plug for universalism, just saying we're more alike than we give credit for...everyone trying to be so fringe, so "me", get their own identity, be perfect little snowflakes, but forgetting we're all connected.
Ah, well, just rambling.
I don't belive any religion is right. I think there are parts of each that are right, and the real truth lies in a combination of each.
Me either, just varying degrees of rightness/comfort for varying degrees of people. How could we even know certainly? Thinking like God, but stuck as a human? That's a pretty bold venture, right? Gotta' leave room for error and just give it your best shot w/out alienating other ppl I guess.
But, like I said before, 6 billion ppl, they all want to be different (many faiths).
I don't think any 1 faith can "have it right" though. Partly maybe, but it's pretty presumptive to think that you got it 100%. Humility is a virtue afterall.
Like my official church, ELCA (Evangelical Lutheran Church of America), they allow female clergy (this is important to me cuz' my mom's one), however, Missouri Synod Lutherans do not allow women, or Catholics, or alot of others. Some rabbis are women though.
Crazy, I know, but I'm not coming from where they're coming. I'm cool with that though, just not cool when a visitor would come to church, see her take the pulpit and walk out in a huff, be disrepectful, etc. Not cool, not very Christian either, oh, well. But I might be wrong too, I'll let God figure it out. I'm confident that I'm doing the right thing (in that light anyway
)That is, if God even exists. I'm not sure if I believe He/She/It does, but I hope so.
I think that's a pretty big consensus and speaks for your humanity. Doubt, no doubt, whatever you're comfortable with, I don't think God wants you to be sweating bullets. I like to think he wants us to be happy.
Funny enough, this entire thread is a perfect example of why I no longer claim a religion. No one can agree on anything, and once a person has decided on their beliefs, no one can change them regardless of how good your point for or against something may be.
I disagree. I was once a pantheist, and had my mind changed thanks in large part due to an online debate.
People die every day over religious disagreement. Frankly, I find it a waste of human lives.
People die every day for lots of reasons. We kill each other for lots of reasons. We're just violent people, and we'll often use religion as an excuse.
I'm not an atheist, but I'm close. I have only one thing left that I cling to that gives me any belief of an afterlife (I heard my grandfather speak to me at his funeral). I wonder about the nature of God (call him/her/it what you will) and I try to research all the religions, the archaeology, the real discoveries that have been made from Biblical times to give some idea of the truth.
I don't belive any religion is right. I think there are parts of each that are right, and the real truth lies in a combination of each.
That is, if God even exists. I'm not sure if I believe He/She/It does, but I hope so.
You sound like a pluralist.
On the plus side, the more ridiculous arguments people make, the more likely they are to find their whole belief system collapsing like a house of cards thatched with bull manure and realize that their God will not save them.
"House of cards thatched with manure"? What has happened that I am not aware of? Have you, or has anyone, somehow scientifically disproved the Ten Commandments? If so, then I am very out of touch with developements. If not I'd say the house of cards is your argument. I'd say that a moral code with 2000 years of history, that has shaped the world we live in today, is just as stable, if not more so, than any other moral system around today.
You know, the whole "The bible is right because the bible said so" argument, and so forth.
If you want to convert people, you do in fact need good answers to these questions. You can't just keep chanting "the bible is right the bible is right blah blah blah" and not back it up with a non-bible source.
Is Christianity relevant culturally and historically? It most certainly is. But if you study history, you realize that Christianity is just the collection of beliefs from people extending well before the birth of Christ. The ancient Hebrews didn't even have the same faith as modern Jews, they were polytheistic until the priest of the war god Yahveh pretty much said that Yahveh was the greatest god, and no one was going to put any other god before him.
Before Christianity, there is evidence of similar beliefs all over the middle east. You see story of Old Kingdom Pharoahs parting the Nile river, you hear about the Great Flood from the Sumerians thousands of years before the hebrew culture existed. You hear about Mithra, the god who was killed then resurrected after three days who granted all his followers with everlasting life if they followed him.
Christianity is certainly relevant, and certainly important. But it's not an ironclad ideal that hasn't changed since the dawn of time, it didn't exist at all before the teachings of Yeshua, and it has changed considerably since then.
The Bible as you know it today has not always been that way...
Why is it then when someone brings up something like the Council of Nicea...where they had maybe 300 Bishops out of 1800 Bishops decide the nature of christ...it just seems to get ignored?
Please understand the New Testament that you know today is not has it has always been.
Another thing about Cult of Mithras was being born into a grotto is pretty damn much the same concept as being born in a stable...
The Bible as you know it today has not always been that way...
Why is it then when someone brings up something like the Council of Nicea...where they had maybe 300 Bishops out of 1800 Bishops decide the nature of christ...it just seems to get ignored?
The specific declaration on the nature of Christ was not just "made up" at the council; Christ Himself declared Himself the Son of God (Matt. 26:62-64; see also Mark 5:1-13 for a demon describing Him as such). As well, in John 8:31-59, He declares himself as being "before Abraham was born, I am." That would be Him using the self-declared name of God.
As for the Nicene Creed:
"We believe in one Lord, Jesus Christ, the only Son of God, eternally begotten of the Father, God from God, light from light, true God from true God, begotten, not made, of one Being with the Father; through him all things were made. For us and for our salvation he came down from heaven, was incarnate of the Holy Spirit and the Virgin Mary and became truly human. For our sake he was crucified under Pontius Pilate; he suffered death and was buried. On the third day he rose again in accordance with the Scriptures; he ascended into heaven and is seated at the right hand of the Father. He will come again in glory to judge the living and the dead, and his kingdom will have no end."
Add to this the Chalcedonian Definition (interesting in it's wording; it says some about what Christ is, but focuses more on saying what He isn't, leaving room for further contemplation. It's an outflowing of the declaration of Nicea.)
"Therefore, following the holy fathers, we all with one accord teach men to acknowledge one and the same Son, our Lord Jesus Christ, at once complete in Godhead and complete in manhood, truly God and truly man, consisting also of a reasonable soul and body; of one substance with the Father as regards his Godhead, and at the same time of one substance with us as regards his manhood; like us in all respects, apart from sin; as regards his Godhead, begotten of the Father before the ages, but yet as regards his manhood begotten, for us men and for our salvation, of Mary the Virgin, the God-bearer; one and the same Christ, Son, Lord, Only-begotten, recognized in two natures, without confusion, without change, without division, without separation; the distinction of natures being in no way annulled by the union, but rather the characteristics of each nature being preserved and coming together to form one person and subsistence, not as parted or separated into two persons, but one and the same Son and Only-begotten God the Word, Lord Jesus Christ; even as the prophets from earliest times spoke of him, and our Lord Jesus Christ himself taught us, and the creed of the fathers has handed down to us."
Please understand the New Testament that you know today is not has it has always been.
Again, we've got stuff from well before Nicea, with no difference than our other sources. I'm sorry, but I'm tired of seeing this statement when it's not really true. Look. Not an exhaustive paper, but certainly something found with a quick search.
"House of cards thatched with manure"? What has happened that I am not aware of? Have you, or has anyone, somehow scientifically disproved the Ten Commandments? If so, then I am very out of touch with developements. If not I'd say the house of cards is your argument. I'd say that a moral code with 2000 years of history, that has shaped the world we live in today, is just as stable, if not more so, than any other moral system around today.
There is not a singular "moral code" that has shaped the world we live in today, from 2000 years ago or more.
Again, we've got stuff from well before Nicea, with no difference than our other sources. I'm sorry, but I'm tired of seeing this statement when it's not really true.
Certainly there's no discrepencies in the gospels that exist now from the same gospels that predate Nicea, aside from translational issues. Nicea tossed out several books wholesale. Where are the books of the Maccabees, the gospels of Thomas, Mary, Judas, et cetera? The Nicean creed is an afirmation by the bishops gathered at Nicea, it didn't exist until the conclusion of that esteemed censorship party.
Until you can wave away the historical corroboration of the purpose of the diet of Nicea, this is what happened. Just because you're tired of "hearing it" is irrelevant.
If you want a giggle, read Matthew 5:45 in the King James translation. The first part is the more of the "turn the other cheek" stuff. But the second half of it is a "quote" from Jesus saying, "I am the son of god, as are you my brothers and sisters". Not entirely convincing in that whole "divinity" thing.
I disagree. I was once a pantheist
I'm a frying pantheist: I firmly believe the universe is run by an assortment of kitchen utensils.
There is not a singular "moral code" that has shaped the world we live in today, from 2000 years ago or more.
Let my clarify what I meant. By "world we live in" I meant "Western world" (presuming that anyone who plays D&D and frequents these forums is so affiliated). Western society has very much been shaped, to a very significant degree, but the history of Christianity. My point was that a practice with so much grounding, historically, culturally and politically, in the society we live in is by no means a "house of cards", and is more likely than not less like a house of cards than any modern moral codes that do not derive from such a strong, enduring, tradition.
We believe in one God, the Father Almighty, Maker of all things visible and invisible. And in one Lord Jesus Christ, the Son of God, begotten of the Father [the only-begotten; that is, of the essence of the Father, God of God], Light of Light, very God of very God, begotten, not made, being of one substance with the Father; by whom all things were made [both in heaven and on earth]; who for us men, and for our salvation, came down and was incarnate and was made man; he suffered, and the third day he rose again, ascended into heaven; from thence he shall come to judge the quick and the dead. And in the Holy Ghost.
[But those who say: 'There was a time when he was not;' and 'He was not before he was made;' and 'He was made out of nothing,' or 'He is of another substance' or 'essence,' or 'The Son of God is created,' or 'changeable,' or 'alterable' — they are condemned by the holy catholic and apostolic Church.]
Notice the bold...these was the part that was being debated at the time and what the Council came together to decide on...300 or so decided this out of 1800.
Have you read any of the Apocryphal books and/or any of the extra-canonical texts? If so, what are your thoughts about them?
Please try and understand this. A christians heart is deep for their faith, it is very very personal.
It seems like whenever I'm around people I don't know, I'm attacked for my faith, even if all I say is " I have faith or I believe in God". To me its just as bad as racism, it has the same effect.
If anyone, christian, atheists or agnostic, get stuck in a discussion/argument were you feel that you must defend yourself, run away. Run from the tyrant. Maybe as your running you can throw a piece of truth that them. Then run, run like Macaulay Culkin if you have too, just get out !
The positive and negative make ya stronger.
christians bomb fertility clinics and attack doctors, they make laws persecuting homosexuals, they scream racist diatribes against the muslim people.
You might not do any of that stuff. But we STILL have to deal with it every day. And until you own up to it, you're just as bad.
Like I said before, I judge people on what they DO, not what they BELIEVE.
Well, we non-christians have an issue with you christians because even if YOU'RE not a douchebag, most people of your faith ARE.
christians bomb fertility clinics and attack doctors, they make laws persecuting homosexuals, they scream racist diatribes against the muslim people.
You might not do any of that stuff. But we STILL have to deal with it every day. And until you own up to it, you're just as bad.
Like I said before, I judge people on what they DO, not what they BELIEVE.
I could come up with a list just as long and disgusting about any group of people but that is not helpful.
And you are right, it is as bad as racism, since you (and others) are being judged for your religion, not for who you actually are.
Firstly, no, it is not even remotely comparable to racism. A person cannot choose their race, but they CAN choose their beliefs. A person's race does not define who they are, whereas it could be argued that a person's beliefs do just that, and sometimes one's beliefs deserve to be challenged. If I said that I "believed" that it was perfectly acceptable to **** children and murder Jews and someone were to condemn this, would you scold them for "attacking" my beliefs or would you cry "Damn right! Well done!"
And before anyone gives me the "But Christianity should not be attacked because the underlying message is a good one!" spiel, how often do you actually hear people attack you for thinking that it's wrong to commit murder or steal? Very rarely, I suspect. When Christians are "attacked" for their faith it is because of their belief in an unprovable entity, which is entirely separate from their other beliefs regarding morality and the like.
Secondly, does anyone else notice that there's a huge double standard here? I mean, if I were to come out and say "I believe that the sky is actually pink, and that a lot of babies really are delivered by storks" and someone responded with "Well that's dumb", nobody would bat an eyelash. However, say that it's silly for someone to believe in God and suddenly it's "OH YOU HORRIBLE PERSON HOW COULD YOU SAY SUCH A THING WHY WOULD YOU PERSECUTE ME FOR MY BELIEFS LIKE THAT? YOU'RE AS BAD AS A RACIST"
Thirdly:
If anyone, christian, atheists or agnostic, get stuck in a discussion/argument were you feel that you must defend yourself, run away.
While not wishing to be antagonistic, this is absolutely pitiful. "Don't bother to stand up for what you believe in! If anyone challenges your ideals in any way, flee! Flee immediately! Heaven forbid anyone engage your brain and make you think about why you believe the things you do!"
Knights_Disciple, I'm curious about something. I'm not attacking you, so please don't take it that way. I respect those who have faith as strong as your whether or not I agree with them.
Have you read any of the Apocryphal books and/or any of the extra-canonical texts? If so, what are your thoughts about them?
Actually, yes. Intertestamental books, to be precise. Especially the Macabees books. I'm going back a couple years in memory here, mind you. Those were, while interesting reading, not quite the same as other historical books in the Bible.
If I recall, both at and before Nicea, the church had criteria that led to "official canon".
First, how widespread is its recognition. The idea here being that, if multiple groups have, over the years, rejected a text as central to the faith, it brings it into question its validity.
Second, does it agree with our core doctrines. That is, does it agree with what we've been taught all these years, and agree with this body of works that everyone around agrees upon?
I'd like to point out that Gnosticism didn't suddenly get cut out in Nicea. It's been refuted straight back to the gospel of John and book of 1 John, to give two large examples.
Overall, I think Apocryphal texts can be useful and insightful. Inter-testamental books especially give us a glimpse into a "silent period". (Macabees, can't recall the book, also gives us a total LoTR set of scenes, but that's neither here nor there.) A lot of the inter-testamental stuff, when not historical, seems to focus more on prophetic/apocalyptic or spiritual ideas, things like wars in heaven and such. If nothing else, they give us examples of apocalyptic literature before Revalations, thus showing the tradition it was written in.
This is where I wish I had as much knowledge on this stuff as one of my old college Bible teachers; he majored in inter-testamental stuff for a while, including some study in Israel.
Great, now I miss the "good ole' days" of college. Thanks a lot, guys. ;)
If someones judging you by were your heart and mind lies, yes flee. Stay far away from tyrants. I've stood by beliefs long enough that my point is made, I'm not going to keep re-explaining myself over and over.
Heaven forbid anyone engage your brain
*sigh* Not going to get anywhere insulting my intelligence hun.
Judging someone by their faith alone is indeed like racism. Why is that, its quite simply really, because their both acts of hatred. Deny it if you will, but its very true.
Count Arioch the 28th, if someone who says their christian and does something horrible. Judge them not by their religious classification, but as individuals. Its the right thing to do. ;) .
WC , lets be adults and end this dispute. I'm sure you have redeemable cool qualities somewhere.
Everyones beliefs are different, their not worth debating over. If anyones going to judge me for something, let it be something worth judging, like maybe because I like 4e, J-pop or sushi .
Why do so many atheists/agnostic people have a dislike for chirstians? Not saying that it can't go both ways. I personally have no problem what so ever with anyone who is atheists or agnostic. Many of my very good friends are, their beliefs and my faith have never been a problem for our friendship. They have never attacked my faith.
Please try and understand this. A christians heart is deep for their faith, it is very very personal.
It seems like whenever I'm around people I don't know, I'm attacked for my faith, even if all I say is " I have faith or I believe in God". To me its just as bad as racism, it has the same effect.
If anyone, christian, atheists or agnostic, get stuck in a discussion/argument were you feel that you must defend yourself, run away. Run from the tyrant. Maybe as your running you can throw a piece of truth that them. Then run, run like Macaulay Culkin if you have too, just get out !
So, I sit here and defend the religious more often than not, and then you categorize me with those who disparage you?
Not all atheists and agnostics are like you describe, just as not all Christians are like Fred Phelps.
Everyones beliefs are different, their not worth debating over. If anyones going to judge me for something, let it be something worth judging, like maybe because I like 4e, J-pop or sushi .
You like 4e? What a horrible thing to say. How could you? I'm so disappointed.
As far as debating religion, you'll never accomplish anything doing it. The best possible result you can hope for is a better understanding of each others' beliefs. I'm not saying that's bad. In fact, I'm rather keen on the idea of each of us being able to understand where every other one of us places our faith.
As an outsider, I can see things in the text that might escape a practitioner of the christian faith and perhaps my questions might expose a believer to something they've never noticed before. What they do with that is up to them. I doubt seriously anyone will take anything I had to say to heart, but if it furthers their knowledge of their holy texts then isn't it a good thing?
You like 4e? What a horrible thing to say. How could you? I'm so disappointed.
As far as debating religion, you'll never accomplish anything doing it. The best possible result you can hope for is a better understanding of each others' beliefs. I'm not saying that's bad. In fact, I'm rather keen on the idea of each of us being able to understand where every other one of us places our faith.
As an outsider, I can see things in the text that might escape a practitioner of the christian faith and perhaps my questions might expose a believer to something they've never noticed before. What they do with that is up to them. I doubt seriously anyone will take anything I had to say to heart, but if it furthers their knowledge of their holy texts then isn't it a good thing?
Well said
If I recall, both at and before Nicea, the church had criteria that led to "official canon".
First, how widespread is its recognition. The idea here being that, if multiple groups have, over the years, rejected a text as central to the faith, it brings it into question its validity.
Second, does it agree with our core doctrines. That is, does it agree with what we've been taught all these years, and agree with this body of works that everyone around agrees upon?
The thing is...as you have posted some information pertaining to it. The belief system for Christianity was not set and it took time to solidify. So 60+ years...This is nothing new either as even modern day Christianity is fragmented.
I wish Jesus was a prolific writer...
I did some reading into Buddhism a few months ago...and it is easily debated whether it is a religion or a philosophy. The thing I found most interesting was the writing style...overall it is amazing because it is not telling you the set path to enlightenment and how it was written it was hard to corrupt...
Then again, looking at some of the religions like the Cult of Mithras or Zoroaster and then looking at the bible makes it even more incredible. I think the most amazing thing is just so many cultures all over the world having similarities in belief structures.
If someones judging you by were your heart and mind lies, yes flee.
What else do you propose one judges a person by, then? What they look like? How they dress? What kind of car they drive?
"I'm a murderer and a thief and a liar, but all of those things are just where my heart and mind lies! You shouldn't judge me for that! Judge me by other things! I like apples! I play video games!"
Judging someone by their faith alone is indeed like racism. Why is that, its quite simply really, because their both acts of hatred. Deny it if you will, but its very true.
I hate cucumbers. They taste nasty.
Is that like racism?
I deny it, yes, because it is very very WRONG, for the reasons that I have just demonstrated and you have handily ignored. More or less like pretty much everything else I've said.
WC , lets be adults and end this dispute. I'm sure you have redeemable cool qualities somewhere.
There is nothing childish about this "dispute" except for the manner in which you are receiving it.
Debate, unless your opponent is completely braindead, is an opportunity to learn. It stimulates the brain, it broadens one's perception, and it is a worthy pursuit that human beings should engage in regularly to keep themselves enlightened and mentally fit.
Sadly, very few people actually treat it this way, preferring to see it as a senseless shouting match of which no good can come and taking everything on a personal level rather than on an intellectual level. Kind of like what you're doing now.
Incidentally, my desire to better myself and others *is* a "cool" quality, whether you think it is or not.
Everyones beliefs are different, their not worth debating over. If anyones going to judge me for something, let it be something worth judging, like maybe because I like 4e, J-pop or sushi .
ARE YOU SERIOUS?
No. No, this has to be a joke. You can't possibly be this idiotic. There's no way you're seriously suggesting that it's intelligent to judge someone by what kind of food they like and not by what they believe in.
So, I sit here and defend the religious more often than not, and then you categorize me with those who disparage you?
Not all atheists and agnostics are like you describe, just as not all Christians are like Fred Phelps.
I know that, I'm sorry if my wording sucked. I was an atheists up until a year and half ago and I never hated christians. To be honest with everyone, I've been discriminated against by alot of christians too. Like I said awhile back some faiths are extremely different.
Yeah, the above has happened to me numerous times, and when I speak out about it - about how I don't appreciate someone shoving their dogma down my throat; about how I have to stay silent and show respect when a majority of my coworkers are harping on and on about souls and salvation and other such intangibles, but when I finally do express my discomfort I am such a Bad Person (TM).
Part of that is where I work, I understand, and a majority of companies aren't like this. But I work and live in the Bible belt through no fault of my own, and this is my everyday reality. Like most people, I can't just up and move.
Sometimes I feel like the only person in the room who has a fully functioning brain.
No, not all Christians are like this; but the everyday experience of running head-long into the faith brick wall has ingrained such an opinion of Christianity, and indeed most religions by proxy, in me that when someone who I think is pretty cool says, "Hey you wanna go to my church?" I think to myself, "Crud, and they showed so much promise."
I know that, I'm sorry if my wording sucked. I was an atheists up until a year and half ago and I never hated christians. To be honest with everyone, I've been discriminated against by alot of christians too. Like I said awhile back some faiths are extremely different.
Okay, just wanted to be clear on that.
If I recall, both at and before Nicea, the church had criteria that led to "official canon".
First, how widespread is its recognition. The idea here being that, if multiple groups have, over the years, rejected a text as central to the faith, it brings it into question its validity.
Second, does it agree with our core doctrines. That is, does it agree with what we've been taught all these years, and agree with this body of works that everyone around agrees upon?
Interesting in its simplicity, to which, yeah, I concur w/ you for the most part.
I'm sure you've been to church enough times and I've heard it myself, God, like, for 32 years now, the generic flow of a typical service, at some point you're gonna' hear either the Apostle's Creed of the Nicean Creed like clockwork.
Why is it that we do/have both, but never at the same (typical) service? I feel bad asking this as I should know, but I don't fancy myself a model Christian, expert theolgian, or scholar in this light.
They are largely similar and so prolific (I've heard/recited them at several Protestant services apart from my own), yet in every sanctuary, every pew, every hymnal, they stress the difference to which I never gave it much thought sadly. Namely I was typically considering the "bigger existential fish" to fry; afterlife, the sacraments (we have 2, not 7), forgiveness, etc., if I wasn't stuck downstairs in the children's nursery, acolyting, or assisting in communion or some other volunteer capacity. Otherwise "engaged".
Kind of expected when you're a PK...
Oh, well. No choice in the matter as a kid. But the crux, that is, if you're kept "busy" so to speak, you're not like the rest in the congregation, sitting, listening, actually digesting what's going on around & within you. Sure there were moments of sudden or prolonged clarity, but I'm a product of my environment, and I can safely say it was not run-of-the-mill to which I have regrets/guilt about that spritually speaking. Even past catechism in middle/high school, didn't really, truly get my feet wet till college (mandatory Religion and later, Ethics classes for everyone; private Lutheran college [capital univ]). Whole new ballgame...
Overall, I think Apocryphal texts can be useful and insightful. Inter-testamental books especially give us a glimpse into a "silent period". (Macabees, can't recall the book, also gives us a total LoTR set of scenes, but that's neither here nor there.)
Definetly useful, no doubt about it. Knowledge is power, right?
Your LoTR allusion made me snicker for a second, but yes, a bit apt too. Nj.
A lot of the inter-testamental stuff, when not historical, seems to focus more on prophetic/apocalyptic or spiritual ideas, things like wars in heaven and such. If nothing else, they give us examples of apocalyptic literature before Revalations, thus showing the tradition it was written in.
It's indicative of any culture or society though really, not our's specifically. Tradition, maybe IMO. More like human nature in terms of expressing the "big picture" I suppose. Mayans had the 5th to 6th World (late 2012 I think), Norse had Ragnarok, we have the Apocalypse, etc. We seem enamored of the proliferation and growth of life/time/etc., then suddenly, bam, tabula rasa, and start from scratch. My Greek sucks, but Apocalypse means, like, "new beginning" or something akin"transition" I thought. Lil' help here (correct me if I'm wrong).
This is where I wish I had as much knowledge on this stuff as one of my old college Bible teachers; he majored in inter-testamental stuff for a while, including some study in Israel.
Great, now I miss the "good ole' days" of college. Thanks a lot, guys. ;)
Don't get me started ;) . I miss those days. Very challening, but grueling in a good way.
Dr. Skrade, my Religion, then Ethics, then Religion & Film (elective, I liked him enough to push all 3) prof was a hardass, but a good good man/Dr./pastor. He especially would drill the PK's and it was nothing like church "back home". More like a science lab/language/history lesson really, no evangelizing or prosyletization . Very scholastic, no nonesense, no pressure, always analytic and scholastic. And everyone thought at first, "He we go, Lutheran college, Lutheran dogma..." I learned more about the Jews, Hindus, and primitive religions I think than my own. Totally different expectations.
Anyway (sorry, rambling), alot of the inter-testamental stuff we covered was (is, really) staggering and I cannot help but wonder how a good deal of it got "lost in the mix". I guess I was trying to look past the conflict of interests and so forth, but still, mostly it's just speculation. Thoughts, ideas?
Anyway (sorry, rambling), alot of the inter-testamental stuff we covered was (is, really) staggering and I cannot help but wonder how a good deal of it got "lost in the mix". I guess I was trying to look past the conflict of interests and so forth, but still, mostly it's just speculation. Thoughts, ideas?
Quite simply put, that would be called population control. The Diet of Nicea was established to cement what was to become the "official" canon for all of the christian churches within the roman empire*. Without a common doctrine, dogma and holy text, Christianity would have been useless to Constantine. If it weren't for the Gnostics refusing to destroy the discarded, unofficial texts, we never would have them spread out around the middle east for us to discover.
*Yes, the Roman Empire. Sorry, history is a bit of a bugger sometimes. If the emperor Constantine hadn't decided to use the Christians to help him in his war against the other emperor in Rome, Christianity probably wouldn't exist today. But if had, it most likely wouldn't have a Pope living in a palace in Rome. Curious, ennit?
To me though a lot of things just did not make sense...and a year or two ago I studied a lot of the other ancient cultures around. It is kinda like what came first the chicken or the egg when you look at the big picture of cultures. A lot had similar themes, though they differed here or there.
The world was very interconnected, a lot more than we realize today. One thing that does interest me is Antarctica. With glaciers melting like they are it would be interesting to find signs of human civilization upon Antarctica, which was believed to be free of ice like 20,000BC. Could be some sort of link between new world and old world...
Something interesting...the Mayan Calender and I-ching sync up. Problem is people say that the Mayan Calender says the world ends Dec 21, 2012, yet it is the end of the "great" cycle and the beginning of the next. Works in a circle not in a line.
Wight_Chocolate: What else do you propose one judges a person by, then? What they look like? How they dress? What kind of car they drive?
I'm a murderer and a thief and a liar, but all of those things are just where my heart and mind lies! You shouldn't judge me for that! Judge me by other things! I like apples! I play video games!"
I hate cucumbers. They taste nasty.
Is that like racism?
I deny it, yes, because it is very very WRONG, for the reasons that I have just demonstrated and you have handily ignored. More or less like pretty much everything else I've said.
You shouldn't try or want to judge people and judging someones personal beliefs is just being petty.We're not talking about murderers and thieves are we ? We're talking about personal beliefs, such as my faith. Attacking and judging someones personal faith is being prejudice. I don't know if you know how it feels to be discriminated against, but it always feels awful. Cucumbers can't feel discriminated against.
There is nothing childish about this "dispute" except for the manner in which you are receiving it.
Debate, unless your opponent is completely braindead, is an opportunity to learn. It stimulates the brain, it broadens one's perception, and it is a worthy pursuit that human beings should engage in regularly to keep themselves enlightened and mentally fit.
Its just plain mean to insult others intelligence, its shows bad self control and bad personal characteristics. Why should I reason with someone who judges my personal beliefs without reason,
why should I reason with someone who reacts with hurtful intentions. Recently I've been only defending myself, if you attack by quoting everything I say, your being a tryrant. Can't you see that all I want is to get along with you ? If you keep attacking me after I've :surrender, your going to look like a real ass and if you keep doing it, I'll have really no choice but to ignore you when I really don't want to.
Sadly, very few people actually treat it this way, preferring to see it as a senseless shouting match of which no good can come and taking everything on a personal level rather than on an intellectual level. Kind of like what you're doing now.
Well to be honest I would have been more then happy to answer any question you asked. When you called me arrogant for my faith that you know absolutely nothing about(and why would you know anything about it, when I havn't spoken about it), yeah I felt judged and our friendly discussion turned ugly and personal. If you didn't try to offend me, then be more carefully what you say. I'm really don't being unreasonable.
I'm willing to answer any question you have, along as your not prejudice and judgemental. Honest, if its a reasonable question, I'll do my best to answer you.
ARE YOU SERIOUS?
No. No, this has to be a joke. You can't possibly be this idiotic. There's no way you're seriously suggesting that it's intelligent to judge someone by what kind of food they like and not by what they believe in.
I'd rather someone give me a hard time over something not so personal, thats what I meant.
I'd rather someone give me a hard time over something not so personal, thats what I meant.
Lets get back to this J-pop infatuation of yours. Things like that really weird me out, I mean really. There's just something wrong with that.
You don't really understand the Crusades, then. The Crusades was a political war, through and through, an attempt to capture land. It was fought mostly among Christians (against Christians) as well as Muslims. But that was just the surface of it. Really it had very little to do with religion; religion was the tool, not the cause.
I’m going to have to disagree here as most people don’t really understand history; they either makes things out as either too vile or gloss things over and make them too romantic. People rarely do things because of their “motto,” they simply create a motto because they don't want to publicly admit their real reasons.
The Crusades were generally called for two reasons. The first reason was the general chaos of warring feudal lords in Europe. Wouldn’t it be great if there was somewhere else they could go and fight and leave the regular people alone? If they weren’t fighting each other and instead fighting with each other then there would be more peace among them. The second reason was that Jerusalem was a major tourist spot. This had been going on for centuries ever since Emperor Constantine sent his wife there to locate historical sites and to get souvenirs. (Like the “true cross.”) Once Moslem activity started to cut off the tourism industry there was a general outcry among the people who made a living on that tourism industry.
It is also interesting to note that some of the best dialogue between Christians and Moslems happened during this time. The famous dialogue between Francis and the sultan is often mentioned but during his stay in the Holy Land Francis apparently had significant dialogs with the Sufi who were in the areas where he stayed.
Lets get back to this J-pop infatuation of yours. Things like that really weird me out, I mean really. There's just something wrong with that.
Well I am an ultra mega super extreme fangirl (for anime), their deadly :bounce: . I also love anime music.. ALOT, this one is awesome http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6AtJa56gGhg&feature=related . Sorry if I'm being too off topic !
I’m going to have to disagree here as most people don’t really understand history; they either makes things out as either too vile or gloss things over and make them too romantic. People rarely do things because of their “motto,” they simply create a motto because they don't want to publicly admit their real reasons.
Embellishment, hearsay, and conjecture are often mantras here. Sucks...
I don't fancy myself much of a historical scholar for the whole of Earth's history, though I do work in the archives at the museum that employs me. I like to think that I don't have any illusions and am well versed about a great deal of our shared history, particularly military, fine art, and religious. Still, history is not my field of study in terms of my degrees for what it's worth.
The Crusades were generally called for two reasons. The first reason was the general chaos of warring feudal lords in Europe. Wouldn’t it be great if there was somewhere else they could go and fight and leave the regular people alone? If they weren’t fighting each other and instead fighting with each other then there would be more peace among them.
Sad but true. This isn't exactly a new maxim though. Especially in the Middle East just as it was true for Western civs. If there isn't a common front, typically anti-West or anti-Israel (not necessarilly Jew), they are fighting each other w/ abandon. Always a turbulent area. We're pretty similar. If it wasn't Catholic vs. Protestand well, Shiite vs Sunni is a tune we've heard for a long time too. I'd like to get the Hell off of foreign oil and leave them to their own devices. Too unstable for my tastes.
Anyway, basically, it's my understanding that we define most of our history by conflict. Namely, the big dates in ye old big book of history are usually flagged by wars, right? Always fighting each other. We are only united when there is a common enemy; NATO, Warsaw Pact, etc. Don't think there will ever by global peace till aliens land and we set aside our differences to take them on...and once that's over, well...
The second reason was that Jerusalem was a major tourist spot. This had been going on for centuries ever since Emperor Constantine sent his wife there to locate historical sites and to get souvenirs. (Like the “true cross.”) Once Moslem activity started to cut off the tourism industry there was a general outcry among the people who made a living on that tourism industry.
It is also interesting to note that some of the best dialogue between Christians and Moslems happened during this time. The famous dialogue between Francis and the sultan is often mentioned but during his stay in the Holy Land Francis apparently had significant dialogs with the Sufi who were in the areas where he stayed.
Yeah, it wasn't all blood and fire all the time. Despite the taxes here and there, everyone was worshipping as they wanted, times were fine, until...
Did you see "Kingdom of Heaven"? Despite the romanticized screen play, would you say it was accurate or altogether hollywood fluff?
We did have an understanding once upon a time, but it's easy to manipulate people, particularly uneducated, largely illiterate ones (the peasantry/serfs) w/ a little political muscle under the aegis of the Papacy. Same thing out East then as now. You take some disillusioned, disenfranchised ppl that are suffering due to a climate of fear (war), they are very suggestable...so much to the point where you can convince them to blow up a market of innocent people just to get 1 infidel, also known as a foreign solider...
I usually don't get involved in discussions like this, but I feel I need to put in my 2 cents. Why do most of the people here have such a problem with religion. Im a Christian, (by Christian I mean I believe in the death and ressurection of Jesus Christ) and I don't consider myself a fanatic or an idiot, but most of the people who post here will argue about how stupid or uneducated I am. Why? Why do you care so much if I believe in a God that loves man and wants to save them? Why can't I believe that God created the universe? Why does that make me an idiot? Lots of people are so eager to point out "holes" in my belief, and complain about the hypocrysy, but that just shows how my way of thinking is different than yours, and what is the problem with that? Before saying how flawed my beliefs are, maybe you should judge your own beliefs as harshly and critically as mine.
By the way, I am not angry at any of the posters, but I wanted to make a stand and defend my beliefs.
I know this reply was a while ago but I'll comment on it.
I consider myself an agnostic. (Though pastafarianism seems like something I would go for!) But I was raised as a catholic. I think the main beef many of us have with organized religions and why we get so angry at those that are part of that mainstream is because we have felt treated with so much hostility that we can't help but feel threatened by christians/catholics anymore.
My parents and their parents are all christians and catholics too (i never been too bright on the difference so I use those 2 terms interchangeably). But me, my sister and my brother have pretty much grown up to not accept what we've been taught and basically all become agnostic. We DARE not say our true beliefs out of basically fear of reprisal from the family. My best friend was a born/raised and still is a hardcore christian/catholic, and for years I can remember him trying in small ways to get me to believe in what him and his family believed. I told my mom that I was agnostic and she basically started crying.
I asked a few people and talked about why I don't like them trying to convert so much. I am given the line they are trying to "save" people ~.~. All I can do is give a heavy sigh when they are not looking or left. To me this seems like a perfect reason why someone would put these sort of "duties" a good christian would have to disguise converting others. The religions that have you believe in the one true god have that one line of text that basically says "If you don't believe in me, you're AUTOMATICALLY going to hell". So again, this would be a good reason to get everyone else on your side. "But if you don't believe in him, when you die you will spend an eternity in a place of fire and brimstone and forever pain and torture!" I could see this a good scare tactic to get others to join.
Then we get to the bible. This is words "inspired" by god. Now while I could see the bible as a good GUIDE on how to be a good person, I kinda get sad when others take the word of the bible as the absolute truth. Such things like the story and noah with his ark and all that. It's amazing how many people actually believe that. But wether they believe that story or not doesn't interest me. It's when they believe those stories it makes me really want to ask them.... "Ok, so he says thou shall not kill and all that good stuff. Then how can you believe in a god that doesn't even follow what he preaches?" He's done some horrible things if you ask me.
Then we get into the issues of homosexuality and all that other stuff. If people really think that the choice of one's sexual preference will alter their place in the afterlife then I have to tell them. "I don't want to believe in your god because no god that claims to love all his children could possibly be that blackhearted."
Then we have Jesus. I'm basically jewish on this idea that he existed but is not some demi-god. (Supposedly he is god, but you can't be your own father or son! weird!) But I love the messages he gives to people about love and whatnot. I have no qualms with the J-man.
So it boils down to people basically becoming really jaded and having a LOT of animosity towards those that are from mainstream religions. I believe an old movie says it. "I'm mad as hell and i'm not going to take it anymore!"
I'm glad I was born in this time though =) i look around and other religions, atheism, agnosticism are all on the rise. I have a good feeling that sometime in my life (i have about another 70-80 years at least, even being 23 by the time i'm a old man we'll probably be living to 90-100+ regularly) There will be a religious revolution. Though I don't believe it will be bloody, I believe a point will be reached where everyone of the non-mainstream religions basically make their voices all heard at once, saying "ENOUGH! Let us live in peace without your attempts to 'save' and convert us. We have a freedom or religion and choice. This is our choice and these are the beliefs we chose."
Video I made, directed at my fellow atheists. Feel free to watch even if you aren't an atheist.
Let's learn to get along, eh?
Let's learn to get along, eh?
That's a bit of a tall order, isn't it? Considering the entire scope of human civilization seems to paint a rather large picture that shows this is an impossible task, do you think we suddenly developed the ability to pull this off? As much as I agree with the sentiment, I have serious reservations in our ability to do it.
That's a bit of a tall order, isn't it? Considering the entire scope of human civilization seems to paint a rather large picture that shows this is an impossible task, do you think we suddenly developed the ability to pull this off? As much as I agree with the sentiment, I have serious reservations in our ability to do it.
And that is the truest thing to have faith in...
That's a bit of a tall order, isn't it? Considering the entire scope of human civilization seems to paint a rather large picture that shows this is an impossible task, do you think we suddenly developed the ability to pull this off? As much as I agree with the sentiment, I have serious reservations in our ability to do it.
So we shouldn't even try?
And that is the truest thing to have faith in...
I don't think so, at least not completely. People are sheep, they'll go where their sheperd leads them. Sadly, those sheperds tend to lead them in directions that better the sheperd instead of the flock and that puts them squarely in conflict with other flocks. It's a bit odd that I would use such a christian metaphor, I know. It holds true for Judaism and Islam as well.
Before you go finding fault with another's faith, you should look to those you seek out for spiritual insight. Are you so certain that your sheperd is right and their's is wrong? Too many put faith in the judgement of their sheperd when their faith should be in the holy texts. Remember that the person attempting to direct you is just as prone to Pride, Vanity, Gluttony, Greed, Lust, Envy and Wrath, you should take their words and measure them against the teachings of your faith.
Perhaps once we reach the conclusion that Islam, Judaism and Christianity are all religions that promote peace, tolerance and acceptance we'll be able to see that it's been those that seek to lead us that have led us astray and pervert the message to their own ends.
Atheists are unique. They travel the same path as the rest of us without the spiritual safety blanket. I can't say I understand where they draw their strength from when their situation looks dire, but I can say that I admire it. I am an Animist, I am here because I am supposed to be here. If I wasn't needed in some fashion, I would simply be recycled into the greater unity and my parts broken down for such exquisite fertilizer. Without my belief that I am part of that greater whole, I would not be. I can only imagine what it must be like being an atheist.
So we shouldn't even try?
If that's the option you feel best achieves the goal, certainly.
I can't say for you what is best. I know I'll try to get people to see a bit closer to the middle for as long as I continue to draw breath, but I know that it probably won't be in my lifetime that this monumental shift in thinking occurs.
I look at all the prophets* we've had over the ages and I wonder at times if the struggle is worth the effort. Great men have sought to unite the human race and failed. While at times it seems quixotic, I have to think that everything I do lays the foundations for the next prophet. If my life is spent trying to get people to at least see a small part of their similarities, then that's one step the next prophet doesn't have to help them make.
*I use the word Prophet a bit more liberally than most religious scholars would. Not to demean the obvious use, I include men the likes of Martin Luther, St Francis of Assissi, Gandhi and Martin Luther King Jr in that category. In the grand history of humanity, we've had hundreds of Prophets, not just the religious ones. These great men sought to teach us about ourselves and others in some way, and for that they are great.
Hm. Well said. I simply think it's noble to try, even if you think you'll fail. And if you don't fail, even better.
Who has failed? I'm still drawing breath, how about you?
Who has failed? I'm still drawing breath, how about you?
Heh. That's the spirit. ;)
Think about it...some people may get flipped off and cut off on their way to work and carry it with them all day and it affects other people around them as well...
Same thing goes for doing good...hopefully people will carry it with them all day and it will affect others...
If someone today went up to a mountain and came back three days later and started saying the things Moses said, they'd think he'd either lost his mind or had been smoking some righteous "burning bush."
If a lady (who was supposed to be a virgin) went to her fiance and said, "Dear, I'm pregnant...but it's not from another man! It's from GOD!" the results would not be pretty. I'd predict at least a breakup, at worst a murder-suicide.
If anyone today claims to be a prophet, people automatically dismiss them as either mentally ill or a con artist. Why? Because believing stuff like that just seems ridiculous today. Back in biblical times, people believed it, and they've passed those beliefs on for centuries, and people still believe them today.
Not saying that's how I feel, but it's a point of view.
Here's how my brain looks at it sometimes:
If someone today went up to a mountain and came back three days later and started saying the things Moses said, they'd think he'd either lost his mind or had been smoking some righteous "burning bush."
If a lady (who was supposed to be a virgin) went to her fiance and said, "Dear, I'm pregnant...but it's not from another man! It's from GOD!" the results would not be pretty. I'd predict at least a breakup, at worst a murder-suicide.
If anyone today claims to be a prophet, people automatically dismiss them as either mentally ill or a con artist. Why? Because believing stuff like that just seems ridiculous today. Back in biblical times, people believed it, and they've passed those beliefs on for centuries, and people still believe them today.
Not saying that's how I feel, but it's a point of view.
True and understandable.
I've personally have had an experinence with someone like that. I have a player in my group who is religious, but I didn't know he was a religious extremists. Yesterday he came over and told me he can't game anymore, because he had two out of body dreams were an evil spirt was hovered over his D&D books.
No offence to my friend, but this is the guy who became religious the same time he was doing alot of drugs. He also doesn't believe in having knowledge of the bible, because he bases his beliefs only from his heart. I just can't believe that God sent him a dream telling him that D&D is bad.
If anyone today claims to be a prophet, people automatically dismiss them as either mentally ill or a con artist. Why? Because believing stuff like that just seems ridiculous today. Back in biblical times, people believed it, and they've passed those beliefs on for centuries, and people still believe them today.
Not saying that's how I feel, but it's a point of view.
Would you consider Martin Luther King Jr a prophet? I know he considered himself just a man. A prophet wouldn't declare himself a prophet, that would be foolish and arrogant.
Here's how my brain looks at it sometimes:
If someone today went up to a mountain and came back three days later and started saying the things Moses said, they'd think he'd either lost his mind or had been smoking some righteous "burning bush."
That would be what Moses said, too. God then replied, showing him how he could have his staff turn into a snake and back, and his hand go leperous and back. I imagine somebody randomly turning stuff into snakes and back said something, I'd at least listen. Considering he was appealing to the God the Hebrews already knew about, it helped ground him quite a bit for the audience.
If a lady (who was supposed to be a virgin) went to her fiance and said, "Dear, I'm pregnant...but it's not from another man! It's from GOD!" the results would not be pretty. I'd predict at least a breakup, at worst a murder-suicide.
Um, Joseph was going to break it off. Then an angel told him, "Dude, she's telling the truth. Don't break it off." (And if it was a hallucination, kind of odd that it would go against both his personal reaction, and overall tradition).
If anyone today claims to be a prophet, people automatically dismiss them as either mentally ill or a con artist. Why? Because believing stuff like that just seems ridiculous today. Back in biblical times, people believed it, and they've passed those beliefs on for centuries, and people still believe them today.
Not saying that's how I feel, but it's a point of view.
See, here's where English has corrupted a word. In old Israel, "prophet" didn't mean "guy who predicts the future", so much as "guy who speaks directly for God to slap some sense into the peopl". A better definition for it would be "truthspeaker". If you read the prophetic books in the Bible, much of the space goes to them telling Israel or Judah just how bad they've been, and then what the consequences will be (consequences which did, in fact, occur). What predictions they did make, came true. Incidentally, there was a tradition, I believe, wherein if someone claimed to be a prophet, but made several false predictions, they at best got run out of town. Again, this wasn't claiming "I can see the future" so much as claiming "I speak for God", so it was serious business.
Incidentally, I think MLKJ would be, if not a prophet, about as close as we could get. I don't recall if any prophets of the Bible said "I'm a prophet" (though I'm sure they said "I speak for and from God"), but they did plenty of calling the nation and leaders out. He's certainly a better example of the concept than, say, Nostradamus.
Incidentally, I think MLKJ would be, if not a prophet, about as close as we could get.
But is he the only one that we could say that about? Are there any prophets coming from the secular arena? How about Richard Dawkins? What about men like Chief Joseph or Tecumseh? Could you say with absolute certainty that all the modern prophets believed in the same Christianity, Islam or Judaism?
But is he the only one that we could say that about? Are there any prophets coming from the secular arena? How about Richard Dawkins? What about men like Chief Joseph or Tecumseh? Could you say with absolute certainty that all the modern prophets believed in the same Christianity, Islam or Judaism?
First, I'd note I said "I think"; meaning I'm not sure, and it was an offhand estimate.
Second, I think I just happened to pick him of the list. Looking at posting time, I'd say I was in a rush.
Third, I'll freely admit bias in that the men I would most readily consider true prophets would be those in the Judeao-Chrisitian line. Admittedly, that's my religious bias speaking, but we'll leave that aside for the moment.
Of your earlier examples, I'd say Martin Luther for sure, Gandhi to an extent. St. Francis I'd need more info on. Same for Chief Joseph and Tecumseh, as I'm not getting that "recognition bell" ringing.
I'm going to abstain saying anything about Dawkins, as it will be too biased. The man ticks me off too much, sorry.
And no, I can't say with certainty about "modern prophets". Especially if it's somebody right now; it's more of a retrospective thing, to me. That's not to say I wouldn't listen to someone today; I just hesitate to apply the label "prophet" quickly and easily.
And no, I can't say with certainty about "modern prophets". Especially if it's somebody right now; it's more of a retrospective thing, to me. That's not to say I wouldn't listen to someone today; I just hesitate to apply the label "prophet" quickly and easily.
When I say modern, I mean in the last four to five hundred years. If you're choosing some silly bugger that you just saw on the tube, I'd have to label you a fanatic.
I would call Johannes Guttenburg a Prophet for building a machine that he could further disseminate the word of god that he had faith in. I would even go so far as to call King James a Prophet for having the bible translated into a language that more people could read. Both men were heavily chastised by the leaders of the church for these actions, yet they both thought it was important to do it anyway.
Galileo should be included as well. He was a man of science and was effectively martyred by the church for refusing to back down. He was Catholic and he studied what he considered God's creation. He never doubted his faith and it didn't deter his science. To many who study the things we don't understand, Galileo should be a patron saint.
When I say modern, I mean in the last four to five hundred years. If you're choosing some silly bugger that you just saw on the tube, I'd have to label you a fanatic.
I would call Johannes Guttenburg a Prophet for building a machine that he could further disseminate the word of god that he had faith in. I would even go so far as to call King James a Prophet for having the bible translated into a language that more people could read. Both men were heavily chastised by the leaders of the church for these actions, yet they both thought it was important to do it anyway.
Galileo should be included as well. He was a man of science and was effectively martyred by the church for refusing to back down. He was Catholic and he studied what he considered God's creation. He never doubted his faith and it didn't deter his science. To many who study the things we don't understand, Galileo should be a patron saint.
Hm. I think at this point we're operating under different internal definitions/understandings of the word "prophet". Which is fine. I just tend to not see many of these listed people as full on prophets.
Not to say their work and accomplishments weren't vital and revolutionary, though.
Not to say their work and accomplishments weren't vital and revolutionary, though.
Would you say Abraham was vital and revolutionary? Would you say Moses was vital and revolutionary? How about Jesus? Mohammad? Just because we have books that say god told them to go lead his people and we don't for anyone since Mohammad, doesn't mean that they didn't hear the call.
What constitutes hearing the voice of god? Did Dr King hear God speak? Are you so quick to dismiss the voice of conscience as the voice of god? How do you know that isn't exactly what it is? Did Galileo defy the church because of pride, or could it have been god whispering in his ear the whole time? Perhaps Galileo was setting god's people free.
God used Jesus to tell you that the priests were misleading you. Perhaps he's sent atheists to tell you the modern Sanhedrin is misleading you. I'm not saying that it is true, but what if it is? Perhaps Mr Dawkins is hearing the voice of god. If he said he was, you'd lock him up.
Would you say Abraham was vital and revolutionary? Would you say Moses was vital and revolutionary? How about Jesus? Mohammad? Just because we have books that say god told them to go lead his people and we don't for anyone since Mohammad, doesn't mean that they didn't hear the call.
What constitutes hearing the voice of god? Did Dr King hear God speak? Are you so quick to dismiss the voice of conscience as the voice of god? How do you know that isn't exactly what it is? Did Galileo defy the church because of pride, or could it have been god whispering in his ear the whole time? Perhaps Galileo was setting god's people free.
God used Jesus to tell you that the priests were misleading you. Perhaps he's sent atheists to tell you the modern Sanhedrin is misleading you. I'm not saying that it is true, but what if it is? Perhaps Mr Dawkins is hearing the voice of god. If he said he was, you'd lock him up.
Whoa now. Easy.
I'm not saying they didn't hear the call.
I'm not saying that there's absolutely no way these people are not prophets.
I simply stated that my internal definition, that is, what I immediately think of when I see/hear the word "prophet", doesn't connect to some of your examples.
I'd consider locking Mr. Dawkins up if he claimed that, because it flies in the face of everything he's said for years. He's mister "there's no God, and you're horribly stupid for thinking so".
I realise he likely is trying to help people, at least from his perspective.
I'm not dismissing conscience as never being the voice of God.
Once more, I was simply saying that I was operating from a different perspective on the meaning of a word than you.
Whoa now. Easy.
Sorry, I got all fired up and that ol' preacher mode kicked in. Ther's nothing worth saying that isn't worth hammering home from a hundred different angles. Preferably before anyone has time to think about it. Once you get the Amen from the crowd, you've got them twisted to the way you want 'em, neh?
Sorry, I got all fired up and that ol' preacher mode kicked in. Ther's nothing worth saying that isn't worth hammering home from a hundred different angles. Preferably before anyone has time to think about it. Once you get the Amen from the crowd, you've got them twisted to the way you want 'em, neh?
Hm. My pastor's not a big "fire and brimstone" type; he's a pretty cerebral guy. He's also rather softspoken (and a great guy in general). He and his wife are a classic "opposites attract" pair.
Sorry, rambled.
It's ok. I can understand getting fired up and whatnot. I was just trying to play peacemaker for once. ;)
I was just trying to play peacemaker for once. ;)
That's what happened. No wonder I got all "hellfire and brimstone". You stole my stick, you dirty devil.
That's what happened. No wonder I got all "hellfire and brimstone". You stole my stick, you dirty devil.
Stick, what stick?
:angelhide
Worship the march of the penguins. Have happy feat to celebrate your individuality...eh it is to early in the morning for me.
I have noticed a trend...it seems that the up and coming religion is centered around penguins...
Worship the march of the penguins. Have happy feat to celebrate your individuality...eh it is to early in the morning for me.
Sorry, just not seeing it.
Is it derailing time yet?
I think that was 12-13 pages ago. Or were you suggesting another derailment?
If you are a young earth creationist
copy this to your reply and add one to the #
My logic is severely flawed: 1
Only if you put "I'm an angst young twurp who never bothered to read any of Charles Darwin's matirial".
I'm not even a creationist. Atleast not in the Christian sense. But I take offense that athiests want to baaawww about how they're a minority and oppressed but then act snobby. Gee, I'm glad you're a minority and oppressed then.
I'd say I'm a deist. I believe in God, His presence is obvious. But the Christian faith relies too much on cultural traditions and social values rather then what's actually written in the scriptures, and how God speaks to them personally.
I wouldn't call them "ignorant", I'd call them "misguided". I wouldn't call an atheist a sinner. Disbelieving in God is not a sin. Maybe they're just afraid, or not sensitive enough to feel His presence. I can't expect people to believe in something they cannot perceive... Why does faith have to be opposed to rationality?
I'm not going to tell you what to believe. But maybe you'll understand where I'm coming from a little better and try harder not to seem so snobby to those who have spiritual beliefs: You have faith all the time.
You have faith that your girlfriend won't cheat on you.
You have faith in that your friends and family love you and look out for you.
You have faith that life will get better, or is going to stay alright.
Why then is it so difficult to have faith in God?
So imagine for a moment how ****** off you'd be if I said you shouldn't have faith in you girlfriend, she's a ****. Your mother wanted to coathanger you, and your friends all laugh at you behind your back.
That's what it's like when you tell people to prove God to you.
Only if you put "I'm an angst young twurp who never bothered to read any of Charles Darwin's material".
I have actually read it. It's pretty clear and well written, but boring (maybe explains why I'm a physicist and not a biologist). The scientific evidence for the age of the world, evolution of species, extinction of others are numerous.
You see, we are discussing scientific theories. We must then use facts to discriminate between them. A theory lives on facts. Without them, they die. And on this matter, facts are in favor of evolution. The whole "irreducible complexity" argument was pretty good. I was baffled at first (not a biologist remember). But experiment as shown that there is no such thing. Even the most complex organs can be degraded and still hold some function.
Now, that doesn't say anything about the existence of a god. That is a more personal matter. I would not dare try to convince you that there is no god. But, if you want to try and convince me there is, better have good arguments.
I'm not even a creationist. Atleast not in the Christian sense. But I take offense that athiests want to baaawww about how they're a minority and oppressed but then act snobby. Gee, I'm glad you're a minority and oppressed then.
Come on, you can't condone the oppression of group because some individuals are arrogant or simply jerks. I'm athiest and I don't believe I am better then anybody. I don't try to force my beliefs [or lake thereof] on anyone.
I'd say I'm a deist. I believe in God, His presence is obvious. But the Christian faith relies too much on cultural traditions and social values rather then what's actually written in the scriptures, and how God speaks to them personally.
I wouldn't call them "ignorant", I'd call them "misguided". I wouldn't call an atheist a sinner. Disbelieving in God is not a sin. Maybe they're just afraid, or not sensitive enough to feel His presence. I can't expect people to believe in something they cannot perceive... Why does faith have to be opposed to rationality?
Now that is arrogant, you're basically making two groups (both with negative terms) to comprehend atheists. I'm really not afraid and I am a pretty "sensitive" guy. How do I fall in you're argument?? By the way, the arrogant atheists use that sort of reasonning for deist also.
It is even more arrogant to believe whole groups are "misguided" because there beliefs are slightly different. I say slightly, because the same moral background is used in both.
I'm not going to tell you what to believe.
Thanks, that's gracious of you.
You have faith that your girlfriend won't cheat on you.
You have faith in that your friends and family love you and look out for you.
You have faith that life will get better, or is going to stay alright.
Why then is it so difficult to have faith in God?
Come on, this his really crap. Here are a few examples for you:
You have faith that your girlfriend won't cheat on you.
You have faith in that your friends and family love you and look out for you.
You have faith that life will get better, or is going to stay alright.
Why then is it so difficult to have faith in the Flying Spaghetti Monster?
You have faith that your girlfriend won't cheat on you.
You have faith in that your friends and family love you and look out for you.
You have faith that life will get better, or is going to stay alright.
Why then is it so difficult to have faith in the decency of the masked man holding the shotgun?
Firstly, having faith in something doesn't mean you should have faith in EVERY thing.
Secondly, I don't have FAITH in my girlfriend, I TRUST her, same thing with my friends. I don't have FAITH that life will get better, I HOPE it will.
So imagine for a moment how ****** off you'd be if I said you shouldn't have faith in you girlfriend, she's a ****. Your mother wanted to coathanger you, and your friends all laugh at you behind your back.
That's what it's like when you tell people to prove God to you.
Exactly. I would feel like you are a complet jerk and would not trust you're opinion on anything. You would have proven that you speak without thinking, without knowledge and without respect. That would end the conversation and that's all.
Now, that doesn't say anything about the existence of a god. That is a more personal matter. I would not dare try to convince you that there is no god. But, if you want to try and convince me there is, better have good arguments.
Charles Darwin wasn't an Atheist, neither was Galileo. For that matter, very few of the most prominent scientists of our history were Atheists. Belief or disbelief in a deity and science aren't completely incompatible. Some would even say that trying to understand how the universe was built is the ultimate goal of both.
Just because I know the color in the sunset sky is nothing more than light hitting the microscopic particles floating in the atmosphere doesn't detract from my sense of awe and wonder. Knowing the science of it doesn't mean that the creator didn't place those particles there so that I would see the beauty painted on the horizon. I'm not saying that is what I believe, but who can say with certainty that it isn't true?
Don't set out to prove or disprove god. It's a fool's errand at best, and likely to get a person killed at the worst. If you believe, then do so. If you don't, so be it. There isn't enough evidence from either perspective to prove or disprove, therefore both must be wrong, right?
I'm rather fond of Atheists myself, although sometimes I find their lack of faith disappointing. Not that I'm disappointed that they don't believe like I do, but that they don't have that final comfort when life is at it's bleakest. Having said that, I find Richard Dawkins fascinating. He seems to find comfort and ease in his atheism.
There isn't enough evidence from either perspective to prove or disprove, therefore both must be wrong, right?
Nope, all that means is that there isn't enough evidence to prove or disprove either. To think it means anything more is to take a leap of faith.
Nope, all that means is that there isn't enough evidence to prove or disprove either. To think it means anything more is to take a leap of faith.
No leaps of faith in science, is there?
He stayed up all night wondering if there was a DOG.
You have faith that your girlfriend won't cheat on you.
You have faith in that your friends and family love you and look out for you.
You have faith that life will get better, or is going to stay alright.
Why then is it so difficult to have faith in God?
I have faith that my b/f will cheat on me.
I have faith my "friends" are just waiting to stab me in the back
AND i know life isn't going to get better.
THerefor it's pretty easy to not have faith in "god"
_________________________
All Hail the wise and powerful granny!! she grants us the rusty wooden Spork of Healing - Threvee Buttons, 12 lv Gully Dwarf Cleric.....
Frist not sure what the number is up to but i'm choice number 1.... i think.... are druids considered organized?
Are they? I've never met any druids, at least not of the original variety.
Charles Darwin wasn't an Atheist, neither was Galileo. For that matter, very few of the most prominent scientists of our history were Atheists. Belief or disbelief in a deity and science aren't completely incompatible. Some would even say that trying to understand how the universe was built is the ultimate goal of both.
Just because I know the color in the sunset sky is nothing more than light hitting the microscopic particles floating in the atmosphere doesn't detract from my sense of awe and wonder. Knowing the science of it doesn't mean that the creator didn't place those particles there so that I would see the beauty painted on the horizon. I'm not saying that is what I believe, but who can say with certainty that it isn't true?
Don't set out to prove or disprove god. It's a fool's errand at best, and likely to get a person killed at the worst. If you believe, then do so. If you don't, so be it. There isn't enough evidence from either perspective to prove or disprove, therefore both must be wrong, right?
This was very well said.
-Joni
Pretty sure his beagle was though ;) .
Wasn't Darwin an agnostic?
Agnostic isn't Atheist. Agnostics doubt, Atheists deny. To put it in the simplest terms.
Are they? I've never met any druids, at least not of the original variety.
I'm not of the origianal kind. but i'm not sure if we are considered orginized or not. it's not as though we have monthy meetings and what not
Only if you put "I'm an angst young twurp who never bothered to read any of Charles Darwin's matirial".
I'm not even a creationist. Atleast not in the Christian sense. But I take offense that athiests want to baaawww about how they're a minority and oppressed but then act snobby. Gee, I'm glad you're a minority and oppressed then.
I'd say I'm a deist. I believe in God, His presence is obvious. But the Christian faith relies too much on cultural traditions and social values rather then what's actually written in the scriptures, and how God speaks to them personally.
I wouldn't call them "ignorant", I'd call them "misguided". I wouldn't call an atheist a sinner. Disbelieving in God is not a sin. Maybe they're just afraid, or not sensitive enough to feel His presence. I can't expect people to believe in something they cannot perceive... Why does faith have to be opposed to rationality?
I'm not going to tell you what to believe. But maybe you'll understand where I'm coming from a little better and try harder not to seem so snobby to those who have spiritual beliefs: You have faith all the time.
You have faith that your girlfriend won't cheat on you.
You have faith in that your friends and family love you and look out for you.
You have faith that life will get better, or is going to stay alright.
Why then is it so difficult to have faith in God?
So imagine for a moment how ****** off you'd be if I said you shouldn't have faith in you girlfriend, she's a ****. Your mother wanted to coathanger you, and your friends all laugh at you behind your back.
That's what it's like when you tell people to prove God to you.
I mostly agree with you, but there are many different Christians faiths. Not all of them rely on cultural traditions and social values, but most of them do.
Please keep your posts polite, respectful, and on-topic, and refrain from making personal attacks.
Frist not sure what the number is up to but i'm choice number 1.... i think.... are druids considered organized?
I have faith that my b/f will cheat on me.
I have faith my "friends" are just waiting to stab me in the back
AND i know life isn't going to get better.
THerefor it's pretty easy to not have faith in "god"
_________________________
All Hail the wise and powerful granny!! she grants us the rusty wooden Spork of Healing - Threvee Buttons, 12 lv Gully Dwarf Cleric.....
Gezz you shouldn't take that crap !
Well if I had faith that my bf or husband was going to cheat on me, I'd go to Walmart and buy a large summer sausage and smack him in the face with it.
If I had faith that my friends were waiting to stab me in the back, I'd pay some guy to give them the goat.
If I thought my life wasn't going to get better I'd go listen to Taking back Sunday or the Hawthorne Heights.
This is coming from a person who doesn't put up with any BS. I first show kindness and if its s*** on, then I'll open up a can of wup ass. Its always the nice quiet people who snap and are really scary !
I whole heartedly believe that Satan rulers this world and not God.
Agnostic isn't Atheist. Agnostics doubt, Atheists deny. To put it in the simplest terms.
I don't think so. 'Deny' implies that there's some truth atheists are just blindly unwilling to see, or refuse to acknowledge evidence for. Deny is what believers think we do. Ultimately, though, we just don't believe - there's no void, no opposite, no piece that matches the place where believers put belief.
Theists believe. Agnostics doubt. Atheists...don't.
I don't think so. 'Deny' implies that there's some truth atheists are just blindly unwilling to see, or refuse to acknowledge evidence for. Deny is what believers think we do. Ultimately, though, we just don't believe - there's no void, no opposite, no piece that matches the place where believers put belief.
Nicely said. I don't deny anything, I have my eyes and mind wide open. I have been to many different cults, seen many different beliefs and values and discussed with numerous people on the subject of faith and god. I never tried to convince them they where wrong. But I did debate with them. I listen to there arguments and I actually consider them. When I have tought it out, I post my reply. What there arguments made me think, what questions pops to mind or even counter-arguments. The purpose to debate is to confront ideas, examine arguments and test there solidity. I like to think of my debate to contribute to everyone. I don't want to try and convince anybody you are wrong, I want you to better understand you're own position by showing you weaknesses in you're arguments or sharing serious questions I have about it.
Wasn't Darwin an agnostic?
That really is not important. Being a scientist doesn't give credence to the opinion of somebody on this subject. Nobody is an expert on God or other supernatural beings. Yes, nobody. There is experts on religion, religious texts and other worldly matters, but not on God. So every opinion on the subject is equal. Nobody can be arrogant about it.
I whole heartedly believe that Satan rules this world and not God.
So, what do you think of people that don't agree with you? That kind of belief can rapidly transform into a thought terminating process. The danger in that kind of thinking is you diabolize entire groups and populations. You stop paying attention on there arguments, needs and rights and start focalising on what you perceive as rightousness.
I believe the world is ruled by humans. Human beings are not logical or inherently good. They are like every other species, they focus mostly on there survival and there comfort (read of there "small" group). So, no need to create a "puppet evil" that would be responsible for the injustice in the world. We are.
Theists believe. Agnostics doubt. Atheists...don't.
You're right, that's much better.
*trying to behave so the WizO doesn't edit me again.
Nicely said. I don't deny anything, I have my eyes and mind wide open. I have been to many different cults, seen many different beliefs and values and discussed with numerous people on the subject of faith and god. I never tried to convince them they where wrong. But I did debate with them. I listen to there arguments and I actually consider them. When I have tought it out, I post my reply. What there arguments made me think, what questions pops to mind or even counter-arguments. The purpose to debate is to confront ideas, examine arguments and test there solidity. I like to think of my debate to contribute to everyone. I don't want to try and convince anybody you are wrong, I want you to better understand you're own position by showing you weaknesses in you're arguments or sharing serious questions I have about it.
That really is not important. Being a scientist doesn't give credence to the opinion of somebody on this subject. Nobody is an expert on God or other supernatural beings. Yes, nobody. There is experts on religion, religious texts and other worldly matters, but not on God. So every opinion on the subject is equal. Nobody can be arrogant about it.
So, what do you think of people that don't agree with you? That kind of belief can rapidly transform into a thought terminating process. The danger in that kind of thinking is you diabolize entire groups and populations. You stop paying attention on there arguments, needs and rights and start focalising on what you perceive as rightousness.
I believe the world is ruled by humans. Human beings are not logical or inherently good. They are like every other species, they focus mostly on there survival and there comfort (read of there "small" group). So, no need to create a "puppet evil" that would be responsible for the injustice in the world. We are.
I don't mind if anyone disagrees with me, almost everyone I know do not agree with me.
My reasoning is if you believe in God or Satan in anyway why not uses the bible ? The bible has sayed " the whole world lays in the hands of the wicked one", and also refers to Satan as " the god or ruler of the system of things".
Now if anyone doesn't believe in God and ect, I more then understand that we have different believes and view points. Theres no point in agruing about it. I respect your opinion, I'm just stating why I say that I believe that satan rulers the world and not god.
They do say money is the root of all evil too, that's the gateway to material gain, so perhaps there is merit in that. Not saying Satan's behind the credit market debacle or the hole in your wallet, but a vast degree of humanity's woes are financial at the core.
I think the whole...
The bible has sayed " the whole world lays in the hands of the wicked one", and also refers to Satan as " the god or ruler of the system of things".
Falls into the category of allegories such as Persephone and Hades...or the Gospels of Judas where Life is really Death. We are living in a lower aspect...etc etc.
No, I can't pluck a law of physics out of the air and just show it to you, but they can be demonstrated as true.
Really? You can show how what we call a "law of physics" is not just God making something happen?
Please, go ahead.
So what you're essentially saying here is that in order to understand why agnosticism is wrong, I have to believe in God first, thus removing the point of showing me why agnosticism is wrong.
Again, I'm afraid I'm extremely skeptical of this. This sounds awfully like "The person must stop expecting a logical answer and instead make a blind leap of faith based on emotions and 'gut feelings'."
Not at all. Its a little difficult to explain though :D It needs that you get past hard-held notions regarding God not existing; a neutral state if you will....
Why do so many atheists/agnostic people have a dislike for chirstians?
Ignorance, mostly. The rest is down to experiencing people who call themselves "Christian" behaving in an un-Christian manner (ie: not being loving, joyous, peaceful, patient, kind, good, faithful, gentle and with self-control, all as a consequence of the indwelling spirit of God)...which kind of leads them into misunderstanding of what being a Christian actually involves.
Well if I had faith that my bf or husband was going to cheat on me, I'd go to Walmart and buy a large summer sausage and smack him in the face with it.
If I had faith that my friends were waiting to stab me in the back, I'd pay some guy to give them the goat.
If I thought my life wasn't going to get better I'd go listen to Taking back Sunday or the Hawthorne Heights.
Yowza. I admit I'm no expert on your faith, but I thought "turn the other cheeck" was common to many Christian faiths? I mean, dropping them like a bad habit is one thing, but vengeance is a different matter...
Really? You can show how what we call a "law of physics" is not just God making something happen?
Can you show that it is God making something happen? If not... well, we can't conclusively show that God is or isn't making something happen. In the lack of conclusive evidence either way isn't it just a matter of faith?
Not at all. Its a little difficult to explain though :D It needs that you get past hard-held notions regarding God not existing; a neutral state if you will....
... that's what (my brand of) agnosticism is, though. I personally don't believe in any given religion's deity. I also don't say they're impossible, nor believe that there isn't some sort of deity, just that I'm not convinced one way or the other. A lack of belief and a lack of disbelief. Other agnostics may vary.
Why do so many atheists/agnostic people have a dislike for christians?
Well, the Westboro Baptists don't help matters, do they? Joking aside (as unfunny as it is), many people form their initial impressions for other ideological and theological groups while they're still young. Say, elementry, middle, and high school. During those times one of the largest sources for learning about other groups is other kids their age. Kids, as a general rule, tend to not be terribly understanding, forgiving, or tolerant, and will probably not handle a theological or ideological disucssion with the tact, respect, and delicacy that the issues deserve. As such, many people form rather hostile opinions of other groups because that was how they were treated when their impressions were first being formed. People that are genuinely tolerate, accepting, and nice (regarldess of religion) tend to mellow out and learn that not everyone that believes differently then themselves is a boogyman.
... does that help any?
Why do so many atheists/agnostic people have a dislike for chirstians?
Well, I can only speak for myself. I don't dislike anybody because of is religion. I tend to dislike people because of there actions and behavior. Anything less would be ignorance and prejudice.
Why do so many christian (or religious) people have a dislike for atheists/agnostics? I mean, look at the statistics in the US, they are appalling. Also look at the constitution of many states, everybody are protected EXCEPT the atheists.
And stuff like the rampant, unpunished child molestation kind of leaves a bad taste in a lot of people's mouths. ;)
I can't say I would do the same in a similar situation, but the catholic church didn't have a choice in the matter.
Catholicism is about forgiveness and forgiving those who repent. If a priest molests a child and then confesses to it, the confessor has no choice but to act to remove the penitant from the temptation, if possible. It's not that the church was trying to cover anything up, they were trying to shuffle the guilty away from children.
Coming forward to the media or to law enforcement wasn't an option. The rite of confession is a sacred cornerstone of the church, to violate that would be the one of, if not the worst transgressions a priest could commit. Moving the offending priest away from the child he had become infatuated with was the only option possible without a serious breach of ethics.
I have faith* that if they had known that a child-molesting priest would fall back into their old habits in a new parrish, other actions would have been taken. I am sure this is not something taken lightly by the church, but violation of the rite of confession is a worse sin than the laws broken by those child-molesters.
The Catholic church is the one organization that can order a man into a virtual prison, by sending him to a monastary under the orders of his superiors in the hierarchy, although even that would violate the rites of confession. The only way to do it would be for the confessor to order it as a pennance for the acts being confessed.
*I firmly believe that any man truly called to serve as a holy man for his religion will not willingly do anything that will intentionally harm another human being. While I may disagree with their religion on most occasions, I do believe that the bulk of Catholic priests are good men, seeking to be good shepards to their flocks in a land with increasing numbers of wolves prowling the hills.
The question asked was why do so many people have problems with Christians. This is one answer. And there are more. When we concern ourselves with the rights of the offender and forget the trauma he caused to a child, we've lost our way. The church did just that. Sins admitted while in Confession became important to conceal to uphold the sacred bond of those involved. What of the sacred bond that was abused? What of the children and their right to justice? What of their right to safety in the house of god? Screw that noise. He Confessed and that's more important. The church placed the rights of the abuser over the rights of the abused. And the abused, in this case, were children. Children. If that's not an abominable problem, I honestly couldn't tell you what one was.
Why do so many christian (or religious) people have a dislike for atheists/agnostics? I mean, look at the statistics in the US, they are appalling. Also look at the constitution of many states, everybody are protected EXCEPT the atheists.
Omission of Atheists would be an oversight on the part of legislators. Don't take it personally, I'm sure it wasn't an intentional slight. Probably more likely that they figured since you didn't have a god to begin with, you couldn't discriminated against because of it. If it really offends you, call your local representative and let them know that Atheist should be included.
As to the question of Christians disliking Atheists, that goes back alot farther and applies to alot more than just Atheists and Agnostics. Christians tend to dislike Christians of other denominations as well. Is it any shock that they dislike those of us outside of their happy little family*?
* My grandfather once called himself a Ghostdancer** when asked about his religious preference by a baptist preacher just because he knew it would get under his skin. My grandfather was an Animist and my grandmother was a Baptist, they were divorced soon after.
** The Ghostdance as practiced by Wovoka and his followers is, to this day, still the only religion outlawed in the United States. Crazy Horse, Sitting Bull, Red Stick and many others followed the teachings and because of the strong anti-white sentiments it was outlawed.
Omission of Atheists would be an oversight on the part of legislators. Don't take it personally, I'm sure it wasn't an intentional slight. Probably more likely that they figured since you didn't have a god to begin with, you couldn't discriminated against because of it. If it really offends you, call your local representative and let them know that Atheist should be included.
I don't really have a problem with that, I live in Canada where this is not a problem. I just found that stuff out because I like to document on the topic before I say things. As of the oversight thing, my sources show it is more, like in Switzerland.
My grandfather once called himself a Ghostdancer** when asked about his religious preference by a baptist preacher just because he knew it would get under his skin. My grandfather was an Animist and my grandmother was a Baptist, they were divorced soon after.
** The Ghostdance as practiced by Wovoka and his followers is, to this day, still the only religion outlawed in the United States. Crazy Horse, Sitting Bull, Red Stick and many others followed the teachings and because of the strong anti-white sentiments it was outlawed.
I would like to have more information on that. I think I would love to have a good discussion with you and your grandfather. I always love learning new things from people that really experienced it.
Can you show that it is God making something happen? If not... well, we can't conclusively show that God is or isn't making something happen. In the lack of conclusive evidence either way isn't it just a matter of faith?
Exactly. My point isnt that I can or I cant prove God exists (I can, but that is a whole other matter that cannot really be communicated on a message board :D and is by-the-by for this particular point), but rather that a claim of a belief in "laws of physics" is itself an act of faith (in their existance - because you cannot show they exist rather that it being a God that makes things happen 'as if' there were laws of physics).
So whenever someone says "that's the laws of physics" they are saying nothing more informative that a claim saying "that was Apollo or Isis making that happen". Neither can be explicitly shown to be the case; you cannot prove either of them exist.
He Confessed and that's more important. The church placed the rights of the abuser over the rights of the abused. And the abused, in this case, were children. Children. If that's not an abominable problem, I honestly couldn't tell you what one was.
I don't disagree with you. Those children were scarred in ways that will never heal, mentally, physically, spiritually and emotionally. I was simply explaining why the church would conceal it, not whether or not it was good.
If the decision had been mine, I would either de-frock the priests and give them a crash course in the legal system, have them locked away in a monastary without any human contact for a very long time or order them self-castrated on the Vatican steps as an act of attrition for a sin against god himself. It's a good thing I'm not Catholic, I would be far too happy to see the return of the God from the old testament in this matter, dogma be damned.
I have said all of my life that the voice of the Creator is in the laughter of children. Anything you do against a child had better be righteous, or you run the risk of damnation. Punish them for their wrongdoings, but do not, under any circumstances do wrong by them. That is an insult to the Creator and a crime against all your relations, past, present and future.
I would like to have more information on that. I think I would love to have a good discussion with you and your grandfather. I always love learning new things from people that really experienced it.
Good luck, he's been dead for a number of years. Although, and I am somewhat loathe to admit it, when I am having a bit of a rough time in my life, he comes to me in my sleep to help me along my way. I know that it's just my brain figuring out the solution and putting it in a form I can comprehend while my body is at rest, but it's kind of weird. I realize it's delusional, but it certainly feels real enough.
So whenever someone says "that's the laws of physics" they are saying nothing more informative that a claim saying "that was Apollo or Isis making that happen". Neither can be explicitly shown to be the case; you cannot prove either of them exist.
The difference is that natural laws (such as physics, gravity, etc...) are descriptive and predictive.
They're descriptive because they describe what happens and has happened in the past. They allow us to work backwards with data we have to see what was.
They're predictive in that we can use them to predict what will happen, given certain criteria.
So even if we can't, on a basic fundamental level, show that it is not some deity or other supernatural force causing things to happen, we can create reliable predictions of how things will happen.
So if nothing else, 'belief' in natural laws in 'belief' in induction. It says nothing about why they work, just that they do.
I don't disagree with you. Those children were scarred in ways that will never heal, mentally, physically, spiritually and emotionally. I was simply explaining why the church would conceal it, not whether or not it was good.
If the decision had been mine, I would either de-frock the priests and give them a crash course in the legal system, have them locked away in a monastary without any human contact for a very long time or order them self-castrated on the Vatican steps as an act of attrition for a sin against god himself. It's a good thing I'm not Catholic, I would be far too happy to see the return of the God from the old testament in this matter, dogma be damned.
I have said all of my life that the voice of the Creator is in the laughter of children. Anything you do against a child had better be righteous, or you run the risk of damnation. Punish them for their wrongdoings, but do not, under any circumstances do wrong by them. That is an insult to the Creator and a crime against all your relations, past, present and future.
You know what? I realized my post may have seemed like an indictment of you as well as what it was supposed to be right before I clicked back on this thread and read this reply. I got what you were trying to do. I just didn't make it clear that I wasn't really railing in your direction but more towards what you brought up. I do that sometimes. My bad.
In any event, I like your thinking on suitable punishments for this crap. Castration? Sure. Permanent isolation? Yep. Both? Why not. ;)
I tend to get preachy as the day grows longer. Sorry for any misunderstanding that caused. :embarrass
In any event, I like your thinking on suitable punishments for this crap. Castration? Sure. Permanent isolation? Yep. Both? Why not. ;)
Not castration, self-castration. Make the guilty party remove the offending organ themselves. There's no show of repentance if you strap them down and remove it for them, they need to cast out their own demons.
God helps those that help themselves, neh?
Not castration, self-castration. Make the guilty party remove the offending organ themselves. There's no show of repentance if you strap them down and remove it for them, they need to cast out their own demons.
Yep. That is certainly better.
EscherEnigma: Yowza. I admit I'm no expert on your faith, but I thought "turn the other cheeck" was common to many Christian faiths? I mean, dropping them like a bad habit is one thing, but vengeance is a different matter...
Haha that wasn't coming from my religious point of view. No that was straight from my personality.
Well, the Westboro Baptists don't help matters, do they? Joking aside (as unfunny as it is), many people form their initial impressions for other ideological and theological groups while they're still young. Say, elementry, middle, and high school. During those times one of the largest sources for learning about other groups is other kids their age. Kids, as a general rule, tend to not be terribly understanding, forgiving, or tolerant, and will probably not handle a theological or ideological disucssion with the tact, respect, and delicacy that the issues deserve. As such, many people form rather hostile opinions of other groups because that was how they were treated when their impressions were first being formed. People that are genuinely tolerate, accepting, and nice (regarldess of religion) tend to mellow out and learn that not everyone that believes differently then themselves is a boogyman.
... does that help any?
The reason I asked that question was; I can get along perfectly with an atheists person , they can be in person or on forums and the moment that I mention that I'm religious, they form a bad opinion of me. I can tell when I'm being treated different, it does bother me, because I think I'm a fairly nice person. I don't force my beliefs on other people, I don't judge non believers at all, so why do I get treated like crap by some non believers?
I don't force my beliefs on other people, I don't judge non believers at all, so why do I get treated like crap by some non believers?
Because you associate yourself with a group that they've probably had poor experiences with before. No, it's not fair, it's not right, but that's life. Not sure what else I can say here.
Haha that wasn't coming from my religious point of view. No that was straight from my personality.
The reason I asked that question was; I can get along perfectly with an atheists person , they can be in person or on forums and the moment that I mention that I'm religious, they form a bad opinion of me. I can tell when I'm being treated different, it does bother me, because I think I'm a fairly nice person. I don't force my beliefs on other people, I don't judge non believers at all, so why do I get treated like crap by some non believers?
Because they are prejudiced and stupid. Prejudice and stupidity go together. Ignore 'em. they aren't worth getting upset over. That's their goal: to upset you. So they'll really get p*ssed if you just ignore them. (when I say ignore, I mean don't reply to them, and get a WiZo if they broke the CoC)
I'm not sure just what you're trying to argue here, so if I'm barking up the wrong tree let me know.
The difference is that natural laws (such as physics, gravity, etc...) are descriptive and predictive.
They're descriptive because they describe what happens and has happened in the past. They allow us to work backwards with data we have to see what was.
They're predictive in that we can use them to predict what will happen, given certain criteria.
So even if we can't, on a basic fundamental level, show that it is not some deity or other supernatural force causing things to happen, we can create reliable predictions of how things will happen.
So if nothing else, 'belief' in natural laws in 'belief' in induction. It says nothing about why they work, just that they do.
However, where is the proof that this orderliness is not just the orderliness of a God behind the scenes?
In fact, what difference, in practice, is there between God and the posited laws of physics? How would you tell it is one and not the other?
However, where is the proof that this orderliness is not just the orderliness of a God behind the scenes?
In fact, what difference, in practice, is there between God and the posited laws of physics? How would you tell it is one and not the other?
Actually, this was one of Einstein's great question. Did God have a choice in the selection of the physical laws and constants? In other words, are others universes, with different constants and laws, stable? Do the laws of physics exist separatly from God and are forced to there current value?
Saying God is doing everything is simply displacing the problem, it does not bring any new information or comprehension. One is forced to ask if God had a choice. One is still confronted by the 'brokeness of symetry' in our world (see Nobel Prize of physics 2008). At the end, it all boils down to Occam's Razor. The most simple explanation is the better one. Right now, nothing in nature leads us to believe that God underlays every interaction. So, there is really nothing gained, again in a scientific point of view, by postulating this is the case.
On a more personal note, I don't believe the existence of God as something to give us. Morals, purpose and value can all be derived from our own existence. So the debate on is existence is purelly theoretical for me. If he does exist, I sincerely hope, for him, that he created a self-sustaining universe. I mean, keeping turning the crank of every single particle and force all the time. A god should have better things to do. But then again, I'm not god, so I don't really know. Truth is, nobody knows.
At the end, it all boils down to Occam's Razor. The most simple explanation is the better one. Right now, nothing in nature leads us to believe that God underlays every interaction. So, there is really nothing gained, again in a scientific point of view, by postulating this is the case.
Actually, "God did it" would seem to be the simplest solution to every problem simultaneously. I'm not saying that it's true, but that would seem to be the simplest.
Now having said that, I do agree that god has no place in chemistry, mathematics or physics. Not in the equations, anyway. You can't plug god into a formula and make it work out right.
If you're a biochemist trying to isolate a compound that cures cancer, it's not god that you're looking for. Faith that god will help you find it is fine, but that doesn't make it true. God is the motivator in that case, not the solution.
The Atheist vs Deist debate is neverending because it's a core of peoples' lives. I believe the sun will come up tomorrow because it did today. Science tells me that it's just the sun coming into view from my perspective based on my place on the earth, the rotation of the earth and the procession of the sun through the galaxy. Aren't both true?
Science tells me that the sun is a ball of gases, coalescing and compressing, their atoms reacting to each other as the pressure of gravity causes them to fuse and expelling vast amounts of energy into the solar system. Does my belief that the creator set the stage for that reaction long before the birth of mankind change those facts?
The problem isn't in the question of whether or not there is a god. The problem lies in how extensive that belief is. How much of your daily life is affected by the god you believe in? If your god's work pervades your every movement and moment, you'll never understand people like me that see the creator making it all and walking away. And if you can't see my point of view, you'll never be able to understand people that believe there is no god at all.
Actually, "God did it" would seem to be the simplest solution to every problem simultaneously. I'm not saying that it's true, but that would seem to be the simplest.
Actually, it isn't a solution. It's like a child asking: "How is bread made?" and the adult responding: "It's made by the baker." Does not offer many insights in the nature of bread does it. It only displaces the question: "How does the baker does it?" As for the simple part, it is not the simplest answer, because you add a new component to the problem, the baker.
That was my point. In the above post. Now, I completly agree with you, the existence of the baker is not found in the science of bread.
Show
http://discovermagazine.com/2008/nov/05-water-at-ocean-vents-isn.t-water-gas-liquid-hybrid
Science tells me that the sun is a ball of gases, coalescing and compressing, their atoms reacting to each other as the pressure of gravity causes them to fuse and expelling vast amounts of energy into the solar system. Does my belief that the creator set the stage for that reaction long before the birth of mankind change those facts?
http://discovermagazine.com/2008/nov/05-water-at-ocean-vents-isn.t-water-gas-liquid-hybrid
Off topic...
Show
Actually there is MANY different states of matter that are not generally known: plasma, magnetic states, neutron solid, quark-plasma, etc...
However, where is the proof that this orderliness is not just the orderliness of a God behind the scenes?
... lack of proof of one concept isn't sufficient to be proof of another in most cases. Just because we can't prove that fundamentally everything isn't a million little miracles doesn't mean that it is.
In fact, what difference, in practice, is there between God and the posited laws of physics? How would you tell it is one and not the other?
Again, you can't. The fact that water continues to flow down hill and that satellites don't arbitrarily fall out of orbit is not sufficient to prove or disprove any given deity or other supernatural force.
Why do so many atheists/agnostic people have a dislike for chirstians?
Its not realy Christians in specific, per se. Its simply that many atheists live in countries with a lot of Christians in them. We tend not to be overly fond of Muslims either, or religious fundamentalists in general.
We tend to get along better with Wiccans, for instance, because they simply take their religion less seriously, and they just don't try to cram it down people's throats/edify it into law. I've never met a Wiccan who believes we should live in a theocracy, but I've met plenty of Christians who believe such.
So really, its more just manifestation.
Catholicism is about forgiveness and forgiving those who repent. If a priest molests a child and then confesses to it, the confessor has no choice but to act to remove the penitant from the temptation, if possible. It's not that the church was trying to cover anything up, they were trying to shuffle the guilty away from children.
No, they were definitely try to cover it up as well. They didn't report it to appropriate legal authorities and hushed people up.
Coming forward to the media or to law enforcement wasn't an option. The rite of confession is a sacred cornerstone of the church, to violate that would be the one of, if not the worst transgressions a priest could commit. Moving the offending priest away from the child he had become infatuated with was the only option possible without a serious breach of ethics.
While true, oftentimes they didn't find out via confession. And really, the fact of the matter is it was still rather wrong.
The reason I asked that question was; I can get along perfectly with an atheists person , they can be in person or on forums and the moment that I mention that I'm religious, they form a bad opinion of me. I can tell when I'm being treated different, it does bother me, because I think I'm a fairly nice person. I don't force my beliefs on other people, I don't judge non believers at all, so why do I get treated like crap by some non believers?
Thing is, to us its the same as if you had said "the president is really a reptilian alien!"
It doesn't make you a bad person in our eyes, but we probably don't value your judgement quite the same anymore.
Plus, as someone else has said, aversion training. Religious people have often treated atheists poorly, so we tend to not react quite as well to them. Plus, really, how does it just randomly come up? If I talk to you for five minutes and you then suddenly say you're religious, that says something about your values.
I do have religious friends. I have friends who believe they are dragons in spirit. But I do not value their opinions quite the same as other people's, because they demonstrate poor judgment. But I don't hate them for it. More pity. And in some cases, not even that - believing you're a dragon in spirit, but nothing else, is pretty harmless in the end. Believing an all-powerful God made the universe is much less so.
Actually, "God did it" would seem to be the simplest solution to every problem simultaneously. I'm not saying that it's true, but that would seem to be the simplest.
The key to understanding Occam's Razor is that it ISN'T about the simplest solution.
Its the simplest CORRECT solution; i.e the simplest explanation which explains what happens correctly and is not invalidated by the evidence.
However, Occam's Razor isn't a scientific principle, just a logical tool, and its not a strong one.
While true, oftentimes they didn't find out via confession. And really, the fact of the matter is it was still rather wrong.
Wrong? You're saying that obedience to one of Catholicism's most sacred rites is wrong? A priest that violates the sanctity of the confessional is a pariah within the church. The guilty parties come to the confessional for the absolution of their sin, not to confess their crimes.
It's no different than a lawyer defending a man in a criminal court. A defendant can tell his attorney that he committed the crime, but the lawyer is bound by ethics not to divulge that detail to anyone. Would you condemn the defense attorney for not abandoning his obligations simply because he didn't make the confession of his client public?
A priest deals in spiritual matters, not criminal matters. A person can enter that confessional and tell the priest of anything he's done and that priest is bound by ethics not to share that with anyone outside of the priesthood. And if memory serves, even within the priesthood there are specific rules about who he can tell.
While I find the underlying crime abhorrent, I can't slight the church for attempting to solve it in-house. They did right by removing the offending priests from the situation, but without experience in dealing with sexual predators, they did wrong as well. Without being wise in the carnal nature they probably didn't realize that the priests in question would simply find another outlet for their gratification.
The issue of covering it up can't be argued. It was a necessary evil. Without absolute faith that their priests are untainted by sin, the entirety of the Catholic faith disintegrates. It was in the best interest of the entire church to conceal what could have been problem of monumental proportions. Scandals like this would cause innumerable numbers of people to lose faith in their local parrish priests and in turn in the doctrines of the faith. Mass defections to the protestant faiths would mean more souls bound for damnation in the eyes of religious leaders in the catholic church. It was better to try to keep it quiet than to run the risk of so much iconoclasm.
We tend to get along better with Wiccans, for instance, because they simply take their religion less seriously, and they just don't try to cram it down people's throats/edify it into law. I've never met a Wiccan who believes we should live in a theocracy, but I've met plenty of Christians who believe such.
It's not that they take their beliefs less seriously. Wiccans tend to understand that their beliefs are just that. If they wanted, they could go out and try to convert the world to their belief structure as well, but that would alter their beliefs. Once you add that dogma of converting everyone else to your beliefs, it fundamentally changes the nature of your faith.
I'm all for a theocracy, but which religion? Will the laws of a Christian theocracy allow me the freedom to express my beliefs openly? How about Islam? When I thank the sun for rising to warm my face, will I be hauled off in shackles and burned at the stake or beheaded? A theocracy would work if it took into account all the other possible faiths and ruled with laws based on all of them*. Following that line of thought, what is the likelihood of a theocracy being built here?
My own belief is that the creator loved variety. While we are all similar, he made us each unique. Is it any surprise that in our uniqueness that we can't find one unifying theology that encompasses all of our beliefs? I love to read and understand the theology of others, but at the end of my reading their beliefs are not mine. We have much to learn from each other, a theocracy would stifle that learning process.
* I still consider Atheism a religion. Just because it's based on a belief that there is no god doesn't change the fact that it is a religious belief. I have met Atheists that feel the need to convert me and others that are perfectly fine with my beliefs. I have seen Atheists that demonstrate the christian ideals more perfectly than Christians. Just because your spiritual life doesn't have a godhead doesn't mean that it isn't a religion.
I'm Lutheran, and we have but 2; Baptism and Communion. However, we have Confession as well, though it doesn't have quite the pomp & circumstance that Catholism has for their's. That is, more emphasis is put on the interpersonal aspects of faith between you & God, not you and the clergy that hears confession 'x'. It goes w/out saying in many faiths that God knows what you did anyway so confession is sometimes construed as selfish; ex) you are trying to get the weight off your chest cuz' you feel guity and you want someone in authority to absolve you of it rather than make amends yourself to the afflicted party (if there is one). This is just a hypothetical though and does not reflect church doctrine by any means.
In terms of Catholism, people are often enamored of the classical imagery of the priest in the confessional w/ the sliding panels hearing someone seeking forgiveness/absolution and so forth. The formality I guess. If it helps you find peace of mind, so be it. Like a funeral vs. the visitation. One's for the family as a means of grief counseling and the Bereavement Process, the other is for the departed as a means of respects/closure.
Different strokes for different folks...
Like it matters though. For Confession, window dressing doesn't change the legality therein. Church blessings and rites, though sacred aspects of many faiths, are bound by the law in this country (I can't speak for others, nor would I, not my place) and it's spelled out in no uncertain terms.
-If you confess to a murder, for instance, during pastoral counseling OR EVEN in formal Confession, that priest, pastor, rabbi, imam, etc., is legally obligated to report it to the authorities or face a long string of sentencing, possible defrocking, serious loss of face, whatever.
-Same thing for sex crimes in terms of Confession, particularly child molestation. This is not to say that church 'x' is responsible for outright outting of the guilty party or a discrete handling of affairs. It firstly rests w/ the clergy(wo)men in question, then often a local bishop, church council, then the congregation typically. This is not always the case though and the collective faith cannot (should not IMO) be held responsible for the transgression(s) of 1 participant. Just like any other institution: you do not condemn the whole of 1 political party cuz' a congressman had an affair, nor do you write off the entire research of a scientific think tank because 1 guy in R&D conducted unethical experiments secretly.
-The Right of Sanctuary no longer applies either (in the US). Plainly put, that's when criminals typically, would flee the law, enter the church, the sanctuary specifically (technically speaking, the actual holy spot of said house of worship) and plead their right.
Essentially, the cops or whomever, couldn't barge in and take you into custody given the protection mandate. This stalmate would often breakdown into negotiations and so on and so forth, but ultimatly, puts the church in a volatile situation. Govt. wasn't having it, so viola!, no more Right.
This used to happen alot in Central/S. America where they are typically Catholic and crime rates were/are significantly higher.
Anyway, most churches in this country, despite popular media jargon, have very little legal power. That is not to say that some aspects of varying faiths don't have some political clout, but it is vastly overrated and unrealistic to say "they run this country". We are more secular now than we have ever been in our nation's history IMO.
I still consider Atheism a religion. Just because it's based on a belief that there is no god doesn't change the fact that it is a religious belief. I have met Atheists that feel the need to convert me and others that are perfectly fine with my beliefs. I have seen Atheists that demonstrate the christian ideals more perfectly than Christians. Just because your spiritual life doesn't have a godhead doesn't mean that it isn't a religion.
Each time I hear this, It think of the quote by Mark Schnitzius : "“If atheism is a religion, then bald is a hair color”. For me, it is not a belief, but a lack thereof.
Each time I hear this, It think of the quote by Mark Schnitzius : "“If atheism is a religion, then bald is a hair color”. For me, it is not a belief, but a lack thereof.
Not always true. A great many things can be a religion to a person. For me, it's the outdoors, hunting and martial arts. And I doubt very much that I'm alone in that feeling. I have never felt in a church or in prayer what I feel when I devote myself to either of those activities. When I read Hemingway describing the sea or the woods or the hunt, I get more out of that than any Bible passage could ever offer me. The clarity of mind that comes with these activities, the immense discipline required, the understanding of myself and the world around me gained, the feeling of being part of something greater than myself - nothing comes close.
I was raised a Catholic (Roman) and attended a private Catholic school until the sixth grade. My family has some pretty devoted worshippers in it. I've seen what religion is supposed to feel like. I've witnessed what it can do for someone. Being in God's House never got me close to feeling what the people around me seemed to "get". So I understand what "religion" is. And, for me at the very least, it's not something a church can provide.
The point of all of this soul bearing? To attempt to illustrate that god is not a requirement for religion. And atheists can get just as much from their beliefs as the most fanatic of religious believers. What they believe in is different. The results can be incredibly similar.
Like it matters though. For Confession, window dressing doesn't change the legality therein. Church blessings and rites, though sacred aspects of many faiths, are bound by the law in this country (I can't speak for others, nor would I, not my place) and it's spelled out in no uncertain terms.
Yes, it is spelled out in no uncertain terms. Just like your lawyer, your therapist, or your spouse, your priest is not obliged to report your criminal misdeed to any authority. No catholic priest has ever or will ever be forced to reveal the things said in the confessional in a court of law. That is unless they choose to change the law at some point in the future.
Any information given by your priest is voluntary and will probably result in the Diocese defrocking the priest in question, unless they can prove that it will prevent a loss of life. That is canon, the only law that the Catholic Church holds as Law. The Catholics take the sanctity of the confessional very seriously.
alternatively: atheism is a religious belief just as bald is a possible hair style.
Is that really such a good comparison? My brother shaves his head regularly, for him, bald is a hairstyle, neh?
It, to me, is a state of mind or spirit really, and not indicative of an archetype of faith...despite having none at its core, existentially speaking. I don't know, how's my aim? It seems counterproductive to organize/typecast it as a religion if the creed is essentially a lack of belief in a higher power.
Anyway, if we are speaking purely from a legal standpoint, and it was indeed a religion, then it could organize as one thusly, gain tax exemptions and so forth. I don't ever see this happening despite various social organizations (social, not religious btw) that do seek to undermine organized religion and, in their own manner, prosyletize prospective members, not converts. They're not converting to anything by the letter of the law, just denouncing their faith and embracing a lack thereof. It's hard to put in words, but easy enough to understand, yes?
I can remember one vaguely, The Rational Reaction Squad (or Association or something). They actively recruit (?) people to reject organized religion, particularly Christianity. It's just their methods of propaganda, information, overall message and delivery are terribly unprofessional and smack of a college campus petition more than a credible social movement. They had some sort of 1/2 assed debate vs. Kirk Cameron (remember, Growing Pains
?) about the existance of God on Dateline or something. It was on a major network and laughable at best on both sides of the floor.Kirk is probably about as credible as the Atheist side was. Neither conducted themselves very professionally, looked professionally (c'mon, you're on TV, spruce up a little for your cause), or had very convincing arguements.
All I could think of was serious atheists and people of faith having beers together at the local bar watching this on TV and snickering to each other...
Like veteran soldiers on opposing sides of a war wondering how their own officers got to be so decorated for making bad calls, attempting to represent said forces w/ integrity and professionalism, but failing those soldiers horribly.
Saying God is doing everything is simply displacing the problem, it does not bring any new information or comprehension.
Neither does saying "its the laws of physics".... ;)
... lack of proof of one concept isn't sufficient to be proof of another in most cases. Just because we can't prove that fundamentally everything isn't a million little miracles doesn't mean that it is.
Again, you can't. The fact that water continues to flow down hill and that satellites don't arbitrarily fall out of orbit is not sufficient to prove or disprove any given deity or other supernatural force.
Neither is that proof of something called "the laws of physics".... The point is we cannot, by general arguement, tell the difference between God and the Laws of Physics; it could just as easily be either.....so saying God does not exist, whilst making a claim that the "laws of physics" do is not making a sound argument.
The Atheist says: show me God.
The Theist says: show me a law of physics
All the Atheist can show is what is claimed to be a law of physics but they cannot show any cause of such orderly behaviour. Atheists who look to "laws of physics" providing material order can offer no more evidence than your typical theist can offer for the existance of God.
-Joni
Neither does saying "its the laws of physics".... ;)
Neither is that proof of something called "the laws of physics".... The point is we cannot, by general arguement, tell the difference between God and the Laws of Physics; it could just as easily be either.....so saying God does not exist, whilst making a claim that the "laws of physics" do is not making a sound argument.
The Atheist says: show me God.
The Theist says: show me a law of physics
All the Atheist can show is what is claimed to be a law of physics but they cannot show any cause of such orderly behaviour. Atheists who look to "laws of physics" providing material order can offer no more evidence than your typical theist can offer for the existance of God.
The difference between God and the laws of physics is that the latter are testable, predictable and, perhaps most importantly, repeatable. God is none of those things.
One could ask "show me a law of physics" and be easily granted that wish.
Another might ask "show me God" and must be satisfied with the answer "only if it is God's will."
That your argument against the laws of physics is that "God might have done it that time" is pretty weak. If one can never tell the difference, then Occam's Razor points to the laws of physics being all that's there.
For God to exist in an interventionist form (ie, not just Deism), he must act contrary to physics, in an unpredictable way. Otherwise there's no need for him.
*Much wisdom*
This.
-Joni
The difference between God and the laws of physics is that the latter are testable, predictable and, perhaps most importantly, repeatable. God is none of those things.
One could ask "show me a law of physics" and be easily granted that wish.
Another might ask "show me God" and must be satisfied with the answer "only if it is God's will."
That your argument against the laws of physics is that "God might have done it that time" is pretty weak. If one can never tell the difference, then Occam's Razor points to the laws of physics being all that's there.
For God to exist in an interventionist form (ie, not just Deism), he must act contrary to physics, in an unpredictable way. Otherwise there's no need for him.
Now if only we can unify physics and quantum physics!
The difference between God and the laws of physics is that the latter are testable, predictable and, perhaps most importantly, repeatable. God is none of those things.
You can call it "the laws of physics" or you can call it "God making it happen". It is *impossible* for someone who believes it to be the "laws of physics" to prove what they call the "laws of physics" is not simply God making it happen in such a way. To say, categorically, that it is the "laws of physics" and not "God" is a statement of faith because the difference cannot be proven in the slightest.
One could ask "show me a law of physics" and be easily granted that wish.
Another might ask "show me God" and must be satisfied with the answer "only if it is God's will."
You can show me something that you claim to be the laws of physics....but you cannot show me how it is any different from God making it happen so.
That your argument against the laws of physics is that "God might have done it that time" is pretty weak. If one can never tell the difference, then Occam's Razor points to the laws of physics being all that's there.
For God to exist in an interventionist form (ie, not just Deism), he must act contrary to physics, in an unpredictable way. Otherwise there's no need for him.
It is not an arguement for the existance of God, its an arguement against the idea that simply stating that "its the laws of physics" makes it so rather than God in action.
These arguements are quantitative (sciences & the like) or qualitative (deific presence, etc). Never the 2 shall meet.
It's like tring to graph the "beautific characteristics" of a poem or discus the asthetics of 2+2. Apples and oranges.
You can call it "the laws of physics" or you can call it "God making it happen". It is *impossible* for someone who believes it to be the "laws of physics" to prove what they call the "laws of physics" is not simply God making it happen in such a way. To say, categorically, that it is the "laws of physics" and not "God" is a statement of faith because the difference cannot be proven in the slightest.
You can show me something that you claim to be the laws of physics....but you cannot show me how it is any different from God making it happen so.
It is not an arguement for the existance of God, its an arguement against the idea that simply stating that "its the laws of physics" makes it so rather than God in action.
I know what you mean, but if the laws of physics are indistinguishable from God making it happen, then you're using the word 'God' in the wrong way.
A deist's God creates the Universe and the laws of physics which govern it.
A theist's God does the same, and acts after that creation above those laws.
If God IS the laws of physics (i.e., saying 'it's the laws of physics' and 'it's God in action' are the same), then that God is no longer supernatural, omnipotent, omniscient etc. So why call it God?
I know what you mean, but if the laws of physics are indistinguishable from God making it happen, then you're using the word 'God' in the wrong way.
A deist's God creates the Universe and the laws of physics which govern it.
A theist's God does the same, and acts after that creation above those laws.
If God IS the laws of physics (i.e., saying 'it's the laws of physics' and 'it's God in action' are the same), then that God is no longer supernatural, omnipotent, omniscient etc. So why call it God?
I get what you are saying though you are drawing on the wrong conclusion.
It is not that God IS the law of physics. It is that the law of physics IS God.
The structure of the first way is saying that...that is all God is. While the second way is saying that it is apart of God...and there is more to it.
It is rather interesting to think about.
You know what I wonder...
Collective Consciousness...you know...that kinda herd mentality...
What I wonder does it happen on ever increasing scales...Like humanity>mammals>etc>etc>...then maybe earth?>solar system>galaxy>etc>etc>universe?
It would be interesting to find out that there is ever increasing scales of consciousness.
I know what you mean, but if the laws of physics are indistinguishable from God making it happen, then you're using the word 'God' in the wrong way.
A deist's God creates the Universe and the laws of physics which govern it.
A theist's God does the same, and acts after that creation above those laws.
If God IS the laws of physics (i.e., saying 'it's the laws of physics' and 'it's God in action' are the same), then that God is no longer supernatural, omnipotent, omniscient etc. So why call it God?
My point is that you cannot point to an event and say it was "the laws of physics" rather than "God" which made it happen.
For example; throw an apple up in the air and let it fall to the ground. Physicists will say that it was the force of gravity, under the law of gravity, which made it fall.....but can they point to anything that *IS* this force or law? Nope. They can no more point to a "something" than a Theist can point to "God", so to say it was "gravity" rather than "God's will" is an unsupportable thesis. "Laws of physics" is just a label that is applied to phenomenon but in itself tells nothing whatsoever more than a claim that "God did it".
Gotta love this stuff; I teach it at the local college and am just about to start my first years on the subject of "Creation" :D
When the guy throws the apple up in the air, should the physicist have enough time, he can calculate exactly how high the apple will go before it falls and hits the ground, and what speed the apple is travelling at any point in the arc, as well as the exact trajectory, all from the data of the guy throwing it (direction and speed of the hand, what point the apple left it etc). This then proves the force of gravity as a real, calculable entity.
Now, I happen to believe in a greater being/s than myself. Thing is, I don't believe anybody has the truth about this being, just small fragments of truth hidden within entire religions. I've always felt it a point to the detriment of our species' scorecard that some humans are so overpoweringly arrogant they seem to know what god wants for everybody.
This has drifted a little off track, but remains on topic, so...
To all those who think I'd be better off following your path:
Most of you have never met me, please don't presume to know my soul. God is greater than you in intellect, so I doubt you know what he wants from me. If he wants me to do something, I'm sure he has ways of telling me that I will find difficult to ignore. There's no need for you or anyone else to jump in. I have no problem with your faith, save the bit that makes you try to convince me to join you.
Errm, physicists can show you the laws of physics. They're written down in pretty much every physics textbook in existence, because if they weren't, what kind of physics textbook would it be?
Ah, well, you see, that is exactly the kind of assumption that is the problem ;)
You can never be shown a law of physics. All you can be shown is an event and then this is put forward as a result of an independent "Law of Nature". The catch is, where is this evidence for an independent source of causation? The "Laws of Physics" approach is just an unsubstantiatable theory on the orderliness of events however, just like the physicist says "show me God" we can say to the physicist "show me a law of physics".
When the guy throws the apple up in the air, should the physicist have enough time, he can calculate exactly how high the apple will go before it falls and hits the ground, and what speed the apple is travelling at any point in the arc, as well as the exact trajectory, all from the data of the guy throwing it (direction and speed of the hand, what point the apple left it etc). This then proves the force of gravity as a real, calculable entity.
And where is your evidence that it is not God making such happen? You are already postulating an invisible cause to these events, a "law of physics", so the arguement that a God notion would be an "addition" is a false point. Both sides postulate an "addition"; one side says "God" whilst the other side says "law of physics".
To all those who think I'd be better off following your path:
Most of you have never met me, please don't presume to know my soul. God is greater than you in intellect, so I doubt you know what he wants from me. If he wants me to do something, I'm sure he has ways of telling me that I will find difficult to ignore. There's no need for you or anyone else to jump in. I have no problem with your faith, save the bit that makes you try to convince me to join you.
Part of God's method of bringing you into the Kingdom is the evangelising of genuine Christians
;)Now if only we can unify physics and quantum physics!
I take it you don't know alot on the topic of physics. Actually, quantum physics and Newtonian physics are pretty well unified. We can show Newtonian physics is just a limit where Planck's constant tends to zero, it is thus the physics of non-degenerate objects. Newtonian physics is good to desbribe the macroscopic world. I give this exemple as an excercise to my students each year, they must use Quantum Mechanics to calculate the mean position of a car moving at a speed V. They soon find out that h is so small that the Heinsenberg Incertainty principle is meaningless on this scale.
alternatively: atheism is a religious belief just as bald is a possible hair style.
Sure, but that is missing the point. Not believing in something does not make a religion, nor does it imply faith. Since I adhere to the minimum action rule, I tend to try to keep my posts short. Mabe that was not clear. But as 1 ton ghost wrote so clearly, to qualifie as a religion you need two things: faith and an organisation. Atheist surely don't have any of these. Well, I'm sure you will argue with the first, the second being self-evident you will probably agree.
So the meaning of my quote was more on the faith aspect. You are saying having no faith is really having faith in nothing. So it is a different "kind" of faith. While I was using a pretty crude comparison to point out the fact that it is not a "kind" but a lack of faith. I don't beleive in a god, but I know what it takes for me to believe in one, hard repeatable evidence. What does it take for you to not believe in god? The answer if you have real faith is nothing. See the difference... if not, well I tried to explain my view.
Ah, well, you see, that is exactly the kind of assumption that is the problem
You can never be shown a law of physics. All you can be shown is an event and then this is put forward as a result of an independent "Law of Nature". The catch is, where is this evidence for an independent source of causation? The "Laws of Physics" approach is just an unsubstantiatable theory on the orderliness of events however, just like the physicist says "show me God" we can say to the physicist "show me a law of physics".
I put in bold the important statement. You are completly right. But where scientists use the word theory, hence a model that is valid in a certain domain of variables and that can be shown false, theist people use the word truth or faith. They implicitly assume that they are right without evidence.
Now, I cannot speak for all physicists, but I can speak for me. I don't believe in any Law of physics, I test them all the time in my lab. For, only one experiment can cast doubt in there validity. Now, does that say I believe in a source of causation? That is a major source of debate. If you look at the equations, they are almost always symmetric in time. So time could flow in any direction. What is the cause and the consequence?? Actually, if you look closer to physics, it really describes interactions, not cause and effects. Causation is only experimental, it depends on an observer and thus depends on the specific reference frame.
So I must conclude that causation is actually not fundamental to the existence of physics, but it is built in some models as a consequence of experiment. Ultimatly, that is the meaning of science. Logic applied to experimental results.
How do you know that what you call "The Laws of Physics" is not just God in action? Yes, I know the question can be turned around :D but the point firstly is to answer why your view is different from the Theist
Paul,
How do you know that what you call "The Laws of Physics" is not just God in action? Yes, I know the question can be turned around :D but the point firstly is to answer why your view is different from the Theist
Well the answer is pretty easy, I don't. For two reasons. Firstly, I don't inherently know anything. Everything I know comes from observation of nature. So, for me to know that God is at the basis of natural interaction, I would need a good experiment to show it. Now the complicated part would be to find such an experiment. So, without such proof, I limit myself to comprehend the interaction and catalogue nature. That is science.
Secondly, like I said, for me everything is a question of models, interpretations, probabilities and predictable results. Believing in atoms is not mandatory to use the model to calculate the rates of reaction. It is a simple model that gives good results. Now, why would a god need to be present to garantee those results? I see no reason for it.
So the difference is clear, I side with the evidence. I can admit I am wrong when someone shows me evidence that I am. While there is no evidence, there is only speculation. When I speak about god, I make sure everyone sees it is speculative. While theists can't, they must have faith, so they cannot doubt. They must hold it as truth and not speculation.
Now, I have gave you my honnest answer. Let me return the question. Why do you believe god is necessary for the existence of the Laws of Nature?
Is that really such a good comparison? My brother shaves his head regularly, for him, bald is a hairstyle, neh?
That was my point, yes.
Neither is that proof of something called "the laws of physics".... The point is we cannot, by general arguement, tell the difference between God and the Laws of Physics
Exactly. No proof for or against any deistic notion.
Sure, but that is missing the point. Not believing in something does not make a religion, nor does it imply faith. Since I adhere to the minimum action rule, I tend to try to keep my posts short. Mabe that was not clear. But as 1 ton ghost wrote so clearly, to qualifie as a religion you need two things: faith and an organisation. Atheist surely don't have any of these. Well, I'm sure you will argue with the first, the second being self-evident you will probably agree.
Eh, at most I'll argue that for some atheists it might as well be a religion. Some atheists are the philosophical sort and approach their reilgious beliefs from that angle, and some just insist that God is a silly concept and have faith that it is so. As for organization... I suppose if you want to define religion that way then you're right, but I wouldn't agree with that definition.
Anyway, my point was mostly that even if your religious beliefs can be best summarized as "none" you still have a response in that question box on the survey. Some exceptions occur.
And where is your evidence that it is not God making such happen? You are already postulating an invisible cause to these events, a "law of physics", so the arguement that a God notion would be an "addition" is a false point. Both sides postulate an "addition"; one side says "God" whilst the other side says "law of physics"
I'm sorry but are you about to claim that god makes the wind blow and not the differential heating of the air causing convection currents? Or that he makes the tides happen at an exact calculable level instead of, well, delegating it to the gravity of the moon and sun pulling the oceans better than that of earth?
Seriously, you're acting like god and the laws of physics are mutually exclusive. They're not. A brilliant engineer isn't going to make a machine that requires him to manually control everything. Humans build fridges and air conditioners with thermostats, and we all agree that a deity probably has a vastly superior intellect to us, so the laws of physics are like the thermostat, just for the universe, holding everything together, making the machine run smoothly. Even evolution isn't mutually exclusive to a greater power, natural selection means there's new creatures turn up without god having to break out the clay all the time. It's a program for the universe computer to make more complex life. That doesn't mean there's no programmer, it just means that the universe functions according to some ground rules, like an army having standing orders. The General doesn't go around and make sure every private's rooms are clean every day, he has corporals for that.
Besides, how would one be able to prove there are miracles if there are no rules (or laws) to be broken?
And btw, I'm not christian, I just reckon there's something up there somewhere and who am I to know the details?
As for organization... I suppose if you want to define religion that way then you're right, but I wouldn't agree with that definition.
Really? Maybe it's a langage thing then. For me, a religion is a system of beliefs and dogmas that rely on an official organization. That should not be confused with spiriuality which is a personal interaction with ones convictions.
Anyway, my point was mostly that even if your religious beliefs can be best summarized as "none" you still have a response in that question box on the survey. Some exceptions occur.
That means nothing. I mean, I also put none when asked if I comitted a crime or if I have STDs. I would also respond with "no" if someone asked me if I believe in Santa. All these answers don't really mean more then what they state.
I suspect you come from a different ideological basis then myself.
You say you have no faith/belief in the supernatural, and I label that as having faith/belief that there is no supernatural.
To explain my rationale, let's use an example: if there is an intangible, invisible, floating, smell-less, noise-less and taste-less unicorn hovering in the room, there is no way to prove or disprove it's existence. As such, stating for a fact either way is an act of faith. It may be a small faith, such as the simple faith in everyday things to keep on happening, but in the absence of conclusive evidence either way, it is faith all the same. Your faith that the intangible, invisible, floating, smell-less, noise-less and taste-less unicorn is not there may be based on sound reasoning, but it is still faith.
So even if you don't choose to call it as such, I would call your belief that there is no supernatural to be faith. It may be a faith more based in philosophy and reason then some other faiths, but I still call it that.
Your mileage may vary, and I don't see much profit from pursuing that line of discussion, as it seems to be a difference in opinions/perspective.
I take it you don't know alot on the topic of physics. Actually, quantum physics and Newtonian physics are pretty well unified. We can show Newtonian physics is just a limit where Planck's constant tends to zero, it is thus the physics of non-degenerate objects. Newtonian physics is good to desbribe the macroscopic world. I give this exemple as an excercise to my students each year, they must use Quantum Mechanics to calculate the mean position of a car moving at a speed V. They soon find out that h is so small that the Heinsenberg Incertainty principle is meaningless on this scale.
Sure, but that is missing the point. Not believing in something does not make a religion, nor does it imply faith. Since I adhere to the minimum action rule, I tend to try to keep my posts short. Mabe that was not clear. But as 1 ton ghost wrote so clearly, to qualifie as a religion you need two things: faith and an organisation. Atheist surely don't have any of these. Well, I'm sure you will argue with the first, the second being self-evident you will probably agree.
So the meaning of my quote was more on the faith aspect. You are saying having no faith is really having faith in nothing. So it is a different "kind" of faith. While I was using a pretty crude comparison to point out the fact that it is not a "kind" but a lack of faith. I don't beleive in a god, but I know what it takes for me to believe in one, hard repeatable evidence. What does it take for you to not believe in god? The answer if you have real faith is nothing. See the difference... if not, well I tried to explain my view.
I put in bold the important statement. You are completly right. But where scientists use the word theory, hence a model that is valid in a certain domain of variables and that can be shown false, theist people use the word truth or faith. They implicitly assume that they are right without evidence.
Now, I cannot speak for all physicists, but I can speak for me. I don't believe in any Law of physics, I test them all the time in my lab. For, only one experiment can cast doubt in there validity. Now, does that say I believe in a source of causation? That is a major source of debate. If you look at the equations, they are almost always symmetric in time. So time could flow in any direction. What is the cause and the consequence?? Actually, if you look closer to physics, it really describes interactions, not cause and effects. Causation is only experimental, it depends on an observer and thus depends on the specific reference frame.
So I must conclude that causation is actually not fundamental to the existence of physics, but it is built in some models as a consequence of experiment. Ultimatly, that is the meaning of science. Logic applied to experimental results.
I can't believe I get to keep talking about physics!
We can show Newtonian physics is just a limit where Planck's constant tends to zero, it is thus the physics of non-degenerate objects.
First point, planck's constant does not tend toward zero. It is constant.
I'm not sure what the physics of nondegenerate objects means.
Newtonian physics is good to desbribe the macroscopic world. I give this exemple as an excercise to my students each year, they must use Quantum Mechanics to calculate the mean position of a car moving at a speed V. They soon find out that h is so small that the Heinsenberg Incertainty principle is meaningless on this scale.
I take it this is what you mean by unified at the beginning: As the parameters leave those commonly associated with quatum mechanics and approach those associated with newtonian mechanics, the quantum mechanics solutions approach newtonian mechanics solutions as their limit.
Actually, if you look closer to physics, it really describes interactions, not cause and effects. Causation is only experimental, it depends on an observer and thus depends on the specific reference frame.
That is special relativity. In quantum mechanics, it is important to note that measuring a quantity affects a quantity, that is the uncertainty principle.
If you look at the equations, they are almost always symmetric in time. So time could flow in any direction.
I don't quite agree here. Newtonian mechanics could probably flow each way. However, like with quantum mechanics, relativistic mechanics is always the rule and just approaches the limit of newtonian mechanics without ever really reaching it. Time can't flow backward relativistically. Of course, I may have misunderstood you.
Ultimatly, that is the meaning of science. Logic applied to experimental results.
I concur.
Sorry for jumping in this way.
I just have faith in the existence of God. I thought I would say that.
But as 1 ton ghost wrote so clearly, to qualifie as a religion you need two things: faith and an organisation. Atheist surely don't have any of these.
About this we may disagree.
First, atheists are organized. I just googled 'atheist organizations' and:
http://www.atheists.org/
http://www.atheistalliance.org/
There are more but I do not think I need to go further. I hope someone didn't already cover this.
On faith, I believe they have it. They personally do not know all the laws of physics. They accept on faith that the things scientifically proven have been proven. They have faith that because science explains nature, a God is not required to do so...
I hope I didn't zoom in and miss that discussion too.
I just wanted to ramble physics...
That is special relativity. In quantum mechanics, it is important to note that measuring a quantity affects a quantity, that is the uncertainty principle.
Sure, but I fail to see where that implies causation. There is no new information added to the system. Sure, there is some information gained by the observer, but only on the existence of a state. Multiple measurements on similar systems can yield information on the probabilities of each states. Actually, the uncertainty principle can even break causation in the sense that it even destroys chronology. An example of this is the double slit experiment of Young. You cannot determine by which slit passed a photon. In quantum mechanics, you are even forced to integrate over ALL possible states and pathes. So even in quantum mechanics, we are really describing interactions, not causality.
I don't quite agree here. Newtonian mechanics could probably flow each way. However, like with quantum mechanics, relativistic mechanics is always the rule and just approaches the limit of newtonian mechanics without ever really reaching it. Time can't flow backward relativistically. Of course, I may have misunderstood you.
You can reverse the time flow in relativity by simply multiplying the metrix by minus one. Actually, it is even easier in relativity, because the equation are even more symmetric then in Newtonian physics. As for quantum physics, there is three great symmetries: parity P, charge C and time T. These symmetries where believed to be always respected, so time could be easily reversed. Now, we know certain interaction does not respect P, C or even CP. But, to my knowledge, there is no violations of T. So time can be reversed in the quantum world just like in Newtonian physics.
I concur.
Sorry for jumping in this way.
I just have faith in the existence of God. I thought I would say that.
Don't need to be sorry. You're opinion is as valid as mine on the subject.
About this we may disagree.
First, atheists are organized. I just googled 'atheist organizations' and:
http://www.atheists.org/
http://www.atheistalliance.org/
There are more but I do not think I need to go further. I hope someone didn't already cover this.
Never heard of those organisations before. I took a quick look at there websites. They look more like a political/judicial organisation. I mean they don't have any dogmas or philosophical guidance. If they are a religious organisation, then NORML (National Organisation for to Reform of Marijuana Laws) is a religious organisation also !!
On faith, I believe they have it. They personally do not know all the laws of physics. They accept on faith that the things scientifically proven have been proven. They have faith that because science explains nature, a God is not required to do so...
I hope I didn't zoom in and miss that discussion too.
I just wanted to ramble physics...
That would be a form of faith. But scientists know that theories are just models that can never be proven. They can gain weight and credance with numerous experimental successes, but they can never really be proven. We must always test the validity of the models with new innovative experiments. See where I am coming from, for me, God is a theory that as no real experimental success (yet..) so it doesn't have weight.
EscherEnigma : I think we really diverge only on opinion as you stated. As you can see, I can only describe my stance on God as suspended judgement. It is a theory that lacks fact. So, not ALL atheism imply a faith.
And where is your evidence that it is not God making such happen?
Where's your evidence that it isn't caused by invisible dragons with magical powers?
Uh oh! We can't prove that they aren't there! We'd better accept them as a definite possibility, then.
The flaw in your position here is that you appear to be treating "Laws of Physics" as though it were a singular entity, much like God is held to be. They are not. "Laws of physics" is just a fancy way of saying "the way that stuff happens". That's it. It's all just a bunch of stuff that happens because apparently that is how the universe works.
For example, we can determine through research, experience and experimentation that all bodies exert an attractive force on each other of a magnitude proportional to their mass. We've dubbed this force "gravity", and it is one of these "Laws of physics" you keep going on about.
So how do we prove that this phenomenon is caused by "gravity" and not by God? We don't have to, because "gravity" is just the term we use to describe the force. It doesn't matter if it's God, Zeus or Bahamut that causes it to happen; the force can be reliably demonstrated to exist, and we'd still be perfectly able to quantify it and label it "gravity" regardless or who or what happens to be behind it.
Gravity doesn't exist because it's a "law of physics"; it's a "law of physics" because it exists. What you are saying is that gravity (possibly) exists because God makes it happen. That may be true. It may not be. Can you prove it either way? Nope. That's the whole point. So why behave as though we do know?
If you define God is the universe, the Laws of Physics, etc, you effectively say miracles cannot happen, since natural principles are inherent to god. You also end up with a completely non-interventionist god, and so, prayer seems a little pointless if it cannot affect events in any way.
Concerning atheism and attacks on religion: I don't know much about that. Was religion- as a whole, not just specific ones- ever banned, in any country, and penalized heavily?
How about atheism: was it ever a crime, punishable by death, and if so, how many people have been executed for it?
Big question is: do miracles happen? Miracles are supposed to be things that cannot be explained rationally. Breaches of the laws of physics, if you prefer.
If you define God is the universe, the Laws of Physics, etc, you effectively say miracles cannot happen, since natural principles are inherent to god. You also end up with a completely non-interventionist god, and so, prayer seems a little pointless if it cannot affect events in any way.
That is a matter of perspective. It is dependent on the observer. One person may see many deal of things as a miracle...like the colors of the sunset or the blooming of a flower. It does not necessarily depend on whether they know the science behind it.
If you define God as the universe, Law of Physics, etc... you are not effectively saying miracles cannot happen. You also may or may not end up with a completely non-interventionist god. If there is a greater consciousness that we are all apart of and that is greater than us then we know that our consciousness has a great effect on ourselves and our environment.
Concerning atheism and attacks on religion: I don't know much about that. Was religion- as a whole, not just specific ones- ever banned, in any country, and penalized heavily?
There has been instances were one train of thought supresses others. In regards to theology it was done to early Christians and they later got to stretch their legs and do it to others. Theology is a branch of philosophy so perhaps another branch of philosophy may (or has) suppressed religion in a location. Don't really know.
How about atheism: was it ever a crime, punishable by death, and if so, how many people have been executed for it?
I am sure a fair share have died. Again, this comes back to being a minority within a majority. It would be hard to gauge the number of atheist that have died at the hands of theists.
This.
Concerning atheism and attacks on religion: I don't know much about that. Was religion- as a whole, not just specific ones- ever banned, in any country, and penalized heavily?
Religion was banned in Albania 1967-1999, I believe. Some pagan festivals survived, being deemed part of the nation culture, but that's it.
Concerning atheism and attacks on religion: I don't know much about that. Was religion- as a whole, not just specific ones- ever banned, in any country, and penalized heavily?
How about atheism: was it ever a crime, punishable by death, and if so, how many people have been executed for it?
The first would be a yes, soviet governments came down hard on the practice of religion under Stalin. The fact they would've come down hard on jaywalking if it was a political dissident is irrelevant to the question.
The Catholic church executed millions for lesser offenses than professing a disbelief of their particular flavored god. They would burn a person at the stake for arguing any point of theology, so I would say yes, some were executed.
There has been instances were one train of thought supresses others. In regards to theology it was done to early Christians and they later got to stretch their legs and do it to others. Theology is a branch of philosophy so perhaps another branch of philosophy may (or has) suppressed religion in a location. Don't really know.
One minor point. Theology is a branch of sociology, much like History, archaeology and anthropology.
I would say that philosophy is the most likely one to supplant the practice of religion as a focus of faith in some places. Buddhism is an excellent example of this. Buddhism is more a form of philosophy* than religion because of the lack of a godhead and the drive of the religion to become more than you were when you started out this life.
*yes, I'm going to ignore the bits of the Hindu religion that are still somewhat prevalent in Buddhism. Gautama Siddhartha Buddha was a Brahmin of the Hindu before reaching enlightenment, so much of the Hindu religion remains. Without the Hindu gods, Buddhism is more a philosophy of self-enlightenment than a true religion**.
** A religion without gods is a somewhat new concept, much like monotheism. Without deities, there is an argument to be made that it's philosophy rather than religion. Buddhism removes a god and replaces it with a being that has shown the path to enlightenment so it can be argued both ways. Although references to the Boddisattva of Compassion suggests a previous affiliation with the Hindu pantheon.
I love religion, it's such a Grade-A fustercluck that I think you could get 13 answers asking 12 theologians the same question.
Can one be religious, yet still believe, this life is all you get? and, is it a fundamental part of religion, to reject this world in favour of "the next one"?
I have seen it argued that religion is parasitic on society- it drains wealth from workers if favour of big monuments that don't actually do anything.
Is it fair to say this? and is the idea that religion places a lot more importance on an afterlife than on the material world?
Buddhism, and most othe religions believe in an afterlife, whether on earth as another person, or a heaven.
Yeah, it's pretty much a universal concept we've had since time out of mind. Even cultures and era that had no real contact w/ one another give the afterlife(s) a healthy nod and work towards that end to varying degrees. Some are obsessed (ancient Egyptians), some take it in stride as a natural progression (Buddhists). Personal matter IMO.
I don't think it's so compartmentalized in human-esque thinking though. That kind of finite thinking about something allegedly infinite is, well, stupid IMO. Whether it's "Christian Heaven" and then over in Row 'B', Column 2, Jewish Heaven, or Hell being "full" and getting a zombie problem...just seems daft. We're impressing human conceptualization on something that isn't. That is, you're dead, well, your human body is dead, so, moving on...
"You get what everybody else gets. You get a lifetime."
- Death, Sandman.
Can one be religious, yet still believe, this life is all you get? and, is it a fundamental part of religion, to reject this world in favour of "the next one"?
Sure, why not? Many ppl of intense faith simply think you wink out and body rots. Others of the same discipline acknowledge the polarity of Heaven/Hell or what have you. It's personal and not subject (IMO) to the opinions of others that don't really know given their, uh, anatomical handicap; they're still alive and haven't "transitioned", for lack of a better word and returned to say, "Hey guys, it's like this!"
And even if it was like "this", I still don't think it would be the same anyway. That is, your afterlife, to me, is custom fit to the soul...that's how we're unique anyway, inside. But that goes for existential punishment as well just like reward...if you believe that sort of thing, and if you don't, that's cool too.
To me (this is just theory, so everyone hold back on the red marks/critique), when you die, it's like this: personal/no specific format.
If you've lived a "good life" (that's relative, take it or leave it), you die, soul evacuates so to speak, and you "move on". I like to think you go to Heaven (not just for Christians mind you, atheists, Muslims, whatever), or your version thereof, see all your dead family/relatives, get your ?'s answered, and generally exist in a state of contentment, w/ the possibility of haunting if there's "unfinished business", reincarnation, and so forth to suit the individual. Cause it's about personal choice, right? God did hook us up nicely w/ a planet, technology, procreation, etc., too. But you gotta' pay the piper...
If you're "bad" though, I mean, truly depraved, Hitler-esque, well...Lake of Fire bound though I like to think you're given an opportunity to atone.
Anyway, the theories laid out to me by various clergy were relatively vague. Quite simply, "Hell is separation from God's love." ie)you have it since day 1 and onward, it's a natural aspect of life/death allegedly.
Losing it though, it's like the most abject lonliness, isolation, and depression ever. It's just like they say (IMO), you don't truly miss something until it's gone.
I have seen it argued that religion is parasitic on society- it drains wealth from workers if favour of big monuments that don't actually do anything.
I've seen it argued too. Depends on the platform and agenda(s) typically.
Of course, I've seen it argued that existential peace of mind, education, and developing a sense of community & belonging help society too.
It's a tool of humanity, you can use it for good or ill, that's it really.
Is it fair to say this? and is the idea that religion places a lot more importance on an afterlife than on the material world?
Depends entirely on the religion and the speakers/figureheads thereof. And even then, it comes down to the individual and their interpretation of religion 'x' as well despite the faith's tenets and precepts.
ex) Buddhism rejects materialism more or less, but there are plenty of ultra-wealthy, stout Buddhists that are very indentured & involved in the material world. Doesn't make them bad people necessarilly. It's just how they "got there" I suppose. Did it cause sufferering? Did their wealth and climb to riches help those in suffering? Are they in a position to do good/bad?
Conversely, there are paupers living hand to mouth that could be vile ppl too. There are a million independent variables to consider.
There's no real set formula, nor should there be IMO. Some thought riches would help you out in the afterlife. Others don't. Only 1 way to find out...;)
Buddhism, and most othe religions believe in an afterlife, whether on earth as another person, or a heaven.
Of course, because we're too petty and childish to understand that the dictates of the religious texts are there to form a set of rules that establishes a stable society. Without the threat of punishment and the possibility of reward, most people would exercise their most basic, selfish desires at the expense of their neighbors. Anarchy would rule and we'd be no more advanced than a troupe of baboons, hairless, ugly baboons.
God was always the big spanking, the punishment or reward at the end of life. There for the sole purpose of preventing the complete collapse of civilization. Our betters in ages past maintained the superstitious beliefs in order to ensure that individual thought or desires wouldn't run rampant within communities without sufficient mental ability to understand the need for the restraint of some expressions of those desires.
Religion is the opiate of the masses, it curbs the primal drives that would cause friction in our societies. It established a hierarchy within communities for the betterment of those communities. It was a little lie to hide the big lie. The only problem is that it's become stagnant. None of the modern religions allow for the arrival of new prophets. The expression of desires within the religious hierarchy has become widespread and deviant from the norm of our society.
The debate on the existence or non-existence of god has moved from the realm of educated men into the common population. The only problem is that the common population isn't ready for a world without the big payoff at the end of life. We've seen educated men fall to the fulfillment of their carnal desires with abandon.
Men like Dan Haggarty, preached the little lie while hiding their own behavior. They condemned what they did because the wanton pursuit of personal pleasure is anathema to a good and stable society. Religion provides a punishment that we in the physical world can't match.
As long as the people that adhere to any given faith obey the dictates of that religion, they'll never be concerned with the details being a bit fuzzy. Belief is key to controlling the actions of large portions of our population. They'll be good as long as they believe that being good will get them a better life the next time 'round. They'll take it on faith that you can't prove god exists because god doesn't want you to prove him, her or it.
Believe what you want, but believe none the less. If you're capable of understanding the non-existence of god, you should be capable of understanding that not everyone else is capable of it. Religion is needed to give comfort in times of need. Religion is the blanket that they pull over their head to keep the monsters under the bed from getting them. Don't take that away from them. Life is hard enough for some people without you trying to take away the one constant that they hold to be true. Prove physics, but leave god be.
In the end, what do I know? Anything I say can be argued. I am one voice among millions. My enlightenment, my reward, my afterlife is irrelevant to you and the other people with whom I share this world for a time. The religious might call me lost. The irreligious might call me deluded. I believe what I believe, as should you. I won't seek to shatter your beliefs because they don't conform to mine, but I may ask questions that you might find too much to consider. The questions, much like the answers are nothing more than one man seeking knowledge. And in the end, what do I know?
God was always the big spanking
LOL!!
How about atheism: was it ever a crime, punishable by death, and if so, how many people have been executed for it?
Slightly beside the point: some interesting observations about discrimination against atheism:
Language Contained in Constitutions in Various States
Arkansas' Constitution of 1874 (Article 19, Section 1) states: "Atheists disqualified from holding office or testifying as witness. No person who denies the being of a God shall hold any office in the civil departments of this State, nor be competent to testify as a witness in any Court."
South Carolina's Constitution of 2006 (Article 6, Section 2) states: "Person denying existence of Supreme Being not to hold office. No person who denies the existence of the Supreme Being shall hold any office under this Constitution."
Tennessee's Constitution/Bill of Rights (Article 9, Section 2) states: "No person who denies the being of God, or a future state of rewards and punishments, shall hold any office in the civil department of this state."
Texas' Constitution: The Bill of Rights (Article I, Section 4) last amended on September 13, 2003 states that an official may be "excluded from holding office" if she/he does not "acknowledge the existence of a Supreme Being."
Maryland's Bill of Rights:
o Article 36: "That as it is the duty of every man to worship God in such manner as he thinks most acceptable to Him, all persons are equally entitled to protection in their religious liberty; wherefore, no person ought by any law to be molested in his person or estate, on account of his religious persuasion, or profession, or for his religious practice, unless, under the color of religion, he shall disturb the good order, peace or safety of the State, or shall infringe the laws of morality, or injure others in their natural, civil or religious rights; nor ought any person to be compelled to frequent, or maintain, or contribute, unless on contract, to maintain, any place of worship, or any ministry; nor shall any person, otherwise competent, be deemed incompetent as a witness, or juror, on account of his religious belief; provided, he believes in the existence of God, and that under His dispensation such person will be held morally accountable for his acts, and be rewarded or punished therefore either in this world or in the world to come."
o Article 37: "That no religious test ought ever to be required as a qualification for any office of profit or trust in this State, other than a declaration of belief in the existence of God; nor shall the Legislature prescribe any other oath of office than the oath prescribed by this Constitution."
Eventually I'm certain they'll all be struck down. . . but for now they remain an integral part of state constitutions.
Have a nice day.
Eventually I'm certain they'll all be struck down. . . but for now they remain an integral part of state constitutions.
Actually, with the possible exception of Maryland, they might not be.
Without challenge in a court of law, they stay. Challenging them in the courts in the southern states will probably mean they would have to suffer defeat and appeal to the federal supreme court to reach a decision that would cause them to be struck down. Fighting a religiously inspired law in the bible belt isn't a quick and painless affair.
=1 ton ghost;
If you've lived a "good life" (that's relative, take it or leave it), you die, soul evacuates so to speak, and you "move on". I like to think you go to Heaven (not just for Christians mind you, atheists, Muslims, whatever), or your version thereof, see all your dead family/relatives, get your ?'s answered, and generally exist in a state of contentment, w/ the possibility of haunting if there's "unfinished business", reincarnation, and so forth to suit the individual. Cause it's about personal choice, right? God did hook us up nicely w/ a planet, technology, procreation, etc., too. But you gotta' pay the piper...
If you're "bad" though, I mean, truly depraved, Hitler-esque, well...Lake of Fire bound though I like to think you're given an opportunity to atone.
Anyway, the theories laid out to me by various clergy were relatively vague. Quite simply, "Hell is separation from God's love." ie)you have it since day 1 and onward, it's a natural aspect of life/death allegedly.
Losing it though, it's like the most abject lonliness, isolation, and depression ever. It's just like they say (IMO), you don't truly miss something until it's gone.
Not all Christians believe that you go to heaven, I included. Some believe that you will live an everlasting life, not afterlife, on a paradise earth. Much like Adam and Eve, before they sinned. Heaven is were God, Jesus and other "spirit creatures" live.
Also some believe that hell is not a firey pit of torment. Fire is used to describe hell, hedes, sheol and gehenna. Fire does something else besides burn, it destroys. So the dead are conscious of nothing at all.
Actually, with the possible exception of Maryland, they might not be.
Without challenge in a court of law, they stay. Challenging them in the courts in the southern states will probably mean they would have to suffer defeat and appeal to the federal supreme court to reach a decision that would cause them to be struck down. Fighting a religiously inspired law in the bible belt isn't a quick and painless affair.
Indeed. But eventually, given a challenge, I'm pretty sure that they will not stand. It's the waiting for someone to challenge them part that might take a while.
Fire does something else besides burn, it destroys.
No, not biblically. Fire doesn't destroy, it purifies, it cleanses and it carries the word of god unto the prophets. Much like in the story of Prometheus, fire brings man into close proximity to god. Even in the story of Revelations, the lake of fire is a place the wicked and sinful go for a thousand years before being returned to the embrace of their creator. Nowhere does it say they're destroyed, it says punished for a thousand years.
No, not biblically. Fire doesn't destroy, it purifies, it cleanses and it carries the word of god unto the prophets. Much like in the story of Prometheus, fire brings man into close proximity to god. Even in the story of Revelations, the lake of fire is a place the wicked and sinful go for a thousand years before being returned to the embrace of their creator. Nowhere does it say they're destroyed, it says punished for a thousand years.
I'm saying that when you die there is nothing. Like what Ecclesiastes 9:5 says, "For the living are conscious that they will die, but as for the dead, they are conscious of nothing at all...". If they are being burned in hell, then they would be conscious that they are being burned.
I'm saying that when you die there is nothing. Like what Ecclesiastes 9:5 says, "For the living are conscious that they will die, but as for the dead, they are conscious of nothing at all...". If they are being burned in hell, then they would be conscious that they are being burned.
By God atheists can agree with the bible!
The world is gonna splode!
I'm saying that when you die there is nothing. Like what Ecclesiastes 9:5 says, "For the living are conscious that they will die, but as for the dead, they are conscious of nothing at all...". If they are being burned in hell, then they would be conscious that they are being burned.
It is a distinct possibility, but the likelihood that it the popular culture notion of fire everywhere, pitch forks, and devils-a'poppin' seems, um, off. I mean, if we really knew what to expect, that would kind of detract from the damnation and/or torture. The uncertainty of what tormet(s) you might get is probably a more likely case...
Though I don't think there's any 1 textbook punishment in this respect. That is to say, I kind of subscribe to the notion that it's akin to "Hellraiser" in that everyone gets their own customized Hell as we're all unique little souls.
ie)a nasty **** gets raped for eternity by little undead children might be one of his many punishments in poetic fashion, not simply being completely cognitive while you burn.
Others, as mentioned earlier, speculate it's just seperation from God's love, but the intense deific/spiritual isolation & alienation could be the ultimate horror. Conversely, Heaven, Nirvana, Valhalla, whatever, might be the ultimate joy or sense of acceptace/belonging, but breaking it down into a series of dynamic opposites as humans are prone to do, is probably stupid. That is, being human and thinking as one, that kind of immense monolithic wisdom could blow your mind or do something, uh, not good.
Who knows. But getting cut off from "the source" as it were might truly be Hell. We are social creatures and dependent on one another and the newly orphaned child's despair is some of the worst sorrow one would know by a crude comparison, but is not the most accurate model for this hypothetical. Just trying to get some sort of bearing per this theory.
There's a million names for such choice infernal real estate though, but I don't think the locale (state of mind? void? bleh?) is static for us. "Gehenna", for instance, was an actual site back in the day (Holy Land) where pagan sacrifices of fire were made, namely of children. We're all familiar w/ "Hades" from high school mythology I trust. "Sheol" is Jewish pseudo-Hell. "Golgotha" (the place of the skull) the scene of the crucifixion was rumored to be a place of sacrifice too, Hell-esque, not just legal sentencing...though crucifixion was the absolute worst sentence you could receive at the time under Roman authority. And lastly, the Dept. of Motor Vehicles is our current incarnation of Hell here on the Prime Material.
Sheol is much how Rizen describes it.
Or Gehenna, the place they used to burn the garbage of the city in Jerusalem. A foul place, nearly always stinking of refuse and offal, with piles of smoldering, stinking waste from the city. It even fit with the pattern of Judaism calling anything sinful as "unclean".
Sheol is much how Rizen describes it.
Oh, tell me about it.
Last time I was there they lost my luggage, our taxi ripped us of, the weather sucked the entire time and the minibar was totally empty.
And lastly, the Dept. of Motor Vehicles is our current incarnation of Hell here on the Prime Material.
AGREED!
and another hell is getting any paperwork, or ducuments from a local courthouse..... our local hell even has armed guards with metal detectors.
I didnt understand why until I made it in and had to deal with the woman behind the counter on the second floor. She was behind 2 inches of Bulletproof glass.
after 5 seconds of talking to her I immediately wished I had a gun so I could shoot her between the eyes...
every second after that was torture equivalent to having my balls hard boiled in canola oil.
I felt that the only way to alleviate the pain would be to stab or shoot this woman.
So I eventually left. Burned, and angry....I turned to see the she-devil smirking at me.
And as for the hell topic.....people will believe what they want to believe despite the bibles clear text. And when people make up their minds no amount of direct proof will change them.
The election is the same way. If i showed proof to a McCain supporter that he was a ****...That individual 9 outta 10 times will still support McCain.
I dont want to call it human nature...because I happen to be a human...but it seems to be so.
I worked in mental health for years...so I know the intense therapy people go through to change their train of thought..humans are generally VERY unreasonable.
I worked in mental health for years...so I know the intense therapy people go through to change their train of thought..humans are generally VERY unreasonable.
Worked? As in past tense? My question would be as to whether it was voluntarily or involuntarily made into the past tense.
So help me, if you try and turn this into a skit from Clue I will be forced to find a candlestick.
Eh?
The Jewish people I've meet don't act like that, they never really specify if hell is a burning place or that your spirit dies with your body (at least not the ones I've meet). To them hell isn't very important in their faith.
Absolutely. Kinda.
My experiences say that hell really is a bad place to be, judging from the few friends I have that are Jewish. Although they tell me that hell is just a distance as far from the presence of god as he can imagine. To be sent away from god is the worst punishment that any one of them could imagine. They're fairly devout, and that means that they avoid the things that would find them banished from god's sight, so I guess it isn't terribly important to them.
Now, morality should not depend on 'what if's. Morality should be grounded in our humanity. It should be a consequence of empathy and the necessity to live in society. In a way, society should by the reward of morality.
On a lighter note, I think the bible (you could replace the bible with other religious texts in this discussion) should be interpreted as allegories that forge a moral derived from millenia of experiences in society. It is the wisdom of bronze aged men. It should not be interpreted litteraly as some Christians do. An example:
Isaiah 30:26
Moreover the light of the moon shall be as the light of the sun, and the light of the sun shall be sevenfold, as the light of seven days, in the day that the LORD bindeth up the breach of his people, and healeth the stroke of their wound.
From this, we can show that the quantity of the radiation received by the faithful is immense. We can calculate the temperature reached by Heaven which is around 560 Celsius. ( To do this, use the Stephan-Boltzamnn law.)
Now, another passage says:
Revelation 21:8
But the fearful, and unbelieving, and the abominable, and murderers, and *****mongers, and sorcerers, and idolaters, and all liars, shall have their part in the lake which burneth with fire and brimstone: which is the second death.
Well Brimstone is sulfur, which is a simple element (Z=16, A = 32) that as a fusion point of 444.6 Celsius. So, if we litteraly use the bible, the temperature of Heaven and Hell are pretty much the same.
Now, I know this doesn't show anything. It is merely an amusing taught experiment and a good problem using the Stephan-Boltzman law. It is a good example of the allegoric nature of the bible. Quotes such as these doesn't have any real meaning. The meaning is derived from whole texts.
EDIT: Wow, the filters put stars in a quote from the bible !!!
And what did you think of it?
And when people make up their minds no amount of direct proof will change them...
...humans are generally VERY unreasonable.
How. Very. True.
I believe that after death, we return to a state similar then the one we had before birth, we decompose into different proteins and organic molecules. Our consciousness disapears, like the calculation power of a computer shred to its constituents.
Possibly, zombies aren't the most informative/persuasive test subjects. ;)
The logical portion of my faith acknowledges the possibility, but the responsible component recalls in tandem, "Energy can't be destroyed, it only changes forms." This is is kind of my platform for alot of the unexplained and paranormal for humanity. But one must be careful comingling science and spiritualism, yes? Moving on.
Life energy, being just that, energy, and though our shells, allegedly, do rot and "beareth much fruit" and bla bla bla, I cannot help but think all of the potential/kinetic energy of a human lifetime might foster the distinct possiblity of ghosts or whatever notion one might appeal to as sentience in a different state, most notably an entity not hanidcapped (blessed?) w/ flesh and bone. This energy just existing in a different state.
This is a popular notion I've seen many atheists subscribe to in an attempt to explain apparitions and so on w/out the benefit and/or hampering of religious overtones. Some would argue scientifically the evidence exists, others rely on existential thinking to support "existance" beyond dead bodies. I like to weigh both if that's not venturing too much...
Scientificaly speaking, usually, the "ghost stories" of old revolve around premature death and unusual circumstances. That is, the energy in its host form isn't allowed to run its natural course over a typical chronology and expire/transition normally (an average human life cycle). Like an equation of energy 'x', if you throw in some odd independent variable, you know, like early violent death, you're going to get an answer in said formula that isn't the same as the typically "normal" ones or normal lifetimes.
People dying young or bizarre deaths giving rise to rumor of cool (temperature) patches in the corner, unusual ambient light, voices (certain frequencies), etc. All different forms of energy, but this is major speculation, not set in stone by any means...
Spiritually, that and it's reaching Halloween/All Saints Day so I guess it fits the theme of late a little bit. Just throwing that out there. Perhaps one day we can measure ghostly presence and have a healthy joining of faith/science and not lock horns so much.
Any of you atheists believe in paranormal activity? If so, what?
In Jeremiah 7, God is talking and says (Jer.7:31) "and they have built the high places of To'pheth which is in the valley of the son of Hin'nom, in order to burn their sons and daughters in the fire, a thing that I had not commanded and that had not come up into my heart".
What would you think of a parent who held his child's hand over a fire to punish the child for wrong doing? "God is love", (1 John 4:8) would he do what no right minded human parent would do?
On the account that no two Christians can agree completely on their interpretation of the Bible, is frankly not correct (at least not for the JW). If that was true then my congregation wouldn't be having the exact same bible study as every other congregaion of the same religion across the U.S and probably the whole world every Sunday.
I have always argeed with my teacher, I enjoy learning from him. We may not "agree completely" on things outside our religious beliefs.
Do you think the earth is a living thing?
I believe there can be thought without form and there is a lot more happening around us that happens beyond our senses.
That reminds me of Dark Matter.
Do you think the earth is a living thing?
Like Final Fanasty 7 ? I have nothing to basic any belief that the earth is alive. It doesn't have blood or reproduce. It has life upon it, but without water and its atmosphere, its the same as any other planet.
That reminds me of Dark Matter.
Like Final Fanasty 7 ? I have nothing to basic any belief that the earth is alive. It doesn't have blood or reproduce. It has life upon it, but without water and its atmosphere, its the same as any other planet.
Well...let us look at Mars...
I think it doesn't have an atmosphere because it does not have a EMF field...and it does not have a EMF field because it doesn't have an active core.
edit - Well planets being alive/dying/etc
Well...let us look at Mars...
I think it doesn't have an atmosphere because it does not have a EMF field...and it does not have a EMF field because it doesn't have an active core.
edit - Well planets being alive/dying/etc
Alright, earth is alive because it's has an active core. I've heard Mars called a "dead planet".
Gezz you shouldn't take that crap !
Well if I had faith that my bf or husband was going to cheat on me, I'd go to Walmart and buy a large summer sausage and smack him in the face with it.
If I had faith that my friends were waiting to stab me in the back, I'd pay some guy to give them the goat.
If I thought my life wasn't going to get better I'd go listen to Taking back Sunday or the Hawthorne Heights.
This is coming from a person who doesn't put up with any BS. I first show kindness and if its s*** on, then I'll open up a can of wup ass. Its always the nice quiet people who snap and are really scary !
I whole heartedly believe that Satan rulers this world and not God.
I really don't. it's mostly that i'm paraniod. when i'm not paranoid that that type of stuff will happen is when it does.
I believe there can be thought without form and there is a lot more happening around us that happens beyond our senses.
Do you think the earth is a living thing?
Thought has no form. There isn't scientific explaination as to why we think. There is very little recordable evidence of thought, much less an explanation of what causes it or where specifically it comes from. What makes us individual is thought but there isn't much difference between the parts that thought is attributed to that would explain the vast range of thought and personality among us silly, talking monkeys.
--------------------------------------------------------------------
Wouldn't you call the earth a living thing? Think for a moment about any given creature or plant on the earth and then think about what it consumes and where that comes from. Bacteria, plants, animals and insects all contribute the food source for one of the others.
We all know that plants get energy from the sun, but they also absorb the waste from earthworms and animals that have fed on previous generations of plants. Additionally, plants are an important step in providing that oxygen all animals breathe and evaporating liquid water into the atmosphere so that the sources of fresh water inland can be fed by the rains.
Understanding the role of every living thing on earth in relation to the other living things paints us a picture of life existing to sustain other lives. From the cyanobacteria that reduced the sulfuric acid seas of the primordial earth all the way up to you and your dog, everything eats or feeds something else.
No one knows what sparked the existence of the first amino acids in the primordial ooze, but since that first spark of life we've been sharing it back and forth across countless millions of years. From the first one-celled organisms breaking down the superheated seas of poisonous and corrosive acids to your dog taking a crap on your neighbors lawn, we are all connected. We all share that life, hoping to pass it on to our young through reproduction and eventually sharing it with everything through decomposition.
Do I think the earth is a living thing?
I think it doesn't have an atmosphere because it does not have a EMF field...and it does not have a EMF field because it doesn't have an active core.
It doesn't have an atmosphere because it was too far distant from the sun for Cyanobacteria to develop to break down the seas it doesn't have.
As for the EMF, if it had an Iron core like the earth does, it would have that EMF as well as the building block that we mammals all share. Carbon is nice, but without Iron, none of us would be here.
I think Mercury is the only planet (remember, Pluto's not a planet anymore ;) ) without any real atmo. The gas giants are almost nothing but. Venus has a pretty thick one, it's just really nasty and hot.
I personally don't believe the Earth, as in the planet itself, is living. I don't think any planet is "alive". Now, the ecosystem residing on it is different. It's almost a living thing; it has many of the characteristics, at the least.
That said, I tend to not to anthropomorphize very many things; others may due so differently, due to a different set of beliefs (just like I believe I know pretty well where the initial spark of life came from ;) ).
I personally don't believe the Earth, as in the planet itself, is living. I don't think any planet is "alive". Now, the ecosystem residing on it is different. It's almost a living thing; it has many of the characteristics, at the least.
Do you forget that the soil (earth), is made up of the decayed and decaying remains of millions of years of living things? Very little of the surface of our world is the bare rock that could be called unliving.
Even where the bedrock is exposed, how much of that is sedimentary? Would you consider the coral proof of the earth's life? How about the shifting surface that makes mountains? Or the volcanoes that grow the rock on the surface of our world? Are none of these proof of the life of our world?
Sorry, I am an animist. I do anthropomorphize the world around me. It's amusing that my backwards and primative religion has no problem whatsoever accepting evolution. Funny ol' world, ennit?
quote from goblin_pride
Do you forget that the soil (earth), is made up of the decayed and decaying remains of millions of years of living things? Very little of the surface of our world is the bare rock that could be called unliving.
Even where the bedrock is exposed, how much of that is sedimentary? Would you consider the coral proof of the earth's life? How about the shifting surface that makes mountains? Or the volcanoes that grow the rock on the surface of our world? Are none of these proof of the life of our world?
Personally, I'm agnostic.
Being based of the Greek* word "gnosis" agnostic can be directly translated as "not knowing" which actually makes the OP fairly close on target when he called it "I dunno"
Being agnostic doesn't mean that you cannot follow an organized religion, refuse to do the same or anything in between.
- I know many Christians who make no claim to indisputable knowledge of the existance of God.
- I know a lot of people who don't believe in a conscious/sentient god, believing that some force created the world but refusing to believe that it has as simple motivations as is attributed to it by organized religion.
Quite personally, whether you call it a God, a force of nature or anything else doesn't really matter to me. It's not like it'll matter on this side of death anyway.
* Likely it's just ancient greek. I have practically no experience with the modern greek language.
I never had the chance to meet zombies (does me in the morning count??) or ghosts. I must admit I don't believe in there existence.
Firstly, that was largely sarcasm initially to help lighten an otherwise heavy scene.
But...
Their existance is a farce depending on the source. Different incarnations, be they old wives tales, urban myths, or old archival pieces.
Ex) "zombies" in the traditional sense of walking, rotting automotons aren't real unless you have tuned into the Dem/Rep political rallies lately. ;) So sad.
But then you get these Haitians experimenting w/ some pretty intense neurotoxins and psychological manipulations making "zombies" work at sugar plantations back in the day. This has been documented and was very real. Science there, not (Su). Broken down on the molecular level, the stuff (drugs) is fierce, the accounts horrific, the manipulation, genuine.
RELATED: just a though...Like jihadism, petro-rite vodoun practicioners have hijacked an element of their faith (regular voodoo) and exploited it, typically for commercial/social gain, whereas radical Islam has usurped typical Islam for political gain. I guess you could draw an allusion to a "Muslim zombie" of this day and age so to speak being someone so easilly duped and suggestable (zombie-ish
) that they would throw their life away (and most everyone at the town bazarre) via suicide bombing. Perhaps a bit of a stretch, but parallels to everything. But that's any faith though...Ghosts, I don't know myself either, though there were a few times in my life where I had to 2nd guess myself. Many examples I could give, but I feel I would be in error posting them; it might be construed as a waste of time given they are just eye witness testimony, not empirical data.
Not sure if ghost is a good term either. I like to entertain the notion that existancecan be real after death in several different spheres of influence and means. Whether it's force of will/personality sustaining consciousness w/out the benefit of host body, psychic energy, God's will, disbelief that you've "expired", whatever, we should not rule out the possibility given such breadth and long history from earthen chronologies & widely different cultures all having reports that would allude to the possibilities thereof.
Not saying I have the answers, just saying that we should entertain the notion of their existance, much like I believe the scientific (wo)man should entertain the notion of God's existance, cuz', as in the scientifc, natural world, there is always a bigger fish.
I must admit I don't believe in aliens, dragons and any other mythical creature. Always the same problem, there is no hard repreducible data showing there existence.
Aliens, eh...if they exist, the generic reported ones we hear of, to me, are probably just really evolved humans studying us just as we study apes. Who knows. The visual accounts synching up (at least the pseudo-credible ppl
, which is saying something) are quite rational scientifically speaking, not the recount of the experience they had.That is, we are projected to look like the typical aliens that are reported after further evolution: we get taller and thinner, lose all body hair, later, head hair, brain mass (head) gets larger, then we get thinner still, and then shorter, eyes get much larger given dependance as primary sense while ears & noses less so, etc. This fits nearly the same format of primate evolution too and is sound reasoning. Just a theory though, pay it no mind.
At the end, it boils down to the soul. We don't have any experimental evidence once again. So this theory should be put on hold for now, we should use other theories that have more experimental weight.
That's all fine and well, I just wanted to get the ball rolling, not endorse a theory as gospel. I think divininity alone & the crazy pagentry of life might support life after death, but on a scientific level, the staggering complexity of our species alone, our sentience, and so forth might give credance to the possibility of "somethign more".
One interesting note. We know that energy and mass are the same thing (E=mc^2). If "life" really was an energy, then we should be able to measure a mass difference. To my knowledge, this was never the case.
You have mistaken me, but I like where your head's at in terms of raw science. Perhaps one day we might be able to. Did you see "21 Grams"?
I did not simply mean "life energy" like D&D's positive & negative energies and respective planes. Dynamic opposites need not apply here. It's (IMO) a theoretical amalgamation of different energies (chemical, electro magnetic, etc.) that culminate into a gestalt of such immense complexity/beauty that there is probably some super entity/divinity/etc. that kicked it off. Again, theory.
. I'm rather excited to see the outcome of the proton excelerator (sp?), as long as it doesn't make a black hole !
now if you think a fish tank is alive than I won't argue that point...because if someone thinks a fish tank is alive then they are delusional, or hallucinating. I don't argue with people who are psychotic.
sure the pump runs on electricity, and spits out bubbles of air.... but that hardly qualifies...
when someone can show me a fish tank give birth to a baby fish tank, or even a fish tank divide into 2 seperate self replicating tanks....then I will listen.
Now that I think about it...It would be pretty cool to see the Earth open up and birth a baby planet. It could spin around like the moon until it matures enough to go and start its own solar orbit. LOL
Worked? As in past tense? My question would be as to whether it was voluntarily or involuntarily made into the past tense.
was there a reason for the cheap shot? Had you asked politely I may have given you an answer, but you couldn't pass up the oppurtunity for a cheap shot...
just because I was a shrink does not mean I am a nice guy. I don't have to treat everyone here like patients or clients.
If you feel like paying me I can help you understand your problems, but I don't work for free.
now if you think a fish tank is alive than I won't argue that point...because if someone thinks a fish tank is alive then they are delusional, or hallucinating. I don't argue with people who are psychotic.
Delusional or hallucinating?
A fishtank is a pocket ecosystem, the fish only survive if the ecosystem is alive. Without the pump to regulate the air, the whole thing dies. Without the fish to consume the micro-organisms that live in the water, they breed the water brackish. Without the micro-organisms, the waste from the fish builds up, putrefying the water. No one part can survive without the others, so they're like organs in a living body. It's no different than a coral reef, but alot easier to see.
Delusional or hallucinating?
A fishtank is a pocket ecosystem, the fish only survive if the ecosystem is alive. Without the pump to regulate the air, the whole thing dies. Without the fish to consume the micro-organisms that live in the water, they breed the water brackish. Without the micro-organisms, the waste from the fish builds up, putrefying the water. No one part can survive without the others, so they're like organs in a living body. It's no different than a coral reef, but alot easier to see.
now to put this out there for your and my clarity.....do you think the 4 panes of glass and the electric pump are living organisms?
please select from answers below:
A) yes
B) no
C) santa clause
D) all the above
(no offence im just making myself laugh as I type...)
now to put this out there for your and my clarity.....do you think the 4 panes of glass and the electric pump are living organisms?
please select from answers below:
A) yes
B) no
Do I think a lung or skin alone are living things? If you plop down just the lung of any living creature without the associated creature, it is not a living thing. The same holds true of it's skin.
If you look at just the 4 panes of glass and the pump, no, they're not living things, but they're also not a fishtank by themselves, are they? They're the bits that provide what is essentially life support for a fishtank. The whole fishtank, the glass, the pump, the bacteria, the water, the fish, et cetera is a living thing.
Do I think a lung or skin alone are living things? If you plop down just the lung of any living creature without the associated creature, it is not a living thing. The same holds true of it's skin.
If you look at just the 4 panes of glass and the pump, no, they're not living things, but they're also not a fishtank by themselves, are they? They're the bits that provide what is essentially life support for a fishtank. The whole fishtank, the glass, the pump, the bacteria, the water, the fish, et cetera is a living thing.
well if you plop down a lung or a skin they will be alive. Perhaps not for long, as the individual cells will die without the support of the body.
so are they alive? yes...BUT their future will be short and bleak..
sry if i sound like the 'well actually' guy... I always hate that guy.
you are using the word 'living' in a different context than I....both are right.
you speak in a more generic term...one that can be applied to the planet, a fishtank, a pond, a campfire, or even the SUN. (as opposed to a dead dwarf star)
take this zen here...
is the sun living? yes
is the sun alive? no
you are using the word 'living' in a different context than I....both are right.
Welcome to Animism. Everything is part of something else, some living thing. The lines are clear, but the picture is still a bit hazy around the edges. While I am an individual, I am still part of the whole. If I am gone, the greater whole suffers* for the lack of me, but will adapt.
*I'm not sure my purpose in the ecosystem isn't just to feed the squirrels outside my apartment. But that's not really important, is it?
Welcome to Animism. Everything is part of something else, some living thing. The lines are clear, but the picture is still a bit hazy around the edges. While I am an individual, I am still part of the whole. If I am gone, the greater whole suffers* for the lack of me, but will adapt.
*I'm not sure my purpose in the ecosystem isn't just to feed the squirrels outside my apartment. But that's not really important, is it?
...I really hope that squirrel feeding is indirect*, because otherwise you might want to move. Like, now.
*Indirect meaning: you die, are buried, decompose into the earth, help a tree with nuts on it grow, squirrel eats nuts.
You have mistaken me, but I like where your head's at in terms of raw science. Perhaps one day we might be able to. Did you see "21 Grams"?
No I haven't. But I went and read the synopsis and it seems pretty interesting. I will maybe look it up, if my wife is interested.
I find Dark Matter very interesting, it's invisible and undetectable.. hmmm .
I'm rather excited to see the outcome of the proton excelerator (sp?), as long as it doesn't make a black hole !
Yes, dark matter is pretty interesting, but I must say it is detectable. We even have maps showing where dark matter should exist in the universe. We call it dark, because it does not interact with light. But it does interact via the gravitationnal fields.
The existence of dark matter was first speculated to understand strange experimental data. If you look at rotational curves of galaxies, graphes showing the speed of rotation of stars with respect to there distance from the center of the galaxy, you see that it increases and then becomes constant. Which is strange, because after the initial increase, due to the sharp increase of the mass inside the orbit, there should be a Keplerian decrease. Which we do not observe. If you look at far reaching stars, they rotate so fast that they should be ejected from the galaxy. There was only two things to understand: our models for gravity are not valid at these scales or there is invisible matter.
After this initial observations, we have many other data that tend towards the existence of dark matter: movements in galaxy clusters, nucleosynthesis in the early universe, gravitationnal lenses, etc.
As a final note, I hope there will be formation of black holes in the LHC. This will be proof that the universe as more then 4 dimensions, validating many string-theories. The black holes are infinitesimal, about a billion times smaller then the nucleus of atoms. There mass will be that of two protons, so the gravitationnal force will be negligable at distances really smaller then the mean distance between atoms. So they will not interact with matter, even less then neutrinos. They could pass thrue the earth without even seeing it. So the probability of it engulfing anything is so small to not even bother thinking about it. Another important note, the are so small that the curvature of space-time around it will be sufficient to suck in enough anti-matter, from the quantum fluctuations of vacuum, for it to disapear in 10^-20 seconds (if I my memory is acurate). It will disappear in the production of two photons without any particule production. So there signature is pretty clear inside the detector.
*Indirect meaning: you die, are buried, decompose into the earth, help a tree with nuts on it grow, squirrel eats nuts.
For the time being, yes. I just gather or buy and store the nuts until it's time to put them out for the little buggers. The same holds true for the birds that nest around here as well. And the woodchucks, raccoons and possums....
Other people keep their pets indoors, I guess I'm weird because the pets I put out food for live out in the wild. I've been blessed by their presence though. The wild flowers that grow around where the birds feed are beautiful in the springtime and the squirrels have planted at least three new trees by burying the walnuts and acorns I've gathered for them. I've even seen hawks come because of the number of pigeons and starlings that are drawn here.
I just hope someone else will take over when my time here is up. It would be a shame to see such a thriving ecosystem disappear for lack of tending. I don't think it will, the flowers produce seed for the birds and the trees grow nuts for the squirrels. But I would be more than happy to be planted so that the flowers and trees could eat.
Now that I think about it...It would be pretty cool to see the Earth open up and birth a baby planet. It could spin around like the moon until it matures enough to go and start its own solar orbit. LOL
Technically though...when the earth splodes...there is a chance that what makes it well go into helping make something else.
I think in the future we will expand our definition of life.
sidenote...
Paul what is up with the Spooky Effect?!
Well the answer is pretty easy, I don't. For two reasons. Firstly, I don't inherently know anything. Everything I know comes from observation of nature. So, for me to know that God is at the basis of natural interaction, I would need a good experiment to show it. Now the complicated part would be to find such an experiment. So, without such proof, I limit myself to comprehend the interaction and catalogue nature. That is science.
Nope, that is an assumption that "the laws of physics" are not just God making such happen. Where is the evidence to choose one side over the other?
Now, I have gave you my honnest answer. Let me return the question. Why do you believe god is necessary for the existence of the Laws of Nature?
I know events in the universe to be orderly; I see the creator of orderly events to be God. Others call the creator of such orderly events "the laws of physics" yet what are "laws of physics"? What is it that is being alluded to by such a notion?
Seriously, you're acting like god and the laws of physics are mutually exclusive.
I'm saying that there is no evidence to say "its the laws of physics, not God, that makes events happen".
Where's your evidence that it isn't caused by invisible dragons with magical powers?
I'm not asking for evidence that it isnt something. I'm asking for evidence that it is one thing, the laws of physics, and not another thing, God's will in action.
The flaw in your position here is that you appear to be treating "Laws of Physics" as though it were a singular entity, much like God is held to be. They are not. "Laws of physics" is just a fancy way of saying "the way that stuff happens". That's it. It's all just a bunch of stuff that happens because apparently that is how the universe works.
Exactly :D
Events happen because of an orderly causal factor. Some call it "the laws of physics" whilst others say "it was God's will". Where is the evidence that it was the former rather than the latter? Those who slate the "it was God" approach usually claim to do so on the basis of evidence; where is the evidence?
Big question is: do miracles happen? Miracles are supposed to be things that cannot be explained rationally. Breaches of the laws of physics, if you prefer.
Do miracles happen? No. A miracle would breach the order of things and God is the source of the orderliness of events (through his inherent order).
...some common christians say, "Oh you have to believe you burn in hell, if you don't your going to go to hell".
A great many christian forget that we are told to "Judge not" (ie: call nothing "evil") and that the idea of us being able to judge good and evil was a lie told by hissing sid :D
Events happen because of an orderly causal factor. Some call it "the laws of physics" whilst others say "it was God's will".
You're missing the point.
Again, things like gravity don't happen "because the laws of physics make them happen". They're laws of physics because they happen. There's no reason why they can't be "laws of physics" and God's will at the same time, but any additional conjecture on some sentient being behind these occurrences, be it God or invisible dragons, is just that; additional conjecture. It is irrelevant to the fact that we know that these things exist and are both provable and consistent; thus, they get called "laws of physics".
I also don't see what you're getting at with this argument. You essentially seem to have said "We don't know if God exists", which is kind of what my point is (as well as that of the other agnostics in this thread, I would think).
when someone can show me a fish tank give birth to a baby fish tank, or even a fish tank divide into 2 seperate self replicating tanks....then I will listen.
Melt down that broken fishtank to make a new one!...or make 2!
Nah really though...you take us for example and we are alive because of all these composite parts working together to grant us consciousness.
The studies into collective consciousness are rather neat...you get a bunch of people together and they can make decisions as if they were one entity...
Really though where does this end? You take a crowd...you take a city...you take a state...you take a country...you take the world...are we somehow making decisions as one?
It is interesting to think about. It is also interesting to wonder if it goes past species.
It is interesting to think about. It is also interesting to wonder if it goes past species.
Is the whole greater than the sum of it's parts?
Look at the relationship between dogs and humans if you want to know if there's an inherent connection deeper than purely physical need. Dogs rarely outlive their master by long and they're a good indicator of their master's mood. Certainly it can be argued that it's just dogs allowing humans into the pack heirarchy, but could it be more?
How about old people? have you ever noticed that people that have been married for a long time tend to die really close together. I've personally seen people that were the picture of health wither and die within weeks of their spouse. Odd coincidence? Perhaps, but why is it so widespread if it's just coincidence?
passing their genetic material on to another generation.
As long as the end result is reliable and predictable, why worry about whether it's some deity or not that, in the end, is the root cause?
I would think even atheists have a afterlife...
passing their genetic material on to another generation.
That's not really an afterlife in the context of every other religion out there. Legacy, sure. But not really an afterlife.
You're missing the point.
Again, things like gravity don't happen "because the laws of physics make them happen". They're laws of physics because they happen. There's no reason why they can't be "laws of physics" and God's will at the same time, but any additional conjecture on some sentient being behind these occurrences, be it God or invisible dragons, is just that; additional conjecture. It is irrelevant to the fact that we know that these things exist and are both provable and consistent; thus, they get called "laws of physics".
I also don't see what you're getting at with this argument. You essentially seem to have said "We don't know if God exists", which is kind of what my point is (as well as that of the other agnostics in this thread, I would think).
I am aware of that :D
I am using the term "Laws of Physics" in the manner typicaly used; as a claim of something other than God causing things to happen. If you were to ask most folks, including physics, whether Gravity was a result of the Laws of Physics or whether it was God making it happen, 99% would say the LoP whlist laughing at the notion of it being God making it all happen. My point is that you cannot point to what is behind the claim of "its the Laws of Physics".
This all relates back to Mr Dawkins' arguments that it isnt God that makes things happen its just the orderly processes of physics and biology etc. This is the usual nonsense of the Atheistic stance as all claims for an ordering principle behind events are no different, at root, from a claim that "it's God doing it".
Go see is post
Thanks for the reply, I have been away from the boards too. During my weekend in the woods, I wa sitting by the fire and just looking at the sky. I felt like in a bubble, no noise or events came bother me from my contemplation. I tried to view the world as you would.
Firstly, you seem to have what Einstein called the cosmic religion. Since the god you are referring to must be the foundation of "the laws of physics", he his not antropomorphic. Has you stated it in you're previous post, he is the source of ordeliness. As such, miracles can't exist as they would be in contrary to order and thus to him. Hence, any form of prayer is just wishful thinking and thus a waste of time and effort; god will not sacrifice the order of the universe to make sure you are alright. This is the definition of a non-antropomorphic god.
Since god is not antropomorphic, you cannot derive any moral code of conduct from his existence. As you stated it : "a great many christian forget that we are told to "Judge not" (ie: call nothing 'evil')". Hence, is existence is merely important on the intellectual level, to comprehend the universe and ourselfs. That is what drove Einstein to say "that in this materialistic age of ours the serious scientific workers are the only profoundly religious people."
I must say your position seems coherent and well taught out. But there are a few things that bug me. If god really is at the hearth of every interaction and is the source of ordeliness, then god = nature/universe/creation. So saying that nature as order because of god seems like a tautologie. Nothing is gained. In this case, one is better off just keeping the scientific language and not referring to god at all.
Another point, comes from the definition itself. For the above definition of god implies that the universe is deterministic. Nature is ordered; "God does not play dice". But there is chaos in the universe. Many forms of it even. If you look at quantum mechanics, randomness is a fundamental part of the universe. It cannot be ordered, because you cannot establish a single particle path. This is even used in the generation of true ramdon numbers (semi-transparent mirror and one photon; 50% chance of passing the mirror).
Now, try to see my point of view. I am not taking any sides on this question. I am handed cold hard facts from the observation of the universe. From this facts, I construct models, that we call "Laws of physics", that can be used to calculate within a validity domain the the probabilities of the outcome. The models are even predictive, enabling the comprehension of futur experiments. But remember, these "Laws of physics" are just models. They are not the Truth with a capital T. They can be showed false with only one experiment (ok, repeated many times but still). As such, we do not hold them as the Truth.
As you can see, these models restrict themselfs to the data. As such, they cannot be used to extrapolate the existence of god*. Hence, god is an extra hypothesis, i.e. an assumption not based on facts, added to our knowledge. As such, I don't give much weight to it. It's just an hypothesis.
*In fact, if god exists and is the one handing out the data, he can choose to remain invisible. So experiments that show the absence of god would be regarded as non-conclusive. Thinking about such experiments and the concept of an non-antropomorphic god hence look like a waste of time.
Thanks for the reply, I have been away from the boards too. During my weekend in the woods, I wa sitting by the fire and just looking at the sky. I felt like in a bubble, no noise or events came bother me from my contemplation. I tried to view the world as you would.
Firstly, you seem to have what Einstein called the cosmic religion. Since the god you are referring to must be the foundation of "the laws of physics", he his not antropomorphic. Has you stated it in you're previous post, he is the source of ordeliness. As such, miracles can't exist as they would be in contrary to order and thus to him. Hence, any form of prayer is just wishful thinking and thus a waste of time and effort; god will not sacrifice the order of the universe to make sure you are alright. This is the definition of a non-antropomorphic god.
Indeed.
Although the real purpose of prayer is to changed us, not to get God to do something. That is the essence of difference between prayer-as-worship and prayer-as-magic
Since god is not antropomorphic, you cannot derive any moral code of conduct from his existence. As you stated it : "a great many christian forget that we are told to "Judge not" (ie: call nothing 'evil')". Hence, is existence is merely important on the intellectual level, to comprehend the universe and ourselfs. That is what drove Einstein to say: "that in this materialistic age of ours the serious scientific workers are the only profoundly religious people."
There are some bits of morality you can gather from this understanding of God: for example.....tollerance and mercy rather than hatred (as all plays its part in the unfolding - so there is no "evil", just a scale of "goods" from an inferior to a superior).
I must say your position seems coherent and well taught out. But there are a few things that bug me. If god really is at the hearth of every interaction and is the source of ordeliness, then god = nature/universe/creation. So saying that nature as order because of god seems like a tautologie. Nothing is gained. One is better off just keeping the scientific language and not referring to god.
God is the creator of all events; which makes the scientific language too bland as it fails to comprehend the infinite majesty and inherent intelligence, nor indeed the inherent bias in favour of certain things (truth, mercy and forgiveness, modesty, temperance, faith to naim but a few
) I'm an in the process of clarifying it further in order to put it forward for publishing in an academic Journal (I currently work as a College lecturer in RS and am a post-grad student as well ).Another point, comes from the definition itself. For the above definition of god implies that the universe is deterministic. Nature is ordered; "God does not play dice". But there is chaos in the universe. Many forms of it even. If you look at quantum mechanics, randomness is a fundamental part of the universe. It cannot be ordered, because you cannot establish a single particle path. This is even used in the generation of true ramdon numbers (semi-transparent mirror and one photon; 50% chance of passing the mirror).
There is a problem with language in notions of determinism. The events of the universe are determined but the order beind them is eternal/non-contingent and hence is both free whilst also never being able to act other than it does (otherwise it would not be ordered).
As for randomness..... Complexity certainly exists, and many events are unpredictable by humans, but randomness in the sense of "not part of an order" or "Not caused" certainly does not exist.
I really have to get the paper completed :D
Although the real purpose of prayer is to changed us, not to get God to do something. That is the essence of difference between prayer-as-worship and prayer-as-magic.
Firstly, a non-antropomorphic god would not care that we change. Secondly, we can change by going to see a psychologist, reading a book or just doing some work on ourself. So praying sounds like a placebo, an indirect way of working on ourselfs.
There are some bits of morality you can gather from this understanding of God: for example.....tollerance and mercy rather than hatred (as all plays its part in the unfolding - so there is no "evil", just a scale of "goods" from an inferior to a superior).
Come on, that is just judging under the disguise of some sort of political correctness. Favorising some behavior other then others is judging the other ones less "good" for the human kind. Truth is, we need to judge because we need to respond to situations that can have different consequences. We must choose one as better then the others. But, if god in not-antropomorphic, he cannot be used to derive human judgement (he does not have any human qualities).
God is the creator of all events; which makes the scientific language too bland as it fails to comprehend the infinite majesty and inherent intelligence, nor indeed the inherent bias in favour of certain things (truth, mercy and forgiveness, modesty, temperance, faith to naim but a few
Cool, may I ask in what field (Theology, Philosophy, etc...)?
But frankly, the scientific language is not bland, it is more semantically driven. Words have more precise meanings. Any human language would be to bland if compared to any infinity. So you're point is lost on me. You also seem to fail to realise that giving god a point of view on truth, mercy, forgiveness and the rest makes him antropomorphic. To see this, look at it this way. If god as a bias towards mercy, he should then favorise it in nature. God is either forced to break the order to favorise mercy or the order is preserved because he is powerless to do so.
There is a problem with language in notions of determinism. The events of the universe are determined but the order beind them is eternal/non-contingent and hence is both free whilst also never being able to act other than it does (otherwise it would not be ordered).
You sound like J.-P. Sartre : "We are not free to stop being free".
In you're case, it looks more like a complet contradiction. Either we have complet order or we have incomplet order (some randomness). Now I understand where you want to go with this, god is underneath the orderly universe and he get's to be free in his choices. But that is false, if god must preserve the order of the universe, he is not free to choose. Once everything is set, he cannot change it, for that would be a loss of order.
[Just taught of the fact that we maybe operate under different definitions of order.]
As for randomness..... Complexity certainly exists, and many events are unpredictable by humans, but randomness in the sense of "not part of an order" or "Not caused" certainly does not exist.
I knew you would say that. But all experimental evidence show it does. The Bell inequalities experiments show that any deterministic theory must fail to explain the quantum nature of entangled objects. So randomness is pretty well established experimentally. (To be fair, the experiments only show that no "local hidden variable theories" can explain it. The keyword being local. So, the concept of god is safe, if he is non-local, i.e. acting everywhere at once. Which I think is the case for almost every theists.)
Arkansas' Constitution of 1874 (Article 19, Section 1) states: "Atheists disqualified from holding office or testifying as witness. No person who denies the being of a God shall hold any office in the civil departments of this State, nor be competent to testify as a witness in any Court."
This is of course invalid under constitutional law and completely uneforcable.
South Carolina's Constitution of 2006 (Article 6, Section 2) states: "Person denying existence of Supreme Being not to hold office. No person who denies the existence of the Supreme Being shall hold any office under this Constitution."
Likewise.
Tennessee's Constitution/Bill of Rights (Article 9, Section 2) states: "No person who denies the being of God, or a future state of rewards and punishments, shall hold any office in the civil department of this state."
Likewise.
Texas' Constitution: The Bill of Rights (Article I, Section 4) last amended on September 13, 2003 states that an official may be "excluded from holding office" if she/he does not "acknowledge the existence of a Supreme Being."
Likewise.
Article 36: "That as it is the duty of every man to worship God in such manner as he thinks most acceptable to Him, all persons are equally entitled to protection in their religious liberty; wherefore, no person ought by any law to be molested in his person or estate, on account of his religious persuasion, or profession, or for his religious practice, unless, under the color of religion, he shall disturb the good order, peace or safety of the State, or shall infringe the laws of morality, or injure others in their natural, civil or religious rights; nor ought any person to be compelled to frequent, or maintain, or contribute, unless on contract, to maintain, any place of worship, or any ministry; nor shall any person, otherwise competent, be deemed incompetent as a witness, or juror, on account of his religious belief; provided, he believes in the existence of God, and that under His dispensation such person will be held morally accountable for his acts, and be rewarded or punished therefore either in this world or in the world to come."
o Article 37: "That no religious test ought ever to be required as a qualification for any office of profit or trust in this State, other than a declaration of belief in the existence of God; nor shall the Legislature prescribe any other oath of office than the oath prescribed by this Constitution."
Likewise.
The federal constitution bans religious tests for office; due to the 14th amendment to the United States Federal Constitution, this applies to the states as well.
In short, it is impossible for the states in the United States to enforce these laws. Moreover they wouldn't.
I really dislike how some common christians say, "Oh you have to believe you burn in hell, if you don't your going to go to hell". The sentence tells you alot about the person. 1: that they're afaid of hell and 2: that they're trying to scare you into believing in god so that you don't go to hell. The Jewish people I've meet don't act like that, they never really specify if hell is a burning place or that your spirit dies with your body (at least not the ones I've meet). To them hell isn't very important in their faith.
Anyone who says you're going to burn in hell if you aren't a member of their religion is mentally ill.
Anyone who says you're going to burn in hell if you aren't a member of their religion is mentally ill.
Or a true believer. A bit of a toss-up, that.
Zealots exist in every religion. Does it shock you that we have homegrown ones too? There's always at least one in every group that is quite certain that at the end of your life you'll be punished for not being exactly like them. It's not that they have any control over it, but merely that is what's been forced down their throat since they were young. They do believe it with all their heart*.
*I'm ignoring the fact that the heart is just a really big clump of muscle whose sole purpose is to go through a neverending series of spasms in order to force blood (among other things) through the body. Please accept that in this context, the cigar isn't just a cigar.
[Just taught of the fact that we maybe operate under different definitions of order.]
You run into that problem when dealing with Theologists, Seminarians, Divinity Students, Religious Studies students, Rabbinical Scholars et cetera. Sometimes words don't quite have the same meaning.
I myself always had a slight problem with the Catholic tranmogrification. Ignoring for a moment that they're just eating a stale cracker and watered-down wine, the ritual common to the majority of Christian faiths takes on a cannabalistic tone due to the interpretation of Catholic doctrine.
Having said that, the word "Order" causes significant confusion when you consider the various splinters of the Catholic priesthood.
*I tried to stay academic with this one. Let's see if it gets edited from on high.
I am aware of that :D
I am using the term "Laws of Physics" in the manner typicaly used; as a claim of something other than God causing things to happen. If you were to ask most folks, including physics, whether Gravity was a result of the Laws of Physics or whether it was God making it happen, 99% would say the LoP whlist laughing at the notion of it being God making it all happen.
No, they wouldn't, or at least a credible physicist certainly wouldn't, because a credible physicist would know that "the laws of physics" are merely a compilation of what we know about how the universe works, not some mysterious, overarching force that actually makes everything happen the way it does.
This all relates back to Mr Dawkins' arguments that it isnt God that makes things happen its just the orderly processes of physics and biology etc. This is the usual nonsense of the Atheistic stance as all claims for an ordering principle behind events are no different, at root, from a claim that "it's God doing it".
Well, that may be Mr. Dawkins' stance. It is not my stance, I am not an atheist, and the prevailing non-religious argument in this thread is "We don't actually know if God exists", not "God doesn't exist and I can prove it."
So again, I don't understand where you're trying to go with this.
You look at the human body, and it seems like it contains a universe unto itself. We can observe how parts interact, yet we still do not have all the answers.
The universe exhibits consciousness, and at the very least through us. What is our potential? What is the purpose of our existence? That which is anterior contains all that is posterior to it. God contains humanity, but is greater than the sum of humanity.
I just think we do have an effect upon the world we live in as well as the universe. I think God does care, but this is something we have to learn and earn on our own.
Why do people ask, "prove god or wheres your evidences" ? Thats like saying wheres the evidences of the Big Bang, or prove what Dark Matter is.
Eh...I guess we are inquisitive by nature...we fully expect the who, what, where, why, and how in this day and age...lol
Why do people ask, "prove god or wheres your evidences" ? Thats like saying wheres the evidences of the Big Bang, or prove what Dark Matter is.
Well, because proof and evidence is the only way you can really know something to be true.
Otherwise it's just a matter of faith.
although some people will still call a reliable person a liar even if he has never lied before. so it matters little to those people.
well if people compare history and archaelogy with the bible it proves itself to be a reliable source of information. It even predicted several things that have happenned long in advance.
although some people will still call a reliable person a liar even if he has never lied before. so it matters little to those people.
Well the thing is only on some things...people have added and taken away stuff.
What are the several things it has predicted long in advance?
If you're not, I'll merely be skeptical, as I am of all claims of any ability to predict future events that aren't direct and immediate results of action taken to cause said events.
*I'm fuzzy on the details, but basically you take the entire (translated) text of the bible, run it through a machine, and it makes new words using obscure algorithms and associations. People have pulled out 'predictions' of modern world events from the bible this way.
Personally I call it a silly pursuit as people are often working from the revised translated revised copies of the original text. Toss in the fact that if you run the same program on other extremely long texts and you get similar results (that is, seemingly coherent sentences that could be interpreted as predictions) and it should be evident why many people (even those who have faith) are skeptical.
Why do people ask, "prove god or wheres your evidences" ? Thats like saying wheres the evidences of the Big Bang, or prove what Dark Matter is.
Well, yeah. What's wrong with that? There is evidence to support the Big Bang theory, and nobody really claims to know exactly what dark matter is; it's a hypothetical problem based on inferred evidence that's been bugging physicists for some time.
Also, the Big Bang theory is just that; a theory. "Theory" is not synonymous with "fact". To claim that something is a fact requires proof; theories just have to be supported.
although some people will still call a reliable person a liar even if he has never lied before. so it matters little to those people.
A reliable person is not the same thing as someone who just claims to be reliable.
If you're talking about the bible code* (or whatever it's called) then I'm going to laugh.
If you're not, I'll merely be skeptical, as I am of all claims of any ability to predict future events that aren't direct and immediate results of action taken to cause said events.
*I'm fuzzy on the details, but basically you take the entire (translated) text of the bible, run it through a machine, and it makes new words using obscure algorithms and associations. People have pulled out 'predictions' of modern world events from the bible this way.
Personally I call it a silly pursuit as people are often working from the revised translated revised copies of the original text. Toss in the fact that if you run the same program on other extremely long texts and you get similar results (that is, seemingly coherent sentences that could be interpreted as predictions) and it should be evident why many people (even those who have faith) are skeptical.
You are way off...
First it is done in hebrew...
You do not get sentences...more like groups of letters
I think it is called equilateral spacing...
What they do is take a phrase...like "Hitler" and set the spacing to 10. The program skips every ten letters and when it comes upon the word "Hitler" it makes a copy of the reference...and from there you look for other words that are spaced apart 10 (or whatever number you used,) near where the computer hit on the phrase "Hitler."
It does turn up some interesting information...They did a search on important Rabbi's and it turned up their names as well as date of death...
A lot of bible coders will reply to people who say that other long texts do the same thing with "Did Mobey Dick predict the Prime Minister of Israel, Rizzen, being assassinated?"
That is rather interesting that they sent a warning to him and he still got offed...
Really you do have a lack of information...and I am not saying I believe in it one way or the other but perhaps you should look more into it before you out right bash it.
If you have an extraordinary claim, then if you want people to believe you should provide extraordinary evidence, which to my knowledge has not been provided.
No, they wouldn't, or at least a credible physicist certainly wouldn't, because a credible physicist would know that "the laws of physics" are merely a compilation of what we know about how the universe works, not some mysterious, overarching force that actually makes everything happen the way it does.
The whole concept of the "laws of physics" is an attempt to grasp the order behind events.....an attempt to define such in a non-theological manner. Anyone who says "there is no God" (which is the stance of Atheists....who are the subject of this thread) but who then go on to take the "its just the laws of physics" line are making a claim that itself cannot be supported....and this is the standard materialist atheist line.
Well, that may be Mr. Dawkins' stance. It is not my stance, I am not an atheist, and the prevailing non-religious argument in this thread is "We don't actually know if God exists", not "God doesn't exist and I can prove it."
So again, I don't understand where you're trying to go with this.
Well, given that the title *is* atheists, that is what I am addressing
Well, yeah. What's wrong with that? There is evidence to support the Big Bang theory, and nobody really claims to know exactly what dark matter is; it's a hypothetical problem based on inferred evidence that's been bugging physicists for some time.
Also, the Big Bang theory is just that; a theory. "Theory" is not synonymous with "fact". To claim that something is a fact requires proof; theories just have to be supported.
The catch is, the big bang theory (as a point of the beginning of existance) has about as much supporting evidence as the notion that we are all part of an infinite pizza or the great kobold god made the universe......yet if you point this out they get a bit upset :D
Big Bang is a creation-ex-nihilo claim, no different from a god making the universe (pick your own mythology of choice) yet it is treated as somehow "scientific" and more "authoritative" than theological responses.....
Really you do have a lack of information...and I am not saying I believe in it one way or the other but perhaps you should look more into it before you out right bash it.
The documentary that I saw on the so-called "bible code" did take the time to try it out on Tolstoy's War and Peace and did get similar results. So there is a bit of evidence that you can get the same effect in any large-scale prose writing. If it is indeed divinely created, it may cross into the literature we read as well as our religious texts. And if it's not messages from the almighty, it's kind of a neat phenomenon.
well if people compare history and archaelogy with the bible it proves itself to be a reliable source of information.
The problem with this approach is that people tend to find what they want to find when they have a preconceived opinion of what they should find. The bible lacks corroboration in most cases, so it can't be considered history.
The middle east has been inhabited for the last 40,000 years and the bible might account for perhaps the last 6,000 years. What happened to the rest?
Compare the genealogies in the bible to the population of the earth. You'll find that none of us should be viable due to inbreeding. Unless, of course, there were people other than the children of Adam or Noah outside of the stories. In which case, where are they during the creation and flood stories?
Don't get me wrong, there is some value to it. As a history, however, it falls short. Finding sites that fit with the bible's story doesn't mean that the bible was right, but that you might have found the site that inspired the biblical story. As a glimpse into prehistory, it's valuable, but reverence as a holy book taints it's academic value.
*I just got off work and this post may not make the slightest bit of sense. My apologies.
The whole concept of the "laws of physics" is an attempt to grasp the order behind events.....an attempt to define such in a non-theological manner. Anyone who says "there is no God" (which is the stance of Atheists....who are the subject of this thread)
OK then. This line of discussion is over.
Atheists are silly. That is the first thing I posted in this thread. The statement "There is no God" is just as unprovable as "There is a God."
The catch is, the big bang theory (as a point of the beginning of existance) has about as much supporting evidence as the notion that we are all part of an infinite pizza or the great kobold god made the universe......
Have you actually read into the Big Bang theory or are you just assuming that it's completely made-up nonsense?
If I said "Hubble's law", would that mean anything to you? Because that's one piece of supporting evidence. And there are more.
The catch is, the big bang theory (as a point of the beginning of existance) has about as much supporting evidence as the notion that we are all part of an infinite pizza or the great kobold god made the universe......yet if you point this out they get a bit upset :D
Big Bang is a creation-ex-nihilo claim, no different from a god making the universe (pick your own mythology of choice) yet it is treated as somehow "scientific" and more "authoritative" than theological responses.....
Just from those sentences I can tell you have no idea what the Big Bang theory is. Trust me, I'm an astrophysicist.
1) The Big Bang theory does not describe the moment of creation, rather how the Universe evolved afterwards. It is based on the idea that the universe evolved from a dense, hot initial condition at some finite time in the past. Nothing at all to do with creation, ex nihilo or otherwise.
2) There is overwhelming evidence for the Big Bang. Such as:
-Hubble's Law - objects further from the Earth exhibit a greater red shift
-The Cosmic Microwave Background radiation - this is a biggie, it was what convinced most people the Big Bang really happened.
-Primordial Elements - Big Bang cosmology correctly predicts the abundances of low mass elements in the Universe
-Large Scale Structure - Big Bang cosmology correctly predicts the size and distribution of large scale structures such as galaxies and galaxy clusters
Read up on those and come back to us.
3) The Big Bang is a theory, not a hypothesis. In science, a theory is something which has overwhelming evidence to support it. A hypothesis is an idea to be tested. A theory is as good as it gets in science, proof does not exist.
Here's your evidence
Map of the CMB
Power spectrum of the CMB
Map of the CMB
Power spectrum of the CMB
I'm not interested in discussing the details, and I never claimed to have the facts about it right, just the general gist of it.
I know that you stated that you did not know the facts, but you were off on the gist of it as well.
The documentary that I saw on the so-called "bible code" did take the time to try it out on Tolstoy's War and Peace and did get similar results. So there is a bit of evidence that you can get the same effect in any large-scale prose writing. If it is indeed divinely created, it may cross into the literature we read as well as our religious texts. And if it's not messages from the almighty, it's kind of a neat phenomenon.
It was done with Mobey Dick as well. It does get interesting hits on other texts just not nearly the same scale as what occurs in the Bible. I do think it is a neat phenomena in regards to text.
The middle east has been inhabited for the last 40,000 years and the bible might account for perhaps the last 6,000 years. What happened to the rest?
I would say longer than 40,000 years. At -40,000 there is evidence that people were just making their way onto Australia and dealing with the giant lizard there...lol.
Really, though...a lot of ancient texts have helped us find sites. Like at Homer and how Troy was believed to be discovered.
Have you actually read into the Big Bang theory or are you just assuming that it's completely made-up nonsense?
Well, I've read through and generally grasped the theory in A Brief History of Time (Hawkin) and Hyperspace (Kaku), so I have at least some understanding. I'm not saying here whether it is or is not nonsense as such, just that it does not differ, in any practical manner, from Theological accounts of creation-ex-nihilo.
If I said "Hubble's law", would that mean anything to you? Because that's one piece of supporting evidence. And there are more.
Hubble's law is a theory on the nature of galaxies moving away from each other due to (allegedly) the fabric of space-time itself expanding - it does not postulate directly on any alleged creation event, although it does base itself on a nonsense notion (that of a universe expanding intrinsically rather than moving out to fill existing empty space - you cannot expand an infinite thing and "existance" cannot be anything but infinite (we could go into detail but this is hardly the place for such - if my paper on the nature of divinity ever gets published I'll post a link :D )).
1) The Big Bang theory does not describe the moment of creation, rather how the Universe evolved afterwards. It is based on the idea that the universe evolved from a dense, hot initial condition at some finite time in the past. Nothing at all to do with creation, ex nihilo or otherwise.
It posits a creation moment before which there was nothing (unless you see it as part of the alternative view of a pulsing universe).
2) There is overwhelming evidence for the Big Bang. Such as:
-Hubble's Law - objects further from the Earth exhibit a greater red shift
-The Cosmic Microwave Background radiation - this is a biggie, it was what convinced most people the Big Bang really happened.
-Primordial Elements - Big Bang cosmology correctly predicts the abundances of low mass elements in the Universe
-Large Scale Structure - Big Bang cosmology correctly predicts the size and distribution of large scale structures such as galaxies and galaxy clusters
Read up on those and come back to us.
3) The Big Bang is a theory, not a hypothesis. In science, a theory is something which has overwhelming evidence to support it. A hypothesis is an idea to be tested. A theory is as good as it gets in science, proof does not exist.Here's your evidence
Map of the CMB
Power spectrum of the CMB
The problem with this approach is that people tend to find what they want to find when they have a preconceived opinion of what they should find. The bible lacks corroboration in most cases, so it can't be considered history.
The middle east has been inhabited for the last 40,000 years and the bible might account for perhaps the last 6,000 years. What happened to the rest?
Compare the genealogies in the bible to the population of the earth. You'll find that none of us should be viable due to inbreeding. Unless, of course, there were people other than the children of Adam or Noah outside of the stories. In which case, where are they during the creation and flood stories?
Don't get me wrong, there is some value to it. As a history, however, it falls short. Finding sites that fit with the bible's story doesn't mean that the bible was right, but that you might have found the site that inspired the biblical story. As a glimpse into prehistory, it's valuable, but reverence as a holy book taints it's academic value.
*I just got off work and this post may not make the slightest bit of sense. My apologies.
bah!!!! it makes sense!
anywho, I did not go to any websites... I just know from studying for a long time that there are several impossibly accurate prophesies in the scriptures that have come to pass. I will not repeat them all because I mentioned them in this very thread a long time ago.
If you're talking about the bible code* (or whatever it's called) then I'm going to laugh.
and no I am not referring to 'bible code'
I mentioned things that you just read from left to right. And then years after the book was written these things happenned exactly to every detail.
Compare the genealogies in the bible to the population of the earth. You'll find that none of us should be viable due to inbreeding. Unless, of course, there were people other than the children of Adam or Noah outside of the stories. In which case, where are they during the creation and flood stories?
I do not believe what we call 'inbreeding was a problem back then. Mankind was still very close to perfection from Adam and Eve, as in they had nearly perfect bodies....
This would explain why the lifespans were so much longer, and why brothers and sisters would not have screwed up children together.
I like to think of it like a copy machine...If you make a copy, of a copy, of a copy, of a copy... then eventually you are losing some quality.
It posits a creation moment before which there was nothing (unless you see it as part of the alternative view of a pulsing universe).
No, we can only attempt to trace it back to the initial "boom" not preceeding
The Big Bang theory makes a vital mistake; the notion of an expanding infinity that was somehow compressed at somepoint. You cannot have an outside of an infinite (I dont mean a "infinite" with a notion of curving back on itself as that is a different kind of gibberish that would require a higher dimension in which the universe was curved....and so would be self defeating as it would posit another level to reality rather than an inclusive description of such) and as such cannot have an absolute singularity outside of which there is "Nothing".
There are variables that if not met, would mean that the explosion would collapse back in on itself. I do not believe that the universe is infinite. With everything out there it may seem like it is...but there is finite amount of stuff.
By that theory, when you look at the (theoretically) smallest particles of reality you'd see them moving apart; which begs the question of what is then between them
We both probably do not know as much on the "Big Bang" as others. I have seen stuff but have not sat there and really studied it but I think you are misconstruing the specifics of the theory.
Physicist need to get out and deal with reality more instead of continuing to work with gibberish notions ;)
anywho, I did not go to any websites... I just know from studying for a long time that there are several impossibly accurate prophesies in the scriptures that have come to pass. I will not repeat them all because I mentioned them in this very thread a long time ago.and no I am not referring to 'bible code' I mentioned things that you just read from left to right. And then years after the book was written these things happenned exactly to every detail.
I wonder if it is postscript or prescript. The bible has evolved...some works taken away...We have discussed this I believe. I cannot remember what you said about accurate prophesies, though I remember we talked about how the bible has changed. If you do have a change of mind it would be cool in regards to posting it again.
I do not believe what we call 'inbreeding was a problem back then. Mankind was still very close to perfection from Adam and Eve, as in they had nearly perfect bodies....
This would explain why the lifespans were so much longer, and why brothers and sisters would not have screwed up children together.
I like to think of it like a copy machine...If you make a copy, of a copy, of a copy, of a copy... then eventually you are losing some quality.
What about Adam and Lilith? hehe nah really did you ever notice Woman was created before Eve was created?
It posits a creation moment before which there was nothing (unless you see it as part of the alternative view of a pulsing universe).
No it doesn't. You can arrive at the creation moment with a bit of logic and taking the assumptions of the Big Bang, not the other way around. There is no science connected to the creation moment, nor what came before. The Big Bang deals with what happened after.
The Big Bang theory makes a vital mistake; the notion of an expanding infinity that was somehow compressed at somepoint.
No, you've made the vital mistake of assuming that the universe is infinite.
You cannot have an outside of an infinite (I dont mean a "infinite" with a notion of curving back on itself as that is a different kind of gibberish that would require a higher dimension in which the universe was curved....and so would be self defeating as it would posit another level to reality rather than an inclusive description of such) and as such cannot have an absolute singularity outside of which there is "Nothing".
It seems you're trying to put substance to this "Nothing". There is "Nothing" outside a finite universe in the way that there is no space, no time...saying 'outside the singularity' has about as much meaning as 'north of the North Pole'.
That's fairly irrelevant, though, because the "outside" isn't really a part of the Big Bang theory either.
By that theory, when you look at the (theoretically) smallest particles of reality you'd see them moving apart; which begs the question of what is then between them
Space. And the smallest particles are unlikely to start moving apart due to the expanding universe, because they are unlikely to occupy a flat spacetime.
Or are you trying to granulate space and ask what's between the grains when the universe expands?
But I do notice how you didn't actually address the evidence I supplied to you. Care to comment on the CMB, elemental abundances and large scale structure predictions?
No, we can only attempt to trace it back to the initial "boom" not preceeding
The notion of space and time not existing before hand is now part and parcel of the whole big bang theory. THAT is a statement of the pree-boom conditions.
There are variables that if not met, would mean that the explosion would collapse back in on itself. I do not believe that the universe is infinite. With everything out there it may seem like it is...but there is finite amount of stuff.
If the universe is finite, what forms the edge? If you say it is curved then that requires it be curved in another dimension and shows you were not dealing with the whole of the universe to begin with :D
No, you've made the vital mistake of assuming that the universe is infinite.
Its not an assumption, its a logical necessity
You cannot have an edge to something unless the edge is formed by it meeting something else....but if there isnt anything else to meet then how is an edge formed?Space. And the smallest particles are unlikely to start moving apart due to the expanding universe, because they are unlikely to occupy a flat spacetime.
Or are you trying to granulate space and ask what's between the grains when the universe expands?
The expanding universe theory says space itself is expanding; if it is...what is filling the gaps as bits of it expand apart?
But I do notice how you didn't actually address the evidence I supplied to you. Care to comment on the CMB, elemental abundances and large scale structure predictions?
I'm not about to argue whether angels on one pinhead can engage angels on another pinhead in combat nor what combat modifiers are involved; first we need to establish the existance of the pin heads and the angels :D
The expanding universe theory says space itself is expanding; if it is...what is filling the gaps as bits of it expand apart?
Space...
If the universe is finite, what forms the edge? If you say it is curved then that requires it be curved in another dimension and shows you were not dealing with the whole of the universe to begin with
The farthest parts of matter/etc that are the outside of the sphere I would imagine...granted it is growing.
The notion of space and time not existing before hand is now part and parcel of the whole big bang theory. THAT is a statement of the pree-boom conditions.
There is no way for us to gauge their being a time or space because all we can do is countdown to boom...
Really what are you arguing? That their is potential for other universes?...that we are a part of a multiverse? I would not doubt it, but at least at this point and time we can try to learn more about our universe and how it was formed. Nothing is really bad with the Big Bang...sure it may change in time (if time even exists)
I know that you stated that you did not know the facts, but you were off on the gist of it as well.
As the 'gist' is "Take text, put text through algorithm, see hidden messages" I think I was spot on.
Really, though...a lot of ancient texts have helped us find sites. Like at Homer and how Troy was believed to be discovered.
And should that be taken as evidence that there was a man named Achilles that was invulnerable to just about everything except on his heel? Really, you're arguing the same thing. An old text seems to have some historical relevancy, so other things in the same text (which are not supported by archaeological evidence) must also be true.
Re: the Big Bang
... I'll admit I'm no physicist, but last time I checked any/most postulation about before the big bang was not part of the theory itself, just interesting lines of thought that couldn't be readily explored at this time.
As for the whole infinite vs. finite bit... why does the universe have to be infinite? Why does it have to be finite? As far as I know there may be a finite limit to the 'stuff' of the universe, but that doesn't say whether space itself is finite or infinite, just that no matter how big the fish tank may be you only have so much water to fill it with. The bigger and wider you make the tank the thinner the water gets. Same basic idea. Admittedly, that's just my layman's understanding of it... (my field is IT, not astro-physics)
Re: Humanities inbreeding
Woot! We're all careening towards a point where we'll just be static covered pages where you can't see the original text! Mutation to the lowest denominator!
Now if only that made a lick of sense with respect to evolution, but as I severely doubt I could have a reasoned discussion with Shamurai7 about that I think that's a dead horse left unbeat.
Re: What "Atheists" believe
Can we really make any sweeping judgements on that? For the most part they aren't organized, and they are only vaguely demographically slanted towards higher education... so really, an atheist is no more likely (or maybe marginally more likely) to be accurately informed on the theoretical beginning of creation then anyone else... why assume that they think they have the answers just because they don't believe in someone else's answers?
Or a true believer. A bit of a toss-up, that.
But you repeat yourself. There isn't actually a difference.
Zealots exist in every religion. Does it shock you that we have homegrown ones too?
It did when I graduated from High School. I didn't really believe that the South existed.
What amazes me isn't that they exist, but that they make up ~40% of the US population.
Also, the Big Bang theory is just that; a theory. "Theory" is not synonymous with "fact". To claim that something is a fact requires proof; theories just have to be supported.
Someone doesn't understand science.
Theory is the highest level of proof and indicates a great deal of certainty. A "fact" is simply an observation. A "fact" isn't better than a "theory".
Indeed, many things which are "theory" are also "fact". For instance, evolution is both a "fact" (observed data) and a "theory" (how it works).
The only higher order of proof than theory is a "proof" and those ONLY exist in mathematics, never in the real world.
The whole concept of the "laws of physics" is an attempt to grasp the order behind events.....an attempt to define such in a non-theological manner. Anyone who says "there is no God" (which is the stance of Atheists....who are the subject of this thread) but who then go on to take the "its just the laws of physics" line are making a claim that itself cannot be supported....and this is the standard materialist atheist line.
This isn't true at all.
There's a fundamental difference between science and religion. If you don't understand that difference, then you should educate yourself.
The laws of physics describe how the universe functions.
The catch is, the big bang theory (as a point of the beginning of existance) has about as much supporting evidence as the notion that we are all part of an infinite pizza or the great kobold god made the universe......yet if you point this out they get a bit upset
This isn't actually true at all. Cosmic Background Radiation, ancient galaxies, ratio of elements in the universe, age of stars, ect.
Did you know there aren't any stars older than X many years old? Did you know that stars beyond a certain age lack certain elements in any sort of abundance? Do you know why?
This is a major problem for anyone who claims that the Big Bang didn't happen.
Not to mention general redshift and various other things.
The Big Bang happened. We've indirectly observed it in numerous ways. What exactly it was and how it occurred are open questions at the moment, as beyond a certain point in time the current laws of physics don't function.
Big Bang is a creation-ex-nihilo claim, no different from a god making the universe (pick your own mythology of choice) yet it is treated as somehow "scientific" and more "authoritative" than theological responses.....
Incorrect.
The Big Bang is not a creation-ex-nihilo, and the claim that it is is a lack of comprehension about the Big Bang.
The Big Bang makes no claims about what occurred prior to it. We don't know, and indeed, according to our current understanding of the laws of physics, not only is it very difficult for us to know, the concept of "before" the Big Bang doesn't even really apply due to relativity.
That said, there are numerous plausible hypotheses regarding the universe; some claim that there is an oscillating universe, though sadly our current understanding of the laws of physics say A) probably not but B) dark energy probably indicates that we are missing a high-scale equation.
Atheists are silly. That is the first thing I posted in this thread. The statement "There is no God" is just as unprovable as "There is a God."
Not really. Its very easy to disprove specific conceptions of gods. The Judeo-Christian conception of God does not exist; same applies to other mythologies.
There are impossible to disprove gods at the moment; a deist god is impossible to disprove according to our current understanding of the laws of physics, but someday we may understand the Big Bang, which will destroy them as well. Its pretty unlikely, logically, that there is a deist god, because god has been hiding in none of the other gaps; there's no reason to believe in a demiurge either, and claims to the contrary are the same as the claims of "but God is necessary to create life!"
Now, there is the Flying Spaghetti Monster and the Invisible Pink Unicorn, which are innately disprovable by their very conception; the FSM is omnipotent and waves his noodly appendage to make it impossible to find him, while the Invisible Pink Unicorn is completely undectable and doesn't do anything. However, these gods are trivial cases and their existance is meaningless in the same way as the existance of free will is meaningless; the universe is the same either way as far as we can tell.
It was done with Mobey Dick as well. It does get interesting hits on other texts just not nearly the same scale as what occurs in the Bible. I do think it is a neat phenomena in regards to text.
Fun fact: This is untrue.
The Bible Code is garbage. Any large body of text will produce the same results, and the more flexible the language is in spelling, the "better" it is for generating such. That doesn't mean that its real; it means you can get it to say anything.
Thus every large text written in Hebrew will be as good at it. It isn't an "interesting phenomenon" in any way; its a trivial phenomenon.
I do not believe what we call 'inbreeding was a problem back then. Mankind was still very close to perfection from Adam and Eve, as in they had nearly perfect bodies....
Did you know that the last common universal ancestor of all humans lived more than 6000 years ago?
Indeed, our last common male ancestor lived about 60,000 years ago, and female more than 100,000 years ago.
Obviously in neither case were they alone.
I wonder if it is postscript or prescript. The bible has evolved...some works taken away...We have discussed this I believe. I cannot remember what you said about accurate prophesies, though I remember we talked about how the bible has changed. If you do have a change of mind it would be cool in regards to posting it again.
What about Adam and Lilith? hehe nah really did you ever notice Woman was created before Eve was created?
sure.....I have not the time now to do fancy quotes but ill write a few down.
The earth was defined as "the world was round and suspended upon nothing"
this is long before man went to space, and when popular belief thought it was flat and on infinate turtles..... Or before the concept of gravity.
where did that information come from? perhaps some time traveler? focus on that quote and think about how big of a deal it was for that statement to be written in the bible. Now if it had said in the scriptures that "the world is flat and everything revolves around it." then the bible would not hold any water.... The fact is that the bible was FAR ahead of science.
heres another one...(quote from earlier post)
what if your friend told you that Los Angeles would be destroyed in 2015 by a man named Cyrus and no one will inhabit the city EVER again, and then sure enough 2015 rolls around and HOLY KRAP a random dude named Cyrus destroyed Los Angeles and 1000 years later no one moved back to rebuild it.
well...Babylon (real city ruins discovered along the Euphrates river) was destroyed In 1 day in a predicted year by a man called out by name. And TODAY (real life now) the city is still a ruin.
That is not some vague nostradamus bologne...that is specific year, name, event, and proven eternal abandonment. Saddam Hussein attempted to rebuild it and was hanged in 2006. (coincidence?) The few walls he had rebuilt are crumbling.
Look it up...its pretty amazing, and reassuring. makes you need less of that faith stuff.
also Jesus had a predicted place of birth, family chain, and appeared as Messiah in the year 29 C.E. as predicted. I cant really prove to anyone he lived with his skeleton or anything, but there are a LOT of ancient texts that say he existed...and these texts are physical things written by real people. but I suppose without a skeleton few people will call that proof.
(sarcasm)I suppose it is easier to believe that all these authors collaborated together before the internet was made and wrote a book over several hundred years in several locations. (/saracsm)
I have no idea about this lillith character you speak of.....She is not in my bible.
what if your friend told you that Los Angeles would be destroyed in 2015 by a man named Cyrus and no one will inhabit the city EVER again, and then sure enough 2015 rolls around and HOLY KRAP a random dude named Cyrus destroyed Los Angeles and 1000 years later no one moved back to rebuild it.
well...Babylon (real city ruins discovered along the Euphrates river) was destroyed In 1 day in a predicted year by a man called out by name. And TODAY (real life now) the city is still a ruin.
And how do you know that God himself is not responsible for this?
Think about it. Suppose I told you that within the week, the front window of your house would be shattered by a brick with the number "7" scratched into it. A couple of days later, I scratch the number "7" into a brick and throw it through your window. Am I now a prophet? Does this make me worth trusting?
I could do this as many times as I wanted, making "predictions" and then bringing them about myself. You wouldn't know that I was the one behind it all; all you'd know is that it is completely within my power to make my own predictions come true.
According to your reasoning, then, I can see into the future with complete infallibility and you should be hinging upon my every word! Now lend me ten thousand dollars. I'll pay it back, with interest.
Your argument wasn't a valid one 13 pages ago and it still isn't.
The Bible was, in fact, written by a number of people that got together and decided what stories this holy work should include. Many accepted texts of the time were left out because they didn't jibe with current church doctrine. Politics, baby! So, in short, yes - the Bible is a collaborative effort that was edited intensely before it was "re-released". Many of the stories included in the finished product were written after the fact - as many stories are. This means that many predictions were actually more likely simple reports after the fact with an added message for oomf. The Bible is an example of editing for political reasons at it's best. And it's creation resulted in the destruction of vast amounts of knowledge deemed heretical by it's creators.
I am going to be the next president, blue is brown, and birds have hair!!! Wow making stuff up is fun!
none of what you said is true. that was just a text block of your false opinion.
(wight chocolate you should sign in with your other account so I can update something....was it awesomeguy or something?)
I am going to be the next president, blue is brown, and birds have hair!!! Wow making stuff up is fun!
none of what you said is true. that was just a text block of your false opinion.
Umm. It is true. I've seen several documentaries that said exactly this. The History Channel's Banned From the Bible immediately springs to mind. Check it out, it's quite informative viewing.
Oh, just wanted to point out that I have no need to come here and make stuff up in arguments. Not my style. ;)
not to sound all paranoid or delusional., but the devils influence creates a LOT of misleading information to detract from the truth. I have seen mountains of basisless media with the intent to defame the bible. some of it is quite convincing, but then that is the point...to convince you of something.
(wight chocolate you should sign in with your other account so I can update something....was it awesomeguy or something?)
Ugh.
It's not even worth the trouble of sending him a message just so that we can prove we're not the same person. You go ahead and make believe I'm a sockpuppeteer if that makes you happy, kiddo. Doesn't alter the fact that your argument lies in ruins.
roger that....ill check it out when i get some time......thanks for the source! I do question the reliability or motives of the creaters of the documentary...but if i watch it maybe that will help....
not to sound all paranoid or delusional., but the devils influence creates a LOT of misleading information to detract from the truth. I have seen mountains of basisless media with the intent to defame the bible. some of it is quite convincing, but then that is the point...to convince you of something.
Testament of Solomon
Story of Lilith (Book of the Zohar/Aplhabet of Ben Zira)
Joseph & Aseneth
Bell and the Dragon
Could always hit up...
Gospels of Judas
Gospels of Mary
etc
etc
Just a few examples to start ya off.
Eh I am sorry but the whole Satan disinformation thing is weak. I would prefer that the bible was corrupted by human hands.
We have already talked about how Lucifer is an aspect of God in my view as are all things...
Jesus...son of God?...sure but he made it clear we all were too...
also Jesus had a predicted place of birth, family chain, and appeared as Messiah in the year 29 C.E. as predicted. I cant really prove to anyone he lived with his skeleton or anything, but there are a LOT of ancient texts that say he existed...and these texts are physical things written by real people. but I suppose without a skeleton few people will call that proof.
Did you ever ask yourself why Judaism does not accept Jesus, while Muslims accept him as a prophet?
well...Babylon (real city ruins discovered along the Euphrates river) was destroyed In 1 day in a predicted year by a man called out by name. And TODAY (real life now) the city is still a ruin.
That is not some vague nostradamus bologne...that is specific year, name, event, and proven eternal abandonment. Saddam Hussein attempted to rebuild it and was hanged in 2006. (coincidence?) The few walls he had rebuilt are crumbling.
And now we are using it as a base of operations...helipad if you will...
Really...when does the bible say it was destroyed?
I have no idea about this lillith character you speak of.....She is not in my bible.
Not sure what bible you have but, Isaiah 34:14...
Ben Sira was an attempt to link Lilith elsewhere (though I doubt the accuracy)...it does leave a interesting question though...
God created Adam and another...and then later made Eve. Who was the first woman created? Maybe it was to help inbreeding?
The notion of space and time not existing before hand is now part and parcel of the whole big bang theory. THAT is a statement of the pree-boom conditions.
No, it's really not. How many times do you have to be told that? The Big Bang theory is all about how the universe evolves from a hot, dense state some finite time in the past. The theory says nothing about creation. Read a book about the Big Bang and you'll see that. Even Wikipedia states that in the first few lines.
If you want an analogy, think evolution vs. abiogenesis. Evolution doesn't say how life came to be in the first place (abiogensis), only how it changes over time. Only in the case of the Big Bang, we don't have a counterpart for abiogenesis yet (and maybe never will).
If the universe is finite, what forms the edge? If you say it is curved then that requires it be curved in another dimension and shows you were not dealing with the whole of the universe to begin with :D
There is no edge, but it is finite. The Cosmological Principle states that the universe is homogeneous and isotropic, both of which are observed to be true (though granted only from our position in the universe). That can't be the case if there was an edge.
Also, you don't need another dimension to have curved spacetime. It's perfectly capable of curving within the 4 it has. The overall curvature of the universe leads to three possibilities: a flat universe, a closed universe and an open universe. The closed universe curves back on itself.
Its not an assumption, its a logical necessity
It's not a logical necessity. The 'edge of the universe' has no meaning, even in a finite cosmology. By analogy, imagine the surface of a sphere (a 2 dimensional curved space). Where is the edge of that space? Ok, now expand that to the 3D space on the surface of a 4-sphere, and then a 4D space on the surface of a 5-sphere.
Or, consider the poles of the sphere...what's north of the North Pole? Asking 'what's outside the universe' or 'where's the universe's edge' is just as nonsensical.
The expanding universe theory says space itself is expanding; if it is...what is filling the gaps as bits of it expand apart?
Space. There are no gaps, because the space itself is expanding, not drifting apart from other parts of space. Imagine blowing a bubble: the bigger it gets, the larger its surface gets. It doesn't separate into lots of tiny pieces of bubble, the pieces just get larger.
I'm not about to argue whether angels on one pinhead can engage angels on another pinhead in combat nor what combat modifiers are involved; first we need to establish the existance of the pin heads and the angels :D
What? That doesn't apply at all.
I'm not trying to argue whether angels on pinheads can fight, I'm showing you evidence that the angels are there, just as you've asked.
You're ignoring the evidence I'm giving you for the Big Bang because you don't have any evidence for the Big Bang?!
The Bible was, in fact, written by a number of people that got together and decided what stories this holy work should include. Many accepted texts of the time were left out because they didn't jibe with current church doctrine. Politics, baby! So, in short, yes - the Bible is a collaborative effort that was edited intensely before it was "re-released". Many of the stories included in the finished product were written after the fact - as many stories are. This means that many predictions were actually more likely simple reports after the fact with an added message for oomf. The Bible is an example of editing for political reasons at it's best. And it's creation resulted in the destruction of vast amounts of knowledge deemed heretical by it's creators.
Yep, didn't they vote on what went in and what was left out? It was a vote that got the book of Revelations into the new testament instead of St Peter's Apocalypse. When you read the Apocalypse, it was kinda graphic, but it makes more sense to me than revelations, because in the Apocalypse, those who got in to heaven aren't happy because their families and friends are being fried. God eventually relents and lets them all in.
The Bible was, in fact, written by a number of people that got together and decided what stories this holy work should include. Many accepted texts of the time were left out because they didn't jibe with current church doctrine. Politics, baby! So, in short, yes - the Bible is a collaborative effort that was edited intensely before it was "re-released". Many of the stories included in the finished product were written after the fact - as many stories are. This means that many predictions were actually more likely simple reports after the fact with an added message for oomf. The Bible is an example of editing for political reasons at it's best. And it's creation resulted in the destruction of vast amounts of knowledge deemed heretical by it's creators.
This is absolutely true, and happened many times throughout history.
The Torah itself is the end result of this process. Indeed, the editing process can be seen in the document, and people have reconstructed three or four seperate sources.
The Christian Bible had less editing and more apocrypha - that is to say, they didn't really alter the writings (though some of the gospels did have minor additions and subtractions) so much as deemed entire books apocryphal and not the word of God. In spite of this, we know a great number of documents in the Bible itself were not written by whom they claim to have been written by, and we know that the gospels, for instance, were written between 50 years and a century after the death of Jesus of Nazereth, assuming he even existed as a person.
Indeed, a couple of the gospels themselves were compilations - Mark, Matthew, and Luke are all related, with Matthew and Luke being written based on both Mark and the Q source.
There's also the Secret Gospel of Mark.
And now we are using it as a base of operations...helipad if you will...
Really...when does the bible say it was destroyed?
Not sure what bible you have but, Isaiah 34:14...
Ben Sira was an attempt to link Lilith elsewhere (though I doubt the accuracy)...it does leave a interesting question though...
God created Adam and another...and then later made Eve. Who was the first woman created? Maybe it was to help inbreeding?
for when it was destroyed look up a man named Cyrus. He was the one who destroyed the supposedly impregnable Babylon. It is easy to find online...
as for the lilith thing...that verse speaks of Edoms desolation and things that inhabit its ruins....using lilith in that verse is kind of odd and uncommon...the surrounding text names several animals that reside there.
most scholars use one of these words in its place as a more accurate translation;
..screech owl
..night-monster
..nightjar (type of owl)
there is sumerian mythology of a female demon called a Lilitu, but the word is originally in hebrew and probably has nothing in common with the sumerian. It comes from root words meaning "night-twister" the nightjar was chosen because it fits the description and location..It has a twirling twisting motion as it hunts.
also there is no other scripture that would support the theory of there being a first created woman named Lilith.
It sounds like hollywood writing or something created by a feminist angsty vampire cult.
also there is no other scripture that would support the theory of there being a first created woman named Lilith.
Beyond the Zohar and the Alphabet of Ben Sira, none. Considering that Christians tend to leave anything that doesn't conform to their narrow beliefs on the editing room floor, it doesn't surprise me you've never heard of it.
Another question, why is there nothing between Jesus' birth and the time when he started preaching? Did he live in a bubble for that thirty years or so? What about the chapters in the old testament that fall between the crucifiction and the final judgement in Revelations? How about the writings of the other apostles? Where are the gospels of the other eight*? What happened to the works of John the Baptist?
*or ten, if you want to count Paul of Tarsus and Mary Magdalen.
The Torah itself is the end result of this process. Indeed, the editing process can be seen in the document, and people have reconstructed three or four seperate sources.
it was all written by moses...i doubt he compiled and edited himself...though im sure our oldest documents may be from different sources to equal the Torah.
The Christian Bible had less editing and more apocrypha - that is to say, they didn't really alter the writings (though some of the gospels did have minor additions and subtractions) so much as deemed entire books apocryphal and not the word of God. In spite of this, we know a great number of documents in the Bible itself were not written by whom they claim to have been written by,
i can only think that if a document was found and it had no harmony with the bible that it should not be accepted as inspired word... im not sure about this author dillema you speak of... any examples?
and we know that the gospels, for instance, were written between 50 years and a century after the death of Jesus of Nazereth, assuming he even existed as a person.
yes true... im pretty sure the last one was finished 98 years after the facts. But I am pretty sure the authors did not write about a fictional 'imaginary' friend. If he did not exist then what were they writing about? did they get together one day and decide to make up some imaginary person and write about him?
Indeed, a couple of the gospels themselves were compilations - Mark, Matthew, and Luke are all related, with Matthew and Luke being written based on both Mark and the Q source.
mathew was his own source as he was an apostle, mark was not an apostle and it is believed he got his info from peter. Luke likely referred to Mathew and paul..John started his writing last..about 70 years later he had a close personal relationship with jesus like mathew did so he needed no source.
There's also the Secret Gospel of Mark.
wow i just looked that up and it does not fit at all....i would call it totally bogus.
Beyond the Zohar and the Alphabet of Ben Sira, none. Considering that Christians tend to leave anything that doesn't conform to their narrow beliefs on the editing room floor, it doesn't surprise me you've never heard of it.
well im looking it up now.....
the Zohar was written in the 13 th century....WOW no wonder it is not accepted...it is from the dark ages. And the author Moses de Leon claimed to have been inspired by Elijah and not god. Already I do not need to read more into it.
Alphabet of Ben Sira...well have you read this yourself? It is an obvious joke and a satire.... it talks about starving ethiopians, farting, and masturbation.
I am hoping you were kidding about Christians and narrow beliefs when you mentioned those sources....I have never heard of these because they are literary jokes and they are as unimportant as a harry potter book.
Another question, why is there nothing between Jesus' birth and the time when he started preaching? Did he live in a bubble for that thirty years or so?
no...but he did not really do anything worth writing about until after he was baptized.(for the most part) It would have been a waste of time to write about his toddler and teenage years.... thats my best guess.
The Bible was, in fact, written by a number of people that got together and decided what stories this holy work should include.
Well some of the bible was written over several centuries. It's has 40 writers and still has a perfect flow through the whole bible.
quote from shamurai7
The earth was defined as "the world was round and suspended upon nothing"
this is long before man went to space, and when popular belief thought it was flat and on infinate turtles..... Or before the concept of gravity.
where did that information come from? perhaps some time traveler? focus on that quote and think about how big of a deal it was for that statement to be written in the bible. Now if it had said in the scriptures that "the world is flat and everything revolves around it." then the bible would not hold any water.... The fact is that the bible was FAR ahead of science.
...
As pointed out earlier, the Bible as been edited/changed many times and not just during the translation process. Go see the many different bibles out there. The bible is like a manifest of a church and as the church evolves, it is changed to fit the new philosophical positions. That is also why many protestant bibles have different wording or different passages.
I must point out it is not the work of the devil, but the work of human reflection. Now, for the faithful, this doesn't invalidate the divine mandate aspect of it. You can view the rewritting of the bible as inspired by the Holy Ghost (position usually taken by many church authorities). I don't believe it is the case, but that is only my position. ;)
...
And I feel the need to point out again that we have copies of the Scriptures (NT) dating back to pre-100 A.D., and there are no differences from what we have now. The entire NT, minus...I think it was 20 or so verses?...can be assembled from texts before 300 AD (I think older even than 250; I had an essay linked in this or another thread about that).
I'd like to emphasize again; Nicea didn't pick books willy-nilly. They picked books that: were most widely accepted (instead of only 1 or 2 congregations using it), that were consistent in message with each other (which rules things like the Gnostic gospels out), and that they could more fully prove the authorship.
In this, I like to go with the words of 2 Peter 1:16-18 "We did not follow cleverly invented stories when we told you about the power and coming of our Lord Jesus Christ, but we were eyewitnesses of his majesty. For He received honor and glory from God the Father when the voice came to Him from the Majestic Glory, saying, "This is my Son, whom I love; with Him I am well pleased." We ourselves heard this voice that came from heaven when we were with Him on the sacred mountain."
As well, I ultimately agree with the words of C. S. Lewis in The Silver Chair: "“But there’s one more thing to be said, even so. Suppose we have only dreamed, or made up, all those things—trees and grass and sun and moon and stars and Aslan himself. Suppose we have. Then all I can say is that, in that case, the made-up things seem a good deal more important than the real ones. Suppose this black pit of a kingdom of yours is the only world. Well, it strikes me as a pretty poor one. We’re just babies making up a game, if you’re right. But four babies playing a game can make a play-world which licks your real world hollow. That’s why I’m going to stand by the play-world. I’m on Aslan’s side even if there isn’t any Aslan to lead it. I’m going to live as like a Narnian as I can even if there isn’t any Narnia. […] Not that our lives will be very long, I should think; but that’s a small loss if the world’s as dull a place as you say.” [Puddleglum] "
I agree with everything that ieattrollsforbreakfast is saying, but I must say that to my knowledge there is no real proof the universe is finite (but I am a solid state physicist I may be missing something). The Big Bang theory does not need it to be finite. It only states that the universe was denser. An infinite universe can expand and yield exactly the same local results as a finite universe. If you look at every quantity that affects the equations, they are expressed in terms of densities (per volume). Hence, the size of the universe factors out.
So, an infinite expanding universe with the same density will also reach critical densities at the same time, giving the same age to the universe. [To be clear, I am using the standard convention: observable universe/universe/Universe. Where the first is , of course, finite. The second is a somewhat generalisation of the first to think about what is really there. The third is the philosophical concept of everything that exists and as such is a pretty absolute entity. Notice in my post I use the second.]
Yes, very true, I had neglected that. :embarrass
But yes, infinite or finite, there is no edge to the universe so we don't need to worry about what's 'outside', and all the evidence for the Big Bang applies equally to both.
I guess a creation-ex-nihilo event or an expansion from a singularity might suggest finite over infinite (to be honest I'm not entirely sure!), but those things are irrelevant to the Big Bang anyway.
Another question, why is there nothing between Jesus' birth and the time when he started preaching? Did he live in a bubble for that thirty years or so?
no...but he did not really do anything worth writing about until after he was baptized.(for the most part) It would have been a waste of time to write about his toddler and teenage years.... thats my best guess.
A quick answer to both: there are works describing acts Jesus performed as a child. They were, of course, deemed unfit to be placed in the finished work. The only story I can recall off-hand was one of a young Jesus playing near a river or other body of water. He took mud from the banks and sculpted several birds out of the mud. He then gave these birds life and sent them on their merry way. It was excluded, IIRC, because of the obvious abuse of power implications. ;)
Other stories showed the child Jesus in a less than divine light and were left out because of this. It seems that Jesus was as nearly normal a kid as the son of god could be. He used his power to engage in childhood pranks, etc. Boys will be boys - and all that. But one story - and I'm very shaky on the memory of this one so if anyone can corroborate or explain it better, please do - had Jesus killing a friend as a "joke". And he then, of course, brought this child back to life. He seemed to have trouble understanding that the power he held should not be used willy-nilly. But, if you ask me, that's just how a normal kid with such a gift would act. Still, the council felt that these stories were not exactly faith-inspiring reading material and decided they'd best be left out.
Well some of the bible was written over several centuries. It's has 40 writers and still has a perfect flow through the whole bible.
That's what editing is for. To make additions/omissions and still maintain a flow (and obviously more, but spelling, etc is not what's important here). Editors get paid for their ability to pull this off. ;)
That's what editing is for. To make additions/omissions and still maintain a flow (and obviously more, but spelling, etc is not what's important here). Editors get paid for their ability to pull this off. ;)
Editors? Basically your saying that the bible has been tampered with. No ones edited it, just translated.
The bible that I use is translated from the oldest known scriptures, including the Dead Sea Scrolls. Also the people who have translated the bible in resent times, would be able to see that the other bibles were changed. All bibles are at least mostly the same, example differences : "anyone who believes" to "anyone exercising faith" and of course putting Gods name back.
A quick answer to both: there are works describing acts Jesus performed as a child. They were, of course, deemed unfit to be placed in the finished work. The only story I can recall off-hand was one of a young Jesus playing near a river or other body of water. He took mud from the banks and sculpted several birds out of the mud. He then gave these birds life and sent them on their merry way. It was excluded, IIRC, because of the obvious abuse of power implications.
Other stories showed the child Jesus in a less than divine light and were left out because of this. It seems that Jesus was as nearly normal a kid as the son of god could be. He used his power to engage in childhood pranks, etc. Boys will be boys - and all that. But one story - and I'm very shaky on the memory of this one so if anyone can corroborate or explain it better, please do - had Jesus killing a friend as a "joke". And he then, of course, brought this child back to life. He seemed to have trouble understanding that the power he held should not be used willy-nilly. But, if you ask me, that's just how a normal kid with such a gift would act. Still, the council felt that these stories were not exactly faith-inspiring reading material and decided they'd best be left out.
Im not saying you made this up, but all that information IS made up. Perhaps something from a work of fiction taking liderties in a different book.
There is no diabolical 'council' that is picking and choosing what goes in and what doesn't... They translate, not edit. If something has a fishy or a bogus source they will not just add it in to the bible.
Also Jesus' powers were granted from his father...If the father did not agree with his reasons he would not grant him the power...
I hardly believe that god saw fit to grant someone the power to kill and raise a boy for no reason. or the power to cause pranks.
Editors? Basically your saying that the bible has been tampered with. No ones edited it, just translated.
The bible that I use is translated from the oldest known scriptures, including the Dead Sea Scrolls. Also the people who have translated the bible in resent times, would be able to see that the other bibles were changed. All bibles are at least mostly the same, example differences : "anyone who believes" to "anyone exercising faith" and of course putting Gods name back.
I'm not saying anything. I am merely repeating historical fact. At a point in our history, the church formed a council to determine what was to be put into the Bible. They added some stories and removed others. The stories that they decided to exclude were ones not considered to be in line with current doctrine. Though the church felt these stories were not Bible material, they were still widely used and respected. In order to eliminate competition, the church declared these other methods of thinking (see Gnosticism for one example) apocryphal and ordered the works destroyed. This move was not guided by god, but greed. Eliminating the competition, so to speak.
The Bibles you see today are translations of this long-ago compilation of purposefully selected stories. That's why - today - they all look similar. This change to the Bible was done a long time ago. And the edits done to it were not conducted by god, but men. Men with an agenda. ;)
Im not saying you made this up, but all that information IS made up. Perhaps something from a work of fiction taking liderties in a different book.
There is no diabolical 'council' that is picking and choosing what goes in and what doesn't... They translate, not edit. If something has a fishy or a bogus source they will not just add it in to the bible.
Also Jesus' powers were granted from his father...If the father did not agree with his reasons he would not grant him the power...
I hardly believe that god saw fit to grant someone the power to kill and raise a boy for no reason. or the power to cause pranks.
The council (or whatever the hell it was called) performed this uber editorial a very long time ago. Today's Bibles are translated versions of the compilation these men created. I have no idea if today's "holy men" are editing what they translate. When I make mention of this council, I am talking about a group of men that has long since turned to dust.
The stories about young Jesus have just as much merit as any stories that made it into the Bible. What gives more credibility to the stories that were accepted - by men - and included into the Bible than these? Nothing. They were written with the same "eye-witness" credibility that the stories that made it to the Bible had. Someone saw Jesus turn water to wine. Another saw Jesus make birds from mud or play a nasty trick on a pal. What makes "Someone" more of a reliable source than "Another"? Nothing. Well, nothing besides the judgement of the men that decided what the Bible should include. And therein lies the problem. The credibility of the stories that you find in your Bible today was determined not by a higher power, but by perfectly fallible men. Men with a beef against competing ideologies.
EDIT: Did a lil' research of my own and found that the child Jesus stuff is questionable. The first known copy of it was not written until the sixth century - making it too "new" to be official scripture. There are some accounts that it was in circulation around 150 AD, though, as there are recorded comments from a church leader calling the stories spurious. So, depending upon which "evidence" you prefer, it could go either way. Thought I'd toss that out there in the interest of truth in discussion. See? I don't make stuff up! :P
(wight chocolate you should sign in with your other account so I can update something....was it awesomeguy or something?)
I had been here more than two years prior to Wight_Chocolate signing up.
Einnig tala ég tungumál sem hann kann að öllum líkindum ekki rassgat í.
I'd like to emphasize again; Nicea didn't pick books willy-nilly. They picked books that: were most widely accepted (instead of only 1 or 2 congregations using it), that were consistent in message with each other (which rules things like the Gnostic gospels out), and that they could more fully prove the authorship.
In this, I like to go with the words of 2 Peter 1:16-18 "We did not follow cleverly invented stories when we told you about the power and coming of our Lord Jesus Christ, but we were eyewitnesses of his majesty. For He received honor and glory from God the Father when the voice came to Him from the Majestic Glory, saying, "This is my Son, whom I love; with Him I am well pleased." We ourselves heard this voice that came from heaven when we were with Him on the sacred mountain."
Nicea was a joke...the majority of people did not show up to it and the minority got the say.
You cannot say that they picked what was widely accepted...or what was consistent... The only thing we can say for sure is that the minority made the choice for the majority.
I am sorry, but reading some of the gnostic texts they make a lot of sense and were consistent...
Christianity has always been fractious...from the moment Jesus died til current.
Editors? Basically your saying that the bible has been tampered with. No ones edited it, just translated.
Then it has been MIS-translated many times; sometimes intentionally, it seems.
I don't know if anyone else has pointed this out (haven't read the ENTIRE thread), but remember the bit about "Thou shall not suffer a witch to live"?
The actual word in Hebrew AND Aramaic translates closer into "poisoner" than witch.
(Which, too me, makes a whole lot more sense; if someone's going around slipping other people a "Kavorkian cocktail", you really shouldn't let that person roam loose. )
However, the commonly accepted version of the verse has been responsible for the justification of hundreds of thousands, if not millions, of deaths.
Then it meant consorting with demons and evil spirits, not dabbling in this or that. Not nice people by any stretch.
And considering the age of texts we have, and the lack of any difference between them and modern sources...I'm curious on the "mistranslated a whole bunch" idea. Now, there might, might, be a bit more room for the OT side of things...
I'm not saying anything. I am merely repeating historical fact. At a point in our history, the church formed a council to determine what was to be put into the Bible. They added some stories and removed others. The stories that they decided to exclude were ones not considered to be in line with current doctrine. Though the church felt these stories were not Bible material, they were still widely used and respected. In order to eliminate competition, the church declared these other methods of thinking (see Gnosticism for one example) apocryphal and ordered the works destroyed. This move was not guided by god, but greed. Eliminating the competition, so to speak.
The Bibles you see today are translations of this long-ago compilation of purposefully selected stories. That's why - today - they all look similar. This change to the Bible was done a long time ago. And the edits done to it were not conducted by god, but men. Men with an agenda. ;)
'The' church ? Not all Christendom religions use the word : church, sounds like your speeking of a specific religion.
'The' church ? Not all Christendom religions use the word : church, sounds like your speeking of a specific religion.
Property of whom is speaking of a specific religion?
it was all written by moses...i doubt he compiled and edited himself...though im sure our oldest documents may be from different sources to equal the Torah.
Tradition states that it was written down by Moses.
It is now known that none of it really was, though. Indeed, there's no real evidence that he even existed.
Another question, why is there nothing between Jesus' birth and the time when he started preaching? Did he live in a bubble for that thirty years or so? What about the chapters in the old testament that fall between the crucifiction and the final judgement in Revelations? How about the writings of the other apostles? Where are the gospels of the other eight*? What happened to the works of John the Baptist?
None of the gospels were written by the apostles.
i can only think that if a document was found and it had no harmony with the bible that it should not be accepted as inspired word... im not sure about this author dillema you speak of... any examples?
Interestingly, the only things in the Bible which were actually written by the people they claim to have been written by were a couple of the letters. None of the rest of it was written by the people who are claimed to have written it.
The Torah wasn't written by Moses.
The Gospels weren't written by the apostles.
yes true... im pretty sure the last one was finished 98 years after the facts. But I am pretty sure the authors did not write about a fictional 'imaginary' friend. If he did not exist then what were they writing about? did they get together one day and decide to make up some imaginary person and write about him?
Why did the Greeks write about Zeus?
Why did the Romans write about Mithras?
Why do I write about the Flying Spaghetti Monster?
Why does Tolkien write about elves?
mathew was his own source as he was an apostle, mark was not an apostle and it is believed he got his info from peter. Luke likely referred to Mathew and paul..John started his writing last..about 70 years later he had a close personal relationship with jesus like mathew did so he needed no source.
The Gospel of Mark was written sometime after 70 AD. The Gospels of Matthew and Luke were both written based on the Gospel of Mark, as well as another source.
This has a fairly good description of it
Just because people -claim- they were written by X, Y, or Z doesn't make it so.
wow i just looked that up and it does not fit at all....i would call it totally bogus.
Well, there's some amount of debate about its authenticity. However, it is worth noting that Christianity is a mystery religion, and as such it is entirely plausible that it existed.
I suspect that the argument won't be considered settled unless or until someone finds such a document or they find the original letter.
Well some of the bible was written over several centuries. It's has 40 writers and still has a perfect flow through the whole bible.
Er, have you read the Bible?
Just start at the beginning. Notice how chapter 1 and chapter 2 contradict one another?
I would not say it was ahead of science. The greeks calculated the diameter of the Earth in 600 B.C. and knew that the Earth was round even before that. So that bit of knowledge could have entered the bible.
The Bible itself implies the world is flat and a lot of other wrong things, such as the firmament.
And I feel the need to point out again that we have copies of the Scriptures (NT) dating back to pre-100 A.D., and there are no differences from what we have now. The entire NT, minus...I think it was 20 or so verses?...can be assembled from texts before 300 AD (I think older even than 250; I had an essay linked in this or another thread about that).
No and no.
We have absolutely no fragments of the gospels whatsoever which predate 100 AD. The earliest known fragments date from the second century AD, and none date from the first half of that century.
Secondly, some gospels (such as the Gospel of Mark) have changed somewhat. The beginning of Mark, for instance, has multiple forms, and Mark 16:9-20 were added after the manuscript was written.
'The' church ? Not all Christendom religions use the word : church, sounds like your speeking of a specific religion.
I was using "church" as a generic term. The documentary series I have been referring to, however, was focusing on the decision to unify the Christian texts. So when I say "church", I am using a generic to save time. Regarding the documentary series, though, I would have to say I meant Christian church. In any event, any religion that uses the Christian Bible would also be applicable. Basically, if your Bible dates back to 331 AD for the Old Testament or 371 AD for Old and New, your Bible is the one I (and the documentary series) have been talking about. I hope that clears this up a bit.
Titanium Dragon Tradition states that it was written down by Moses.
It is now known that none of it really was, though. Indeed, there's no real evidence that he even existed.
well I do not have the time to address all the points...but many of them are incorrect. so I will address the first one. Moses.
Here is some information quoted not from wikipedia but from a racent book published in 1990:
paragraph 3
"Moses is the writer of Exodus, as is indicated by it being the second volume of the Pentateuch. (the first five books) The book itself registers three instances of Moses' making a written record at the direction of Jehovah. (17:14; 24:4; 34:27) According to bible scholars Westcott and Hort, Jesus and the writers of The Christian Greek Scriptures quote or refer to Exodus more than 100 times, as when Jesus said: "Moses gave you the law, did he not?" Exodus was written in the wilderness of Sinai, in the year 1512 B.C.E., a year after the sons of Israel had left Egypt. It covers a period of 145 years, from the death of Joseph in 1657 B.C.E to the erection of the tabernacle of Jehovah's worship in 1512 B.C.E. --John 7:19; Ex. 1:6; 40:17."
paragraph 4
"Considering that the events of Exodus occurred about 3,500 years ago, there is a surprising amount of archaeological and other external evidence testifying to the accuracy of the record. Egyptian names are correctly used in Exodus, and titles mentioned correspond to Egyptian inscriptions. Archaeology shows that it was custom of the Egyptians to allow foreigners to live in Egypt but to keep separate from them. The waters of the nile were used for bathing, which calls to mind that Pharaoh's daughter bathed there. Bricks have been found made with and without straw. Also, in Egypt's heyday magicians were prominent.--Ex. 8:22; 2:5; 5:6, 7, 18; 7:11."
According to bible scholars Westcott and Hort,
I think I've found the root of your problem. Those two hacks have been pushing the same crap for years. You should read material that isn't written by literalists.
The bible was written by hundreds of hands over the years. It's original author is what you're trying to discern. As to that, I doubt seriously you'll ever be able to pinpoint one individual that can, without doubt, be labelled as the author.
Your friends Westcott and Hort find all sorts of connections that aren't there. For example, Shishak was not the name of any Pharoah of any dynasty in any kingdom of Egypt, so therefore, that doesn't fit. The Ramses mentioned in Exodus isn't corroborated by Egyptian history, much less the mass exodus of any group of slaves. If the story could be confirmed, Egyptologists would be the ones to ask, not those two fanatics.
For instance did you know a few years back there was a earthquake in Africa. Gases that were released killed this low laying village, the people died in their sleep.
Also take into account that first born males in that period of Egypt usual had beds closer to the ground as afforded to them by their birth right. It is possible that the angel of death could have worked through poisoness vapors that were released with the earthquake and eruption of the volcano.
I honestly believe we are to quick to write off our ancestors as not as brilliant as we are today. They seemed to possess a different sort of knowledge that was more close to the earth and nature then the business of our modern lives can afford. Look at all the inventions that we rediscover.
The past has a lot of lessons, good and bad that we can learn from. A lot of the thoughts that really boomed around the time of Pythagoras and following it are just as important now as they were back then. When the people of Europe were going through intellectual decline during the Dark Ages, the Middle East became the pinnacle of learning and philosophy...
A lot of what we will learn will be a lot of what we forgot.
Also take into account that first born males in that period of Egypt usual had beds closer to the ground as afforded to them by their birth right. It is possible that the angel of death could have worked through poisoness vapors that were released with the earthquake and eruption of the volcano.
The only problem lies in the story you're trying to use the gases to explain. Lamb's blood smeared on a door frame wouldn't have spared anyone. The same deaths would have occurred throughout the country.
The volcano you're talking about, would that happen to be the one on Thera? The one that wiped out the Minoan culture on Crete? Too many miles away for an outgassing to affect Egypt. And if memory serves, that was just before the Dynasty* ruled by the "sea people" which was long after Rameses.
*I'll have to double-check but I'm fairly certain that Rameses II** (also called "the Great") was before the sea people. Since historians and archaelogists suspect that the "sea people" were the last remnants of the Minoan population fleeing Crete, that would put the earthquake after the Pharoah that Moses torqued off.
**If memory serves, Rameses eldest son lived to his late 40s and never did inherit from dear ol' dad. Dad was still on the throne when junior snuffed it.
The only problem lies in the story you're trying to use the gases to explain. Lamb's blood smeared on a door frame wouldn't have spared anyone. The same deaths would have occurred throughout the country.
Be funny if they were sitting up for passover while the others were sleeping.
The volcano you're talking about, would that happen to be the one on Thera? The one that wiped out the Minoan culture on Crete? Too many miles away for an outgassing to affect Egypt. And if memory serves, that was just before the Dynasty* ruled by the "sea people" which was long after Rameses.
We usually do not have an eruption without other geological activity. If there was seismic activity there is no way it would be confined to just Crete. The pharaoh of that time was Ahmose I
It is a lot of conjecture though... and I admit that. I would say though that events could coincide...and that if we are going to look into it...we should probably look at past eruptions around the Mediterranean as I am sure that there will be a coincidence.
Though on a sidenote they have found archeological evidence suggesting there was a mass death of males in Egypt and this was around the same time that a volcano was erupting in the Mediterranean.
It's wide open IMO, but plenty of unusual phenomenon have been written off as superstition that did in fact occur in the scientific world. The star of Bethlehem, for one, was reputed to be false but historical/astronomical evidence does point to the anomally back in the day at the appointed time.
Other bits are misinterpreted or figurative. Moses, it was said, parted the Red Sea during Exodus, but it was speculated ("Bible Battles", History Chnnl) that he, and the other Hebrews, merely crossed at a specific time of night during low tide and on foot in addition to other tactical strategies performed as the Israelistes were terribly competant warriors serving in a mercenary capacity as the vanguard in the Sinai to prot. Egypt from northern aggression.
Their choice to leave abruptly (Exodus) required sudden acquisition of provisions to cross the desert...which they took by force from the Egyptians, hence the pharoh's choice to pursue and punish them in addition to leaving the Sinai open to more norther invaders...which happened alot.
The "pillar of fire" as well, was a Hebrew trick too, to fool pursuing Egyptian charioteers...whom were too heavy and far too late to cross after low tide. It was to buy them time (as they were on foot) vs. faster moving chariots. Furthermore, the Egyptians were fixed on the brilliant point of light as the only reference as to the whereabouts of the fleeing Hebrews. This, of course, screwed their nightvision and left them ignorant of the main bulk fleeing from the diversion bearing the fire per Moses' plan to prot. the noncombattants and it worked like a charm.
Hebrew slaves: Very few, if any were in fact slaves. Most Egyptian citizens were honored to build monuments for their revered, deific sovereigns and certain credits and benefits were available to those that did. Basically, they'd sail the Nile calling out for aid and many citizens willfully came to help.
So there is literal truth, symbolism, allegory, conjecture, etc. all throughout, but that does not detract from the wisdom, varying historical reference, or peace of mind garnered through the book itself. It's not a how-to manual, series of maps, writ of poetry/prose, or edicts on law. It's a big 'ole buffet of all those things and alot more, like pretty much most religious texts. People trying to pin it down as "this" or "that" won't have much luck I feel.
Really that is the closest we have been able to dig up. It is easy to write off God's vengeance due to natural events that were happening. Who is really to say God did not work through nature?
It's possible that it did happen, though I do not think we are meant to know the specifics therein, so we impress "our interpretation" of it as to know the deific truth and wisdom in a human mind might drive one insane, make that person a God, kill them, whatever. Like putting a rocket engine in a Festiva. Too much power for such a tiny frame...So, we take our best guesses.
God working through Nature: it was my understanding that He is it. Everything is Gift; us, the air, our thoughts, everything that will be. Every natural disaster, every birth, all that, God is acting through it IMO or that was the "programming" so to speak if you believe in Fate. Not sure where I stand on it, but the totality of existance isn't just a fluke to me.
It's just we have to temper all of existance, that Gift w/ Dominion; our responsibility to take care of that which was given out of generosity. A good plug for environmentalism, peace w/our neighbors, sound bodies & minds, etc.
For instance did you know a few years back there was a earthquake in Africa. Gases that were released killed this low laying village, the people died in their sleep.
Oh, yeah, I saw that on PBS ("Nova" or "Secrets of the Dead", not sure which). Very heavy, good call that.
Lake near village above lava rift that fed nearby volcano. Leaks toxic gases, etc. O2 seapage is heavier than water, thusly, settles on lake bed. Small tremor from rift/volcano sends massive boulder into lake, not a big earthquake or anything, no one panics. Boulder sinks to the bottom, mass bursts dormant O2 pocket and send massive cloud of O2 out of lake and downhill, following gravity, right into the valley...where the village is/was. Every living thing (save plants) died from O2 poisoning. Creepy as Hell.
Also take into account that first born males in that period of Egypt usual had beds closer to the ground as afforded to them by their birth right. It is possible that the angel of death could have worked through poisoness vapors that were released with the earthquake and eruption of the volcano.
An interesting theory given the previous, but I don't know. I like where your head's at though in terms of this event as its not likely that mass killings go unnoticed or unrecorded in the (then) "civilized world". Just, how?
I honestly believe we are to quick to write off our ancestors as not as brilliant as we are today. They seemed to possess a different sort of knowledge that was more close to the earth and nature then the business of our modern lives can afford. Look at all the inventions that we rediscover.
Well said. We call the Mayans primitive despite them having a more accurate calendar than we have now (given leap years, day lights savings, etc). Even early man (**** errectus maybe?) was capable of making crude brain surgey to relieve pressure w/ a surprising survival rate. Roman engineering. Greek politics, etc.
The past has a lot of lessons, good and bad that we can learn from. A lot of the thoughts that really boomed around the time of Pythagoras and following it are just as important now as they were back then. When the people of Europe were going through intellectual decline during the Dark Ages, the Middle East became the pinnacle of learning and philosophy...
Yeah, we did got the #10 from the Moors when we kicked all these "primitive heathens" our of Moorish Spain I thought. They brought that from "back home". Chess is rumored to be Persian I thought. Saccarian sections, all types of goodies. I wonder what was lost in the cullings vs. what we simply spared or took.
A lot of what we will learn will be a lot of what we forgot.
Truly.
ex) We spend millenia documenting time and chronicling our history, then ages later, we forget 2 little digits of said time basics in our infallible wisdom of tech, precipitating Y2K. Make lasers, create incredible marvels, put men in space, etc., but we forgot 2 numbers...
The "pillar of fire" as well, was a Hebrew trick too, to fool pursuing Egyptian charioteers...whom were too heavy and far too late to cross after low tide. It was to buy them time (as they were on foot) vs. faster moving chariots. Furthermore, the Egyptians were fixed on the brilliant point of light as the only reference as to the whereabouts of the fleeing Hebrews. This, of course, screwed their nightvision and left them ignorant of the main bulk fleeing from the diversion bearing the fire per Moses' plan to prot. the noncombattants and it worked like a charm.
This one could be easily explained by a natural seepage of naptha from the surrounding terrain, just like the remains of Bab-e-drah and Numeirra*. In a region rich in oil, there are always places where the lighter fossil fuels seep out to often explosive results.
If a geologic event caused the death of the firstborn as previously postulated, the Hebrews may have simply used their knowledge of previously unknown naptha fields to really put a hurting on the Egyptians. If Moses spent years among the Midianites as stated in the story, he would've been exposed to other places where this phenomenon occurred and could've steered the Egyptian troops into a very dangerous place. One spark and suddenly you've got lots of dead enemies. Think of it as a bronze age fuel-air explosive.
*The cities, fairly recently discovered on the plain to the east of the Dead Sea, that are gaining quite a bit of notoriety because of the belief that they may be the initial inspiration for the story of Sodom and Gamorrah. They were producers of asphalt and an earthquake destroyed them. It's believed that naptha** may have added the fire aspect to the story and the presence of naturally occuring brimstone lends further weight to the idea.
** If Lot, Moses' nephew, was present at the pillar of fire incident, he may have known the signs to look for when Naptha began seeping from the rocks at Sodom. The Angels warning him may have been nothing more than him seeing things that told him it was time to get out before the city got cooked.
There is a lot of crazy and intelligent war lessons in the bible. You look at a city like Babylon, whose walls were believed to be impenetrable and someone came along and decided to damn up the river and and walk right under the metal grates protecting the river. Not only that but they decided to do this on a holiday when many were partying.
There is a lot of crazy and intelligent war lessons in the bible. You look at a city like Babylon, whose walls were believed to be impenetrable and someone came along and decided to damn up the river and and walk right under the metal grates protecting the river. Not only that but they decided to do this on a holiday when many were partying.
Not just the Bible. Look at the lessons to be learned from the Illiad and the Odyssy. How about Josephus' accounts in The Jewish War? War and religion aren't separate, no matter how much the doctrine and dogma would argue.
The problem is that the truly fantastic doesn't seem so miraculous when you can use science to explain away the mystery. Science has had a profound effect on religion. True believers are willing to overlook the man behind the curtain. Others are more likely to look for the man behind the curtain and that will always annoy the true believers.
Though on a sidenote they have found archeological evidence suggesting there was a mass death of males in Egypt and this was around the same time that a volcano was erupting in the Mediterranean. Really that is the closest we have been able to dig up. It is easy to write off God's vengeance due to natural events that were happening. Who is really to say God did not work through nature?
This isn't actually true. There wasn't a mass death of males in Egypt when Thera went up. I think you've been watching the History channel too much.
This isn't actually true. There wasn't a mass death of males in Egypt when Thera went up. I think you've been watching the History channel too much.
That didn't come from the History Channel. Zahi Hawass would blow a gasket if they broadcast anything that even suggested that.
This isn't actually true. There wasn't a mass death of males in Egypt when Thera went up. I think you've been watching the History channel too much.
Haha true...ok looking over it some more it was a theory put forth, though I believed when posting that there was evidence put forth. Usually just running off of memory when I type....anyhow here are some other theories put forth in regards to the Tenth...
-Food pollution from the time of darkness or from locusts
-CO2 seepage, like what occured at Lake Nyos.
Not just the Bible. Look at the lessons to be learned from the Illiad and the Odyssy. How about Josephus' accounts in The Jewish War? War and religion aren't separate, no matter how much the doctrine and dogma would argue.
So very true, though like the sacking of Troy, Babylon went down in much the same way.
The problem is that the truly fantastic doesn't seem so miraculous when you can use science to explain away the mystery. Science has had a profound effect on religion. True believers are willing to overlook the man behind the curtain. Others are more likely to look for the man behind the curtain and that will always annoy the true believers.
I think for the most part we can sit there and use science to help us understand some things. A lot of the time though, we get the answer and we also get another group of questions.
-------
On a side note...anyone heard of Ed Leedskalnin?
Recently I was reading into some of his works. When I was younger I had a chance to visit Coral Castle and it is rather amazing.
This one could be easily explained by a natural seepage of naptha from the surrounding terrain, just like the remains of Bab-e-drah and Numeirra*. In a region rich in oil, there are always places where the lighter fossil fuels seep out to often explosive results.
At the Sea of Reeds (Red Sea) during Exodus? I don't know. Maybe I suppose, anything's possible. It's a compelling theory to say the least that precipitated a firestorm etc., but at specific geographies, I'm uncertain.
Not a geologist or anything, but given the Egyptian/Hebrew commerce, it (Red Sea x'ing point) being a major tributary, and the time and tides, I'm inclined to give more credance to the military subterfugue theory than a rather timely (coincidental) explosion or immolation of Egyptian charioteers.
That is, unless you're saying the crossing/exodus occured somewhere else laiden w/ alot of petrochemical triggers. Entirely possible I suppose.
I mean, who knows, it's a big country and all. I just thought that they saw the writing on the wall and knew there was no way in Hell they could outpace heavy chariots in open desert (the Sinai) where the Egyptians had every advantage. So, they just made a diversion (big fire) at night and spirited away the bulk of the Hebrew entourage (their families and what not) to a x'ing point at the Sea of Reeds during low tide and left a skeleton crew of Hebrew mercenaries (they were outstanding soldiers too, employed largely by the pharohs, not enslaved) escourted the flame in a deviant path under the Egyptian premise that "it was the entirety of the fleeing Hebrews".
Fixed on this rather large, very bright beacon (the only marker of any point of reference in a large flat desert on a moonless night no less), this foiled their nightvision as they were continually spotting it (there was nothing else to spot in the pitch and to lose sight of it = let their quarry escape).
related: Scientifically speaking, it takes, on average, 20 minutes for the rhodopsin in your eyes to readjust (that's what facilitates nightvision). And the difference between "on" and "off" as it were, is immense. I take it we've all left the movie theatre to a bright room, drove on a highway long distance, got the cop's flashlight in the face, etc.
This is one reason snipers will often have extensive crows feet on just 1 eye (from forcing it closed/constantly squinting for prolonged periods to spare nightvision) & leaving the other open, for obvious reasons, so they can have at least 1 "good eye" when targeting at night.
The Egyptians in question were not acclimated in this fashion so they did not note the Hebrew detachment fleeing south into the desert as ones depth of field turns to crap when fixed on bright light. Peripheral is bad too.
It's like a camera: your pupil is the same thing on a SLR (single lens reflex 35mm), or the camera's "aperature" or "f:stop" (it's usually the first ring on the exterior lens). Wider it's open, more light gets let in to accomodate variable shutter speeds and bla bla bla. (sorry, art nerd
) ie)you gotta' have it wider for darker shots, tighter for bright days...unless of course you lose a flash, but that screws depth badly.However, when you open up the camera's f:stop to get better exposure or more light, you lose "depth of field" (whatever you're focused on as the primary subject has way more unfocused material before & behind it). Tighten up your f:stop or pupil and you will see w/ more focus farther out or closer up. So, there's that too.
This tactic was brilliant as there weren't alot of strategic alternatives, if any in Bronze Age warfare in open desert, especially when burdened w/ alot of women & kids, and moving significantly slower than chariots, etc. They had used similar tactics in Israel fending off/attacking Greek elements, Philistines and other indigenous tribes by striking from higher ground at appointed times to have the sun at their backs and in the eyes of the defenders, thus one could not see troop positions or movements, let alone face to face combat being clear and tidy.
That is, being dazzled sucks when facing an angry guy that wants you dead...
For all the super tech and know-how in a fighting capacity these days, sometimes the old tried and true methods are the best, like this. Using the light/darkness vs. your enemy in this fashion helped considerably I believe, but I'm not endorsing it as the sole impetus of the Exodus, just entertaining it as one of the more credible or likely points of interest/reason.
Oh, and correction on the African village/gassing mass death mystery. Sorry I forgot to drop in the 'C' in "CO2". Long story short, massive carbon dioxide poisoning = super big attrition in little rural village.
Fire and darkness on the land sounds a lot like a volcanic cloud, frogs, flies, etc do plague the land after big eruptions.
Sea drawing back, Hebrews crossing, sea sweeping forward again, can be explained by tsunami, though its not quite "wall of water on either side"
and a hundred plus km high volcanic eruption cloud makes for a pretty fair "pillar of smoke by day and pillar of fire by night"
The tricky part is Thera eruption might not have been quite big enough.
In Act of God by Graham Phillips, the Thera eruption is suggested as the source of the events. It does, however, require that events occur in differnt order to Exodus, and that the writers of Exodus adjust them for dramatic effect.
Ahh, editing. Sorry, you'll never get a bible-thumper to admit to any editing whatsoever. The truly hardcore fundamentalists won't even acknowledge errors in translation, much less editing.
How realistic an explanation it is, that question is best left to better scholars than I.
as for the Editing issue- it is hard to explain some things without a certain amount of it- different locations given for same event, for one thing, but taken to an extreme it leads to things like The Holy Blood And The Holy Grail, The Messianic Legacy, and even more conspiracy-theory-ish things like Dan Brown's books.
I kind of liked Who Wrote The Bible? and its notion that the inconsistancies were due to the fact that two separate groups had a power struggle, each wrote their own versions of the story from Genesis up to and past Exodus, and, after the Babylonian occupation, and the Return, the governers of Israel as a client country, had to merge the two accounts to minimise strife between the two factions.
From my current understanding (and I think this is the current general consensus), no fewer than four different groups are believed to have been involved in the creation of the Torah.
From my current understanding (and I think this is the current general consensus), no fewer than four different groups are believed to have been involved in the creation of the Torah.
No way of knowing for certain, but I would guess that the Torah is a conglomeration of the holy texts of the 12 tribes compiled together. That would explain why there are lists of prohibitions that seem to contradict each other throughout. But, as said before, without proof, that's just an opinion*.
*Opinion isn't exactly the right word. I would say "gut feeling" or possibly instinct, but those aren't exactly right either.
Jahwist - Kingdom of Judah, basically (900 BCE). Used Yahweh to refer to god.
Elohist - Kingdom of Israel, basically (900 BCE). Used Elohim to refer to god.
Deuteronomist - The fun fellows who wrote up Deuteronomy (600 BCE), among other things
The Priestly Source - Bunch of priests who thought Leviticus was a good idea (500-400 BCE)
Of course, all dates are approximate.
A good summary of it is found here, on Wikipedia.
Well, actually the four sources were:
Bear with me on this. It requires a bit of explanation.
I'm native American. I can understand the language of the tribe that holds the reservation 70 miles from where I live now, even though they aren't related to me. Their name for the creator is the same as the name that I learned as a child from my Grandfather. Does that mean that if each of us writes down the beliefs of our respective tribes that we are one source for the material?
The Semitic world was tribal. Within tribal cultures, some beliefs are shared between tribes. Can we be certain that the Hebirru wrote everything attributed to one source even though the Jebusites and the Moabites might have also called god by the same name? It's not that I'm disagreeing with what you're saying, but I'm speculating that it's possible that there were additional sources within each of the attributed sources.
The "four" sources (plus the compilers, who aren't considered sources) are really likely more than that, though there is some evidence to suggest that some portions (particularly Deuteronomy) is single source, and Leviticus, likewise, was compiled by the priesthood as a group, though its hard to say when it really "came together". The Elohist and Jahwist sources are very likely themselves compilations of stories put together by someone or some group at some point.
Well, there WERE, in all probability, more than just "four" sources. The Torah is in fact a compilation of many, many, many myths, which is why it is so contradictory and there are two creation stories in it. However, the "tribes of Israel" very likely did not mostly pass down their beliefs, and indeed the differences between them were likely more strongly drawn by political lines than tribal affiliation. Not to mention the fact that most likely the "winners" got their beliefs preserved moreso than the weaker tribes - I'd expect the extant tradition to come down from relatively few funnels.
The "four" sources (plus the compilers, who aren't considered sources) are really likely more than that, though there is some evidence to suggest that some portions (particularly Deuteronomy) is single source, and Leviticus, likewise, was compiled by the priesthood as a group, though its hard to say when it really "came together". The Elohist and Jahwist sources are very likely themselves compilations of stories put together by someone or some group at some point.
It gets mind blowing when not only do you look at the different potential sources, but you also look at the potential influences...
To me it seems like combining an amalgamation of mystery religions.
Mystery Religions are hard to wrap your head around though. To the normal person they would see a story and weigh it at face value. Others, who proved themselves, would be taught the secrets that the story symbolized.
Many times you could take one story and it has multiple levels of meanings...and I am sure some of which has been lost to the sands of time. You also have to take into account that a lot of these people were also on the bleeding edge of technology to captivate the sheep.
Great work was done to create magic, such as lighting the offering which causes the massive temple doors to magically open. Plus there was a lot of messing around and studying chemicals to produce effects.
... so in the lack of evidence either way (that God is what causes things to happen or not) why assume either way?.
The answer to this is:
For the same reason that one does not believe that the universe is made of peanut butter, merely because it has been asserted. For the same reason people don't believe that bullets are pacifists that feel remorse for those they kill, and hatred for those who fire them from a gun. For the same reason that there is no reason to believe that Santa Claus is real, even though there are an AWFUL lot of texts written about him.
When there is a complete, utter lack of evidence, the default position is that this is overwhelmingly unlikely to be true, and should therefore not be considered true unless evidence can be presented that it is true. When there is a complete, utter lack of evidence under conditions in which such evidence has been actively searched for by millions, possibly billions of individuals over the course of human history, the likelihood that it is true diminishes.
When there is a complete, utter lack of evidence, the default position is that this is overwhelmingly unlikely to be true, and should therefore not be considered true unless evidence can be presented that it is true. When there is a complete, utter lack of evidence under conditions in which such evidence has been actively searched for by millions, possibly billions of individuals over the course of human history, the likelihood that it is true diminishes.
Religion is not science and vice versa. The rules governing one do not govern the other. Sadly, in that they will always disagree. The one amazing thing about it is that both are a search for understanding.
I admit freely that I am religious. Science and religion are not seperate in my thinking. I can see the world around me in both ways, but others have difficulty in doing so. I am an Animist, which means that I view the world as what science calls an ecosystem. The fact that I see the plants, animals, insects, the wind, the rain and the sun as my relatives on a spiritual level doesn't change the fact that all of these things are connected. Does it harm science if I believe that there is a spirit there? Does science disprove what I believe?
Religion is not science and vice versa. The rules governing one do not govern the other. Sadly, in that they will always disagree. The one amazing thing about it is that both are a search for understanding.
Yes, true, but one works on available evidence, tends to admit when it is wrong, and (eventually) completely changes when the evidence warrants it, and requires something that is testable, verifiable, and repeatable by anyone who wishes to do so. The other, on the other hand, asserts itself as though what it teaches is truth based on evidence, expects that lack of evidence to have the same weight as evidence, and has a very difficult time changing. Quite often, theistic faith asserts that its unproven beliefs should be given the same weight in a logical debate, scientific endeavor, or court of law, as though evidence actually existed, and when such evidence cannot be presented, insists that unlike most every other logical endeavor save the sophistry seen in some philosophical pursuits, it is acceptable that it needn't follow any of the actual rules of logic. The most common such insistence being that religion wishes to be allowed to assert that it is right because you cannot prove that it is wrong, when in no other aspect of logic is it acceptable to give such equal weight simply because a negative cannot be proven.
Yes, both can cooexist, but it does demonstrably require cognitive dissonance for much of the beliefs of the most devout. Not for the non-literal believers to a much greater degree, granted, but cognitive dissonance is there nonetheless.
I admit freely that I am religious. Science and religion are not seperate in my thinking. I can see the world around me in both ways, but others have difficulty in doing so. I am an Animist, which means that I view the world as what science calls an ecosystem. The fact that I see the plants, animals, insects, the wind, the rain and the sun as my relatives on a spiritual level doesn't change the fact that all of these things are connected. Does it harm science if I believe that there is a spirit there? Does science disprove what I believe?
Everything until that last question is overall reasonable. But that last sentence is precisely what I mean. A negative cannot be proven, for to allow such in any logical pursuit has devastating consequences. For a personal belief, such is absolutely 100% fine, and I, at least, begrudge no one their right to believe what they want, so long as it does not infringe upon another person's rights. Just as the folks who think they are Lincoln, or who speak to their dead ancestors, or believe that the government is beaming information into our brains, or that the Illuminati is real, have every right to believe as such, and I would never presume to stop them from doing so until they attempt to enforce it within the realms of science, logic, law and the like.
Does it harm science if you believe there is a spirit there? Not exactly. Not directly, at least. It does, however, harm science and other pursuits based upon actual evidence if you are allowed to take an assertion such as a spirit is in everything, and force science to acknowledge it as a part of science, or law to see it as a equitable evidence in legal proceedings, and so on (see: Creationism, aka Intelligent Design).
Think of the implications if something for which the only logical support is that it cannot NOT be proven were given equal footing with that which could. If serial killers were allowed to use the fact that Satan actually DID make them do it in a court of law. If people really WERE allowed to marry their pet and engage in sexual relations, because their dog TOLD them that was what it wished. If all lefties were killed during childhood, because they are SINISTER. If the Theory of Matter Being Made From Space Leprechauns, the Theory of Gravity is Made From Space Beer, and the Unified Theory of Matter is Affected by Gravity Because Leprechauns Love Beer was given equal footing with Newtonian Physics or Quantum Mechanics. If 2+2=4 AND 2+2=22. And so on, and so forth. It is that scope of implication for allowing something to be given equal footing if its only "proof" is that it cannot NOT be proven, that has dire consequences. It is the insistence of equal weight with those portions of society (theoretically) based solely on reality, as opposed to being given equal weight with literature, art, philosophy, and similar portions of the human condition as religion should be. Those are not lesser parts of the human condition, mind you, not one bit. Please don't take what I say to mean that in the least. I am an artist myself, but such things are subjective, as is religion.
It is a hot topic, to be certain, and one that, due to enormous weight of cultural bias is particularly upsetting to many, to adults in particular forced to face it for the first time in a substantive manner. It will not fade from humanity anytime soon, if ever. Nor should it, so long as it doesn't attempt to insert itself where it truly does not belong.
.snip
That may well be the most reasoned post I've ever read.
-Joni
Well, because proof and evidence is the only way you can really know something to be true.
Otherwise it's just a matter of faith.
Like the big bang theory.
Think of the implications if something for which the only logical support is that it cannot NOT be proven were given equal footing with that which could. If serial killers were allowed to use the fact that Satan actually DID make them do it in a court of law. If people really WERE allowed to marry their pet and engage in sexual relations, because their dog TOLD them that was what it wished. If all lefties were killed during childhood, because they are SINISTER. If the Theory of Matter Being Made From Space Leprechauns, the Theory of Gravity is Made From Space Beer, and the Unified Theory of Matter is Affected by Gravity Because Leprechauns Love Beer was given equal footing with Newtonian Physics or Quantum Mechanics. If 2+2=4 AND 2+2=22. And so on, and so forth. It is that scope of implication for allowing something to be given equal footing if its only "proof" is that it cannot NOT be proven, that has dire consequences. It is the insistence of equal weight with those portions of society (theoretically) based solely on reality, as opposed to being given equal weight with literature, art, philosophy, and similar portions of the human condition as religion should be. Those are not lesser parts of the human condition, mind you, not one bit. Please don't take what I say to mean that in the least. I am an artist myself, but such things are subjective, as is religion.
Absolutely. Science needs to be taught in schools, not religion. Creationism is better taught in churches, if at all. "God made it" isn't science. To teach such things in a science curriculum retards the growth of our childrens' ability to understand the basic fundamentals that will allow them to achieve the cutting edge. If we allow them to simply say that "God made it" rather than teaching real science, we'll never see the advances in science in future generations that we have in the past.
Creationism is theological, not scientific. Theology is a sociological pursuit, not purely scientific. Theology needs to be treated like the other branches of Sociology. It is no more or less important than History, Archaeology and Anthropology. Now the first of those is taught in public schools but the two latter are not. I would say that Theology shouldn't be included in the curriculum of public schools, in any form.
Like the big bang theory.
Seriously?
Go back a few pages for a back and forth between me and furryhowler. There I outline all the evidence for the Big Bang, and he avoids it all and makes irrelevant arguments before eventually vanishing from the thread.
There's a reason science has reached a consensus on the Big Bang, it wasn't always that way!
I'm sorry if that was just a joke, my sarcasm meter may be broken broken!
Seriously?
Go back a few pages for a back and forth between me and furryhowler. There I outline all the evidence for the Big Bang,
I am very aware of the evidence. Major point of study. However, none of that actually proves the theory. It is actually at the stage of a hypothesis.
A hypothesis can be disproven, but not proven to be true.
I am very aware of the evidence. Major point of study. However, none of that actually proves the theory. It is actually at the stage of a hypothesis.
A hypothesis can be disproven, but not proven to be true.
Hmm, it sounds to me like you need to read up on the scientific method. It's impossible to prove any theory, proof only exists in mathematics. 'Theories' are as good as it gets.
And no, it's not the 'hypothesis' stage. A hypothesis is a supposition, a scientist's pondering based on the facts. A scientist then tests the hypothesis against observations/experiments to see if it holds up. If it proves successful, it becomes a theory.
The Big Bang model was once a hypothesis, but the continually mounting evidence and it's predictive power take it far beyond that.
The Big Bang is a theory in exactly the same way as General Relativity, or QED. Granted, it's not as well tested as those two, but it is still very much deserving of the title.
Hmm, it sounds to me like you need to read up on the scientific method.
Nope. See definition of a scientific hypothesis vs. scientific theory.
Nope. See definition of a scientific hypothesis vs. scientific theory.
Yes, theories are models of observable data, often using multiple hypotheses, in a framework. Scientific theory is not the same as theory.
A better definition:
In scientific usage, a theory does not mean an unsubstantiated guess or hunch, as it can in everyday speech. A theory is a logically self-consistent model or framework for describing the behavior of a related set of natural or social phenomena. It originates from or is supported by rigorous observations in the natural world, or by experimental evidence (see scientific method). In this sense, a theory is a systematic and formalized expression of all previous observations, and is predictive, logical, and testable. In principle, scientific theories are always tentative, and subject to corrections, inclusion in a yet wider theory, or succession. Commonly, many more specific hypotheses may be logically bound together by just one or two theories. As a rule for use of the term, theories tend to deal with much broader sets of universals than do hypotheses, which ordinarily deal with much more specific sets of phenomena or specific applications of a theory.
So...umm...no, a scientific theory is not the term you think it is.
Atheists are silly. That is the first thing I posted in this thread. The statement "There is no God" is just as unprovable as "There is a God."
Positive existential proclamations bear the burden of proof. I'm not irrational for denying the existence of free energy created from nothing when there is no evidence of its existence, and therefore I'm not irrational for denying the existence of God in the absence of evidence.
To use your example of invisible dragons, I could, right now, claim that I have an invisible, intangible, silent and odorless dragon in my garage. By your logic, you have to accept the possibility. This, in fact, completely invalidates Furryhowler's argument; I'll be happy to accept the possibility that God makes the laws of physics work when he's proven that God exists in the first place. Personally, though, I think he was trolling.
And no, it's not the 'hypothesis' stage. A hypothesis is a supposition, a scientist's pondering based on the facts.
For the record, I agree with the big bang as well as evolutionary theories. The people that put them forth did their homework, and seem to be right based on the evidence at hand, but none of that evidence shows us without doubt what happened. Without evolution or the big bang being able to be forced in a lab under controlled conditions, they will never be Law, will they?
A hypothesis can be disproven, but not proven to be true.
Just thought I'd point out this sentence here because I think it's where you're going wrong. The exact same thing is true of a theory, as well as a hypothesis.
That sentence is not what defines a hypothesis.
But anyway, why does the label we put on the model make the evidence any less compelling? All lines of research point to the Big Bang, and the model has made numerous testable predictions which we have discovered are true. So where's the problem?
For the record, I agree with the big bang as well as evolutionary theories.
Among cosmologists, the Big Bang is rapidly fading as a viable "theory".
For the record, I agree with the big bang as well as evolutionary theories. The people that put them forth did their homework, and seem to be right based on the evidence at hand, but none of that evidence shows us without doubt what happened. Without evolution or the big bang being able to be forced in a lab under controlled conditions, they will never be Law, will they?
Yes, it's impossible to be 100% sure a theory is correct. There's always a chance your next measurement might reveal some irregularity. If you ever study the philosophy of science, that's something you'll meet pretty quickly.
You can't ever call the Big Bang model a Law because it was an event rather than observable behaviour, and even if you could reproduce it in the lab that doesn't prove it happened to our universe.
Evolution, however, has been reproduced in the lab under controlled conditions, with fruit flies and bacteria. Evolution is thus a fact, and its mechanism is described by the theory of evolution.
Among cosmologists, the Big Bang is rapidly fading as a viable "theory".
Do you have a source for that? Because I'm pretty sure it isn't true, and I work alongside many cosmologists.
It's possible that you're misunderstanding what you're reading in that cosmologists are seeking to refine or (in extreme cases) replace the mathematical framework that makes up the theory, but the Big Bang cosmology of a universe expanding from a hot, dense initial state still applies.
Among cosmologists, the Big Bang is rapidly fading as a viable "theory".
Says who? I've not heard this, and I've not seen it in scientific periodicals, not one bit. I have seen growing support for M-Theory, but that is completely compatible with the Big Bang Theory. In fact, the theory currently predicts that if humanity can create Big Bangs, it would not destroy our own universe...because a new universe occupies its own space and time, not our space and time. The moment a Big Bang occurs, wham, an entirely separate universe expands all on its own outside of our framework of space/time.
On the contrary, as ieattrollsforbreakfast points out, the predictions continue to fall in line with the Big Bang theory, in the same manner that the evidence for the Theory of Evolution from other scientific pursuits (go look up varves...why do the varves keep matching up with carbon testing and tree rings so flawlessly?!?) and predictions within the Theory of Evolution continue to support its veracity.
Is this similar to FOX News', "Some people say !"? If requests for citation to this remarkable claim ensue, will you be forced to protect your sources as well?
Says who? I've not heard this, and I've not seen it in scientific periodicals, not one bit.
You won't until another theory is forwarded and accepted. This is from some people I know at JPL.
You won't until another theory is forwarded and accepted. This is from some people I know at JPL.
So your only "source" is some hearsay about unpublished work?
JPL doesn't even research cosmology, it builds rockets!
You don't need a complete theory to publish your work. If there was truly a promising line of research in non-Big Bang cosmologies, there would be papers to back up your claim.
You won't until another theory is forwarded and accepted. This is from some people I know at JPL.
So then the answer is...you are indeed "protecting your sources", aka the FOX News "Some say..." phenomenon. Did I call that, or what?
In other words, there is absolutely no citation for this anywhere, it's merely hearsay. It's just something you heard from some guy somewhere, but you can't actually say who, or provide any details, or point to any evidence whatsoever, and even though it is precisely contrary to the enormous body of work supporting the scientific theory in question, it is supposed to be taken seriously?
Ooooookaaaaay.
So then the answer is...you are indeed "protecting your sources", aka the FOX News "Some say..." phenomenon. Did I call that, or what?
Yes, I'm charged with protecting someone. ROFL
There are LOTS of things you'll never be privileged or cleared to see...
Yes, I'm charged with protecting someone. ROFL
There are LOTS of things you'll never be privileged or cleared to see...
*raises eyebrow* Hint: When FOX News uses this tactis, it usually means they are either simply making it up, or asked someone whose views they already knew, or looked at Drudge, it does not mean they were actually protecting their sources. At all.
As for the privileged info, haha, snarky snark snark. ;) If you are serious...extra lulz for thinking that such theoretical astrophysics and cosmology would fall in the same category as proprietary cutting edge rocket tech. LOL
was in "The Science of Discworld"- popular science book with a story's chapters in between the science chapters. However the authors backgrounds might not both have been in cosmology- I know that of Ian Stewart and Jack Cohen, one, at least, is a biologist.
In Book 2 they discuss religion, and in book 3, evolution.
Point to be made is, you can be skeptical about dark matter without being skeptical about The Big Bang.
"forum doctorates phenomenon theory"
it states that people who know very little about a chosen topic will claim to be a doctor, scientist, or know many doctors or scientists that regularly inform them.
These supposedly highly educated individuals have a lot of spare time away from their studies and clientelle.
They in fact have so much spare time that they play many hours of dnd a week and devote much time to forums making bold claims about their schooling.
These individuals perhaps have read a magazine article or wikipedia article on said topic, or saw a history channel special. The knowlegde thay gain from the article or tv special is the same as 12 years of college.
an example is that i have seen many episodes of the medical comedy/drama called "House" therefore I am basicly a doctor myself and can make forum posts claiming to be a doctor.
you know I have a theory called:
"forum doctorates phenomenon theory"
That's not a theory, it's a hypothesis :P
Sorry...couldn't resist!
That's not a theory, it's a hypothesis :P
Sorry...couldn't resist!
thats fine i was joking anyway....but it was one of those jokes that is funny because it is true.
Strange dude, strange stuff...ya I definitely think there are holes in our knowledge.
To me it seems like combining an amalgamation of mystery religions.
The New Testament is. The Torah is not; it predates mystery religions by several hundred years.
Religion is not science and vice versa. The rules governing one do not govern the other. Sadly, in that they will always disagree. The one amazing thing about it is that both are a search for understanding.
Thing is, science applies to everything, as does religion. However, religion fails to describe reality well, while science does a good job and gets better by the day.
The idea that they're "seperate but equal" is doublethink.
I admit freely that I am religious. Science and religion are not seperate in my thinking. I can see the world around me in both ways, but others have difficulty in doing so. I am an Animist, which means that I view the world as what science calls an ecosystem. The fact that I see the plants, animals, insects, the wind, the rain and the sun as my relatives on a spiritual level doesn't change the fact that all of these things are connected. Does it harm science if I believe that there is a spirit there? Does science disprove what I believe?
Science may disprove what you believe; it depends on what you believe. If you believe the spirit influences reality in a non-FSM sort of way, then science disproves it.
Among cosmologists, the Big Bang is rapidly fading as a viable "theory".
This isn't true. The fundamentals of the Big Bang theory - that the universe once was absolutely tiny and the general evolution since then - is incredibly non-controversial. The cause of the Big Bang is currently unknown, but despite the name, that's not actually what the "big bang theory" is about.
The Torah is not; it predates mystery religions by several hundred years.
What date do you have for the Torah?
Eleusinian Mysteries - Around 1700BC
Dionysian Mysteries - Around 3000-1000BC
Orphic - 500BC-400BC
Zoroasters - 600BC
We should not need a word for people who don't follow a religion anymore than we need a word for people who do not believe in the tooth fairy.
I'm an ateapotist.
We should not need a word for people who don't follow a religion anymore than we need a word for people who do not believe in the tooth fairy.
Ya...then what happens...
How will you know then that you have to destroy the tooth fairy by using the intense burning light of the light house before she sucks your soul dry?
Ya...then what happens...
How will you know then that you have to destroy the tooth fairy by using the intense burning light of the light house before she sucks your soul dry?
That was a crappy movie. Although that actress who played Anya in Buffy was pretty hot.
I think...
We are all here because we are not all there.
What date do you have for the Torah?
Eleusinian Mysteries - Around 1700BC
Dionysian Mysteries - Around 3000-1000BC
Orphic - 500BC-400BC
Zoroasters - 600BC
I completely forgot about the age of the Dionysian Mysteries, actually, and never knew the Eleusinian Mysteries were that old.
And the Torah is thought to be roughly from around the same date as the Orphic mysteries in more or less its current form.
However, Zoroastrianism is not a mystery religion.
However, Zoroastrianism is not a mystery religion.
No, it's a religion with a battle of good and evil at it's core. Much like a certain other religion in modern times that I can think of. It's similarities are striking, even down to the opposing factions coming from the creator god.
No, it's a religion with a battle of good and evil at it's core. Much like a certain other religion in modern times that I can think of. It's similarities are striking, even down to the opposing factions coming from the creator god.
That's because it is stolen directly from Zoroastrianism. I don't think this is particularly controversial.
That's because it is stolen directly from Zoroastrianism. I don't think this is particularly controversial.
Just don't say that to the Bible-thumpers. They're sure that God handed down that war between Jesus and Satan to them. Nobody else is allowed to have a good vs evil fight without their man, don't you know?
Just don't say that to the Bible-thumpers. They're sure that God handed down that war between Jesus and Satan to them. Nobody else is allowed to have a good vs evil fight without their man, don't you know?
Indeed. Not to mention the whole "war between Satan and God" thing isn't even FROM the Bible, but rather from the works of Milton. I suspect a lot of Christians don't know what is from Dante and Milton and what is from the Bible.
Yes, I know you're talking about the temptations of Christ (save the last one *coughs*) from the Bible, but the related war between Satan and God has been cited to me by many people as actually having happened, despite no holy text talking about it.
I think a fundamental problem is...
Tunnel-Vision...
To many people look at the bible or some other work...and it ends right there. There is almost no effort to look at influences, or if you will, the various pieces that went into making that picture...
I think it is better to look at "Humanity's Teachings," rather than getting tunnel-vision.
Indeed. Not to mention the whole "war between Satan and God" thing isn't even FROM the Bible, but rather from the works of Milton. I suspect a lot of Christians don't know what is from Dante and Milton and what is from the Bible.
Yes, I know you're talking about the temptations of Christ (save the last one *coughs*) from the Bible, but the related war between Satan and God has been cited to me by many people as actually having happened, despite no holy text talking about it.
Actually I was talking about the war between the heavenly host and the armies of Darkness in Revelations. It mirrors the war between Ahura Mazda and Ahriman in Zoroastrianism quite well.
No surprise that -- Judaism and Christianity are completely derivative religions, even more so once the Romans and their influence on Catholicism (and hence their shaping of all Protestant religions) come onto the scene.
Then you have to take into account the Persian influence on the Romans lol. Really a lot of the cultures had vast influences on one another.
Stand in a spot...throw a stone...and someone in that direction had influence. The amount does vary.
Then you have to take into account the Persian influence on the Romans lol. Really a lot of the cultures had vast influences on one another.
I do not doubt there was influence(s), but I'm unsure as to what the Romans might have adopted from the Persians. I mean, they pretty much cloned the Greeks for the most part, but I'm not seeing the Persian influences. Plenty of Middle Eastern fare for the Byazantines after the "split", but Persian? Perhaps you could enlighten me.
Stand in a spot...throw a stone...and someone in that direction had influence. The amount does vary.
That's just how we are though, as humans I mean, not religious beings. We pick, nibble, adopt, cannibalize, bla bla bla. Adaptation isn't just for natural selection I suppose, so we take the bits that seem most attractive.
As for the Persians, I know they just had their New Year not too long ago and despite a completely dominant govt. in Iran, they know better than to stamp out all the old traditions. ex)They were saying on NPR around their New Year's that alot of ppl still "jump the fire" in Zoroastrian tradition despite it being a completely Islamic state. Basically, it's just to mark the new year in typical zoroastrian fashion the same way we might bust out the champagne.
The govt. doesn't smile on it, but they allow for "certain times" (very small ones anyway) of this celebration as evidenced by all the little scorch marks on the streets the day after. A very small concession to the masses I guess; morale booster. LIke us w/ Halloween I guess. Most of the kids trick or treating aren't old school Celt pagans, they just want some candy, just as most of the celebrants in Tehran arne't Zoroastrians (they're Shiite), but they want to celebrate the tradition anyway as per the Zoroastrian influence.
I do not doubt there was influence(s), but I'm unsure as to what the Romans might have adopted from the Persians. I mean, they pretty much cloned the Greeks for the most part, but I'm not seeing the Persian influences. Plenty of Middle Eastern fare for the Byazantines after the "split", but Persian? Perhaps you could enlighten me.
Heaven and Hell for one thing like explained above with Zoroaster. Give me a lil and I will dredge up more...preoccupied at the moment.
I do not doubt there was influence(s), but I'm unsure as to what the Romans might have adopted from the Persians. I mean, they pretty much cloned the Greeks for the most part, but I'm not seeing the Persian influences. Plenty of Middle Eastern fare for the Byazantines after the "split", but Persian? Perhaps you could enlighten me.
Considering that Islam was still some 200* years from it's birth, what do you suppose "middle eastern influences" were on the Romans?
Nowhere on earth has had such a wide and varied culture as the middle east. Just the area occupied by modern Israel and Lebanon can count no fewer than a dozen distinct, homogenous civilizations. The Hebirru, the Moabite, the Jebusite, the Canaanite, the Phoenecian, the Philistian, the Palestinian, the Nabatean, the Amorite, the Hittite, the Assyrian, the Babylonian, the Bedouin et cetera. We're not talking about a small number stretching back into prehistory.
And that small list isn't all-inclusive. The Egyptians reached as far as the Negev (archaeology proves this). What of the Midianite Jethro that the bible says became father-in-law to Moses? What Midianite beliefs were added to the Hebirru religion by Moses? The Hebirru of Joseph and the Hebirru of Moses may have held entirely differing beliefs.
The blending and interconnections of religions and populations within the region made the rise of the Persian empire possible. Which in turn, made it possible to allow some of that culture and influence to be carried back with the spoils of war to Rome. Rome owes it's culture to parts stolen from the cultures of the Etruscans, the Greeks, the Persians, the Phoenecians (Carthage), the Gauls, the Britons, the Egyptians, the Nabateans, the Dacians, the Illyrians and so forth.
No culture or civilization, like religion, sprang forth fully-formed and whole. There are whispers from the past in all of them. Tracing the steps is difficult without understanding everything that came before. Knowing that Jethro taught hospitality to Moses, makes the story of Lot in Sodom make sense, but is that echo from the past ever illuminated? Additionally, that law of hospitality isn't common to western culture, yet it's preserved in Christianity, at least in the holy texts. Because the echo isn't as loud as it once was, is it less important?
*assumining a date of around 450 AD, which is fairly close to the end of the Roman period in the West. The western Roman empire, not the Byzantine or eastern Roman empire was dead and buried before Mohammad came to prominence in what is now Saudi Arabia. I'm being somewhat vague about the dates because I can't recall the exact date right off hand.
I will be glad when religions fade and instead of looking at specifics people look at humanity's past...the good and the bad.
I wouldn't hold my breath, were I you.
I wouldn't hold my breath, were I you.
lol so trrrue
I will be glad when religions fade and instead of looking at specifics people look at humanity's past...the good and the bad.
Some do, but unfortunately they're not the big, organized religions.
Some do, but unfortunately they're not the big, organized religions.
Ya...which is why regardless when I go to any sort of religious event...
I never drink any punch...
Ya...which is why regardless when I go to any sort of religious event...
I never drink any punch...
chase the comet?
chase the comet?
I see you're point.
But the real question should be: Why are you going to those events?
Remember, you cannot say free food or drinks. Which is almost the only reason you would see me invade a religious event ( I can meet people everywhere, but talking to the people at the event is nice also ;) ).
I see you're point.
But the real question should be: Why are you going to those events?
Remember, you cannot say free food or drinks. Which is almost the only reason you would see me invade a religious event ( I can meet people everywhere, but talking to the people at the event is nice also ;) ).
lol over the weekend I went to this drum circle thingy...was very cool.
and a few weekends back went to...really don't know how to describe it...but it had a kind of "Health Food" focus...
The Health Food thing was hilarious. You should have seen all the 3HP blenders that they were using to liquefy whole food...alvacado and pit...boom gone...
The funniest thing I heard though that day... "The cyanide in apple seeds is the good kind of cyanide..."
There's cyanide in apple seeds?
Yes, they contain amygdalin, which is a compound that is 6% cyanide. The same is true of almonds, apricots, peaches, pears, and plums and their seeds or pits. Fortunately, it is a very small dose, and very difficult to actually ingest because the seeds have a hard coating. You are much more likely to ingest this compound if you...you know...chew or BLEND the seeds or pits in a sufficiently large dose (which is very difficult with apples). You are much more likely to be at risk eating a huge batch of whole cherries. As with many things, in small doses this "toxin" can be potentially beneficial, in large doses, rather toxic or lethal.
Yes, they contain amygdalin, which is a compound that is 6% cyanide. The same is true of almonds, apricots, peaches, pears, and plums and their seeds or pits. Fortunately, it is a very small dose, and very difficult to actually ingest because the seeds have a hard coating. You are much more likely to ingest this compound if you...you know...chew or BLEND the seeds or pits in a sufficiently large dose (which is very difficult with apples). You are much more likely to be at risk eating a huge batch of whole cherries. As with many things, in small doses this "toxin" can be potentially beneficial, in large doses, rather toxic or lethal.
When amygdalin combines with hydrochloric acid doesn't it create hyrdogen cyanide?
Really I think with anything it goes with the adage of "Nothing in excess."
I guess I'll pass the seeds in the future...
Ok. It's just that I have a habit of eating everythign of the apples I eat. This includes the little stick and sometimes the seeds.
I guess I'll pass the seeds in the future...
You shouldn't eat the stick either. It is likewise suggested by medical experts that you not use the branches of these types of plants as spits for cooking food, as the various material there likewise contains the same compounds, which can bleed into the food you are cooking.
Now, you aren't consuming a lot of the compound at all, and you are at rather negligible risk, but better safe than sorry.
When amygdalin combines with hydrochloric acid doesn't it create hyrdogen cyanide?
Really I think with anything it goes with the adage of "Nothing in excess."
Yes, case in point the idiotic radio fiasco, "Hold Your Wee for a Wii". They were having people drink as much water as possible without urinating. At least one caller to the program told them this was dangerous, that too much water can and will kill you. They totally laughed the caller off and called him a loonie. What happened? One of the ladies in the contest died from imbibing too much water later in the day. Imbeciles.
Yes, case in point the idiotic radio fiasco, "Hold Your Wee for a Wii". They were having people drink as much water as possible without urinating. At least one caller to the program told them this was dangerous, that too much water can and will kill you. They totally laughed the caller off and called him a loonie. What happened? One of the ladies in the contest died from imbibing too much water later in the day. Imbeciles.
Yup...can overdose on about anything. Even if you do not kill yourself it is possible that it could lead to other bad effects that may or may not go unnoticed.
You know what I do not get? What are organic grown foods?...seems like it would have to be stuff grown without fertilizer...and of course without pesticide.
You shouldn't eat the stick either. It is likewise suggested by medical experts that you not use the branches of these types of plants as spits for cooking food, as the various material there likewise contains the same compounds, which can bleed into the food you are cooking.
Now, you aren't consuming a lot of the compound at all, and you are at rather negligible risk, but better safe than sorry.
True.
Now for a slightly related matter: Isn't cyanide one of those poisons you can build up a tolerance for?
True.
Now for a slightly related matter: Isn't cyanide one of those poisons you can build up a tolerance for?
I think it stops you from getting oxygen.
You are much more likely to be at risk eating a huge batch of whole cherries. As with many things, in small doses this "toxin" can be potentially beneficial, in large doses, rather toxic or lethal.
It's the leaves and stems in wild cherries that are dangerous, not the fruits. If I recall correctly, cherries are one of the plants that rely on animals eating the fruit to germinate the seed and spread them out. Kind of makes sense, the digestive tract of animals weakens the outer wall of the pit allowing it to germinate, while eating the leaves kills most animals.
True.
Now for a slightly related matter: Isn't cyanide one of those poisons you can build up a tolerance for?
Don't try it. It's a myth that you can build up a tolerance to toxins. Cyanide is not something you want to muck about with. It causes your cells to stop absorbing oxygen. You'll suffocate while still able to take whole lungfuls of air.
lol over the weekend I went to this drum circle thingy...was very cool.
Indian or hippie?
It's the leaves and stems in wild cherries that are dangerous, not the fruits. If I recall correctly, cherries are one of the plants that rely on animals eating the fruit to germinate the seed and spread them out. Kind of makes sense, the digestive tract of animals weakens the outer wall of the pit allowing it to germinate, while eating the leaves kills most animals.
And the seeds, mostly when chewed or blended. If you merely swallow them whole, you are LESS likely, due to the hard coating that, yes, helps it get through the digestive tract and then trigger germination. However, there have been documented cases of humans eating way too many cherry seeds whole and showing signs of cyanide poisoning. *shrug* Regardless, those whole foods juicer fanatics (as opposed to people who properly eat whole foods, without juicing everything in sight, seeds and stems and all), are putting themselves at risk by pulverizing all of those seeds all the time for so much of their diet.
Don't try it. It's a myth that you can build up a tolerance to toxins. Cyanide is not something you want to muck about with. It causes your cells to stop absorbing oxygen. You'll suffocate while still able to take whole lungfuls of air.
Its not a myth that you can build up tolerance to toxins; you really can. In fact, people do this all the time with drugs, such as heroin. Its really the same general idea; your body compensates for the presence of the foreign substance. In the case of cyanide, it would probably cause you to produce more red blood cells, but there are probably better ways of building up tolerance than taking it.
Indian or hippie?
them and more.
Its not a myth that you can build up tolerance to toxins; you really can. In fact, people do this all the time with drugs, such as heroin. Its really the same general idea; your body compensates for the presence of the foreign substance. In the case of cyanide, it would probably cause you to produce more red blood cells, but there are probably better ways of building up tolerance than taking it.
On the same note...along with tolerance it is also possible to build allergies...
Wicca- 1?
Wicca = A religion made in the 1960s(1950s)
Most Wiccan's I have known make about as much of an effort to understand their paganistic roots as the Christains I know.
Lots of Wiccans know when their religion was founded.
No doubt but the majority I know do not look at the pagan roots anymore than Christian's.
The Flower of Life.
No doubt but the majority I know do not look at the pagan roots anymore than Christian's.
Some will seek more than they're taught and isn't that the point, ultimately?
Some will seek more than they're taught and isn't that the point, ultimately?
Walking up the mountain instead of sitting on the trail?
Walking up the mountain instead of sitting on the trail?
Forty days in the wilderness or seven years beside a river aren't so long when you think about it, neh?
You know what I find rather interesting. In life and death situations where you have your adrenaline pumping and your flight or fight kicking. Your fps boosts tremendously, easily doubling.
I do not know if you have ever been in a car accident that you saw coming or something similar. It just feels like time is running in slow motion and who is to say it really is not?
Another example would be driving by a mountain in a car. It passes by relatively quick and you really do not take in as much. If you were to do the same on horse or foot it may take days for you to see different facets of the same mountain...
Another example would be driving by a mountain in a car. It passes by relatively quick and you really do not take in as much. If you were to do the same on horse or foot it may take days for you to see different facets of the same mountain...
Sort of like meditating until you can see the rock breathing in Zazen, neh?
Perception is important in all things. Science is nothing without observation. Religion generally changes the way you perceive the world around you. It may not be that you've discovered some new physical law or tapped into some new conduit of the divine, but for you, in that moment, the world changes because of something you may not have seen before. It's a moment of absolute clarity, what you do with that can change the world.
It is not hard to do good things, though I think it is more difficult to do things with no expectations.
People can also take bad experiences and grow positively from them, as well as grow negatively from good experiences. To me that is what being on this world is about. Your growth as well as how you helped others grow.
People can also take bad experiences and grow positively from them, as well as grow negatively from good experiences. To me that is what being on this world is about. Your growth as well as how you helped others grow.
It's almost as if there's an imperceptable connection between everything, yes? An energy that flows between all things, a sort of current that's always there, just below the surface?
It's almost as if there's an imperceptable connection between everything, yes? An energy that flows between all things, a sort of current that's always there, just below the surface?
All matter is merely energy condensed to a slow vibration.
All matter is merely energy condensed to a slow vibration.
If you say so. I studied religion in college, physics always confused me. Or was that chemistry?
If you say so. I studied religion in college, physics always confused me. Or was that chemistry?
Goes back to the whole perception thing. Look around the room and think that everything is just protons, neutrons, electrons (etc)...and then think about the space between things is also humming.
If you say so. I studied religion in college, physics always confused me. Or was that chemistry?
I hated chemistry after...oh, a third of the way through. I can never grasp the electron level stuff.
Physics isn't too bad. Of course, I only took entry level physics...