God Speaks

[NastyDawg]

Here's a list of all variations of the "God Speaks" billboards. The billboards are a simple black background with white text. No fine print or sponsoring organization
is included. These are awesome ... enjoy

Tell the kids I love them. - God

Let's meet at my house Sunday before the game. - God

C'mon over and bring the kids. - God

What part of "Thou Shalt Not..." didn't you understand? - God

We need to talk. - God

Keep using my name in vain, I'll make rush hour longer. - God

Don't make me come down there. - God

Loved the wedding, invite me to the marriage. - God

That "Love Thy Neighbor" thing... I meant it. - God

I love you and you and you and you and... - God

Will the road you're on get you to my place? - God

Follow me. - God

Big bang theory, you've got to be kidding. - God

My way is the highway. - God

Need directions? - God

You think it's hot here? - God

Have you read my #1 best seller? There will be a test. - God

Do you have any idea where you're going? - God

[Pure_Evil]

I've been seeing those for years, they're great..... and failing

[Die Hard]

Which god are you talking about?

[NastyDawg]

I've been seeing those for years, they're great..... and failing

This is true but you can't blame them for trying.

[Mad Fox]

I think the whole god thing is a great mystery that is a very personal quest that can not be forced on anyone. We all are on the same journey to god whether we accept it or not. we all are trying to find some menaing!

[Caged Anger]

I think they are very effective. They aren't going to convert people, but they do:

1) Make you chuckle a bit
2) Roll the idea around in your head for a few seconds

Therefore...they are pointless and there are worse things they could have up on billboards...

"XXX Sheep Porn - Exit 23c"

[Pure_Evil]

I think the whole god thing is a great mystery that is a very personal quest that can not be forced on anyone. We all are on the same journey to god whether we accept it or not. we all are trying to find some menaing!not me, I'm trying to find poon :D

[FUS1ON]

I like reading them and think they serve a great purpose and MF, even if you do not believe in him, God's name as well as all names should be capitalized.

[Mad Fox]

I was refering to all gods in general

[Mad Fox]

I went to Catholic School my whole lifeI know the drill. It not that I don't believe in god rahter I am still trying to determine what he is how he manifests himself and other questions. Heck I even go to church, but in reality I am trying to find a deeper meaning than has been presented to me. Its more than ritual, prayer, and the Bible. Thats the surface. the real quest is to find god in myself and in the things around me. Theresa of Avila writes about the internal castle and finding god within ourselves. that is what I am doing.

[FUS1ON]

That's right Mad Fox, play the defiant one role and not do the right thing even when it has been pointed out to you that it is incorrect. I just hope that when whatever you are seeking is standing in front of you or pointed out to you, that you do not do the same thing then.

[Pure_Evil]

rut roh... sho is pissy




oops

Sho

:P

[FUS1ON]

:rofl: asshole, ooops I mean Asshole. :D

[Death Engineer]

Personally, I think "finding the God in yourself" is a load of hog wash. I believe the Bible to be God's word, written by man, inspired by God. And on that basis (the Bible), I don't believe there are many paths to one God (Acts 4:12) but rather one narrow path that is clearly explained in the Bible.

For me it's not about church (though I do attend), or about rituals (though I do pray, take communion, etc), but it is about a personal relationship with Jesus Christ. Not a "big daddy in the sky", but an all-powerful, all-knowing, all-present God who created everything around us and humans as well. Without this relationship, we are lost due to our sin (Romans 6:23). But Christ died on the cross and "bridges the gap" between our sin and God's holiness.

I don't believe that this "exclusivity" contradicts God's attibute of a complete and consuming love. Rather, it is consistent with His holy and perfect nature.

I could go on, but I'll stop there. :)

[Mad Fox]

That's right Mad Fox, play the defiant one role and not do the right thing even when it has been pointed out to you that it is incorrect. I just hope that when whatever you are seeking is standing in front of you or pointed out to you, that you do not do the same thing then.


Sho, I am not being defiant I am just not referring to one GOD I am reffering to any number of gods, or spiritual beings.

[Mad Fox]

Personally, I think "finding the God in yourself" is a load of hog wash. I believe the Bible to be God's word, written by man, inspired by God. And on that basis (the Bible), I don't believe there are many paths to one God (Acts 4:12) but rather one narrow path that is clearly explained in the Bible.

For me it's not about church (though I do attend), or about rituals (though I do pray, take communion, etc), but it is about a personal relationship with Jesus Christ. Not a "big daddy in the sky", but an all-powerful, all-knowing, all-present God who created everything around us and humans as well. Without this relationship, we are lost due to our sin (Romans 6:23). But Christ died on the cross and "bridges the gap" between our sin and God's holiness.

I don't believe that this "exclusivity" contradicts God's attibute of a complete and consuming love. Rather, it is consistent with His holy and perfect nature.

I could go on, but I'll stop there. :)

Please don't see this as an attack rahter I am questioning your reasoning? Are all other religions wrong then? They are taking different paths to the same God?

[Die Hard]

Well, I wrote four paragraphs of argument. Looked at it and then came to the conclusion that no matter what I say it would not change anyones beliefs.

So, I'm not a believer. And you that are....good luck.

[JIMINATOR]

lol, these god threads are funny. through my experiences i have come to a few solid conclusions.

1) I have always existed and always will exist forevermore
2) If at some point I didn't/dont exist, I wouldn't know about it, so to the best of my knowledge #1 is true and while I exist will always be true
3) I am equal to god in that I can experience things and manipulate my environment
4) all else is just a matter of degrees or arguments and has no particular relevance for me

[JIMINATOR]

btw, its really easy to poo-poo another persons search for religion. MF, by all means you should continue. god is not about finding some church and conforming to some other people's beliefs, it is about finding what works for you and enriches your life. I'll stop there because any more only makes people upset... :)

[Goober]

Which god are you talking about?
That would be the God of Abraham, which is the God of Judaism, Christianity, Islam and the Bahá'í Faith.
Mighty interesting how these religions have the same begining but are so different now. Would make a great study, if I could find the time.


Well, I wrote four paragraphs of argument. Looked at it and then came to the conclusion that no matter what I say it would not change anyones beliefs.

So, I'm not a believer. And you that are....good luck.

You are probably correct that you would not change anyones beliefs, but I always like to know what other folks think about these things. I would have liked to have read those 4 paragraphs.

[krazy]

I think they are very effective. They aren't going to convert people, but they do:

1) Make you chuckle a bit
2) Roll the idea around in your head for a few seconds

Therefore...they are pointless and there are worse things they could have up on billboards...

"XXX Sheep Porn - Exit 23c"

Thats how I feel Caged. When traveling with my kids nothing is worse than seeing "Veronicas Adult Palace exit 25 Get off here "http://www.smileypad.com/v224/Sad/Noooo.gif

[Death Engineer]

Please don't see this as an attack rahter I am questioning your reasoning? Are all other religions wrong then? They are taking different paths to the same God?

I would say that based on the Bible, the answer is yes. "No man comes to the Father but by me." (Jesus speaking - John 14:6). I'm open to questions and even attacks and completely respect the spiritual journey you are taking. However, I would ask what you are basing that journey on. The Bible is what I hold to be the ultimate truth (based on historical and geographical references and their accuracy and outside confirming references). The question I would ask you is: What do you use as your source of truth?

[Pure_Evil]

I believe in myself :D

I see Jim Misspelled God


Waiting for Sho to find it :ha:



there once was a time where a man claimed a burning bush spoke to him, and everyone listened.

now we would call the same man a freak, lable, medicate, and commit him.:eek:

[Pure_Evil]

I would say that based on the Bible, the answer is yes. "No man comes to the Father but by me." (Jesus speaking - John 14:6). I'm open to questions and even attacks and completely respect the spiritual journey you are taking. However, I would ask what you are basing that journey on. The Bible is what I hold to be the ultimate truth (based on historical and geographical references and their accuracy and outside confirming references). The question I would ask you is: What do you use as your source of truth?


http://members.cox.net/pure_e/jesse_jackson.jpg<<<------- My source :o

[Sirc]

I could soooo get myself in trouble in this thread.


But I won't. :)

[Nick]

I would say that based on the Bible, the answer is yes. "No man comes to the Father but by me." (Jesus speaking - John 14:6). I'm open to questions and even attacks and completely respect the spiritual journey you are taking. However, I would ask what you are basing that journey on. The Bible is what I hold to be the ultimate truth (based on historical and geographical references and their accuracy and outside confirming references). The question I would ask you is: What do you use as your source of truth?


I use science...

isnt it written in your good book that god is everywhere and in everything ?

well ... that's what I believe ...every matter and energy in the universe is god....the big bang (his rebith...he always existed) is slowly reforming his consciousness over billions of years (on various planets) and will become whole eventually...then having seen everything ...rebirth ...big bang

organized religion was invented tens of thousands of years ago to control the then newly forming farming comunities.... and to aleive their fear of death...

I find truth in enjoying the gift of life at the fullest ... and beign kind and considerate to others ... I dont need to read that in a book ...

peace :D

[Nick]

I could soooo get myself in trouble in this thread.


But I won't. :)


I thought the same thing ....

but I said.... what the heck... my soul is already damned to eternal flames :D

[Mad Fox]

I would say that based on the Bible, the answer is yes. "No man comes to the Father but by me." (Jesus speaking - John 14:6). I'm open to questions and even attacks and completely respect the spiritual journey you are taking. However, I would ask what you are basing that journey on. The Bible is what I hold to be the ultimate truth (based on historical and geographical references and their accuracy and outside confirming references). The question I would ask you is: What do you use as your source of truth?

Its hard for me to say for certain. I believe in montheism, I am certain God is good, and I am sure the The Trinity is the way to go but I am still uncertain. I question, I rebel, and I throw away. Personally, I find quotes from the Bible inspiring but I don't hold it as a central truth. Rather I am still looking for truth in other things, nature, love, people, and other mysterious. Its a quest.

[Mad Fox]

btw, its really easy to poo-poo another persons search for religion. MF, by all means you should continue. god is not about finding some church and conforming to some other people's beliefs, it is about finding what works for you and enriches your life. I'll stop there because any more only makes people upset... :)


I totally agree. It a personal quest that no one can challenge. It is great to share and learn about because we all can find inspiration and ideas in other people ideas and journeys.

[Death Engineer]

Its hard for me to say for certain. I believe in montheism, I am certain God is good, and I am sure the The Trinity is the way to go but I am still uncertain. I question, I rebel, and I throw away. Personally, I find quotes from the Bible inspiring but I don't hold it as a central truth. Rather I am still looking for truth in other things, nature, love, people, and other mysterious. Its a quest.

I can appreciate your opinion. Yet, I would challenge you to this....if the Bible isn't true in it's entirety, then it would be hard to believe any of it. Finding truth in anything other than the Bible is tough.

For example, Nick here says that his truth is living life to the fullest. But what if his living life to the fullest includes something that someone else finds offensive. For example, let's say he drinks and drives (and enjoys it), but has an accident and kills someones young child. Now what's the truth in there? Is nick living life to the fullest? Sure...in some regard. But what do you say to that mom or dad? Is there some higher standard of right or wrong? I would argue that there is. Otherwise the world would be pure chaos.

Another example...let's say we're standing in the same room and I haul off and just smack you upside your head. Is that OK with you? If not, then why not? We all live like there are higher standards whether you want to admit it or not. We also all live with a degree of faith whether you like it or not. For me, it seems like it would take more faith to believe in something other than the God who has revealed Himself in the Bible and in nature.

[Death Engineer]

I use science...

isnt it written in your good book that god is everywhere and in everything ?

well ... that's what I believe ...every matter and energy in the universe is god....the big bang (his rebith...he always existed) is slowly reforming his consciousness over billions of years (on various planets) and will become whole eventually...then having seen everything ...rebirth ...big bang

organized religion was invented tens of thousands of years ago to control the then newly forming farming comunities.... and to aleive their fear of death...

I find truth in enjoying the gift of life at the fullest ... and beign kind and considerate to others ... I dont need to read that in a book ...

peace :D


Hmmm. It does say that God is omnipresent (all-present literally....). But I don't know about "in everything." Would you say that God is in Hitler? Or Saddam? Or is God in terrorist attacks? (now there's a good question) I don't have any way to prove it, but I would believe the answer to those questions is a resounding "no". I don't believe that God is a weird cosmic force or that He is "in everything" (I think they call this pantheism). Rather, I believe that God exists in 3 parts...God, the father, Jesus, the son, and the Holy Spirit -- the trinity. My basis for this is scriptural.

In short, I believe that God is a spiritual being that wants desprately to have a personal relationship with me (and you). He loves you and me and that's why He sent his only son to die unjustly on the cross to pay the penalty for all of our sins and allow us into His presence without blemishing his righteousness/perfection/holiness.

[Sirc]

Debating religion and the existance of God is pointless. You either believe, don't believe, or aren't sure. No one can provide any tangible proof no matter what their belief is. Our minds are simply too small to even begin to grasp the mysteries of the universe we live in. All debates on the subject rely on "begging the question". Essentially, the argument assumes that its central point is already proven, and uses this in support of itself.

[Death Engineer]

Agreed (in part). I'm not trying to convert anyone here. Just throwing out what I think and maybe a challenging thought or two. You can't prove any of this in a lab, and therefore, it requires faith to believe (or not to) in something like creation in 7 days. I wouldn't say it was pointless though. It helps me to talk about what I believe sometimes just so I have to articulate it. It also helps me because it forces me to really truly understand why I believe what I believe in order to be able to explain it better to others. So pointless, no. :)

[Sirc]

Agreed. I'm not trying to convert anyone here. Just throwing out what I think and maybe a challenging thought or two. You can't prove any of this in a lab, and therefore, it requires faith to believe (or not to) in something like creation in 7 days.

The same can be said for the current scientific theories. I was referring to both sides of the debate. Science can explain and prove some things to a reasonable degree. Scientific theories such as the big bang, dark matter, dark energy, etc., are simply theories based on very limited information. Evolution is a theory. Theories change.

[Sirc]

Agreed (in part). I'm not trying to convert anyone here. Just throwing out what I think and maybe a challenging thought or two. You can't prove any of this in a lab, and therefore, it requires faith to believe (or not to) in something like creation in 7 days. I wouldn't say it was pointless though. It helps me to talk about what I believe sometimes just so I have to articulate it. It also helps me because it forces me to really truly understand why I believe what I believe in order to be able to explain it better to others. So pointless, no. :)

Curse you for editing! :P

I meant pointless in the sense that no side can win the debate. I didn't mean your personal beliefs or your posts were pointless.

[Sirc]

Mmmkay, last post for a while....

I've read the bible, and actually I've read it more than once in various forms (Methodist youth bibles tend to be "translated" to make it more understandable). The "7 day" thing has always struck me as being too literal of an interpretation. How long was 7 days in the "beginning"? Everyone assumes it is based on an Earth solar day, but the Sun (and moon?) wasn't created until the 3rd day (I think). I'm really surprised that a "day" in this context hasn't been argued as being a vague reference of time instead of a literal 24-hour day.

[Nick]

I can appreciate your opinion. Yet, I would challenge you to this....if the Bible isn't true in it's entirety, then it would be hard to believe any of it. Finding truth in anything other than the Bible is tough.

For example, Nick here says that his truth is living life to the fullest. But what if his living life to the fullest includes something that someone else finds offensive. For example, let's say he drinks and drives (and enjoys it), but has an accident and kills someones young child. Now what's the truth in there? Is nick living life to the fullest? Sure...in some regard. But what do you say to that mom or dad? Is there some higher standard of right or wrong? I would argue that there is. Otherwise the world would be pure chaos.

Another example...let's say we're standing in the same room and I haul off and just smack you upside your head. Is that OK with you? If not, then why not? We all live like there are higher standards whether you want to admit it or not. We also all live with a degree of faith whether you like it or not. For me, it seems like it would take more faith to believe in something other than the God who has revealed Himself in the Bible and in nature.

Im sorry ... I thought it was clear in ''considerate to others'' that I wouldnt jeapordize a person's life like driving drunk ...

and I could go in more detail in my beliefs ..but I would bore you all...but suffice it to say .. I dont believe ''god'' has yet the consiousness you attribute him... this universe is still young...



:D!

[JIMINATOR]

yes, god is in hitler, saddam, terrorist attacks, everything else. god created the people, is omniscient, all knowing and should know better. god bears responsibility. there is nothing special about the people you mention, along with hundreds of others from this century alone. we all have the ability to be unbelievably cruel and likely have acted upon that at one time or another. each of those people all had a large group of supporters that carried out the actions. it also helped that countries that could have done something did not.

as for god wanting us to love him, franky i doubt he really gives a damn. imagine you have an aquarium with a bunch of fish. you might enjoy watching the fish, maybe put in a few killer fish at times. do you care if they worship you? I doubt it.

as for jesus dying unjustly, how many people did the romans 'justly' put on the cross? what is unique or different about his experience compared to the hundreds of thousands that die in similar or worse fashions every single year. it certainly helped cement the christian religion but there is nothing unique or different about his experience. ok, there is the resurrection thingy, added to that he wasn't recognized after the fact, and then pretty much disappeared. but we all need our fairy tales.

eh, anyway, this is all from the god is 'advanced' person type view. i don't believe that. i think we are all teh number1, just lack the capability to be aware of it....

[Nick]

yes, god is in hitler, saddam, terrorist attacks, everything else. god created the people, is omniscient, all knowing and should know better. god bears responsibility. there is nothing special about the people you mention, along with hundreds of others from this century alone. we all have the ability to be unbelievably cruel and likely have acted upon that at one time or another. each of those people all had a large group of supporters that carried out the actions. it also helped that countries that could have done something did not.

as for god wanting us to love him, franky i doubt he really gives a damn. imagine you have an aquarium with a bunch of fish. you might enjoy watching the fish, maybe put in a few killer fish at times. do you care if they worship you? I doubt it.

as for jesus dying unjustly, how many people did the romans 'justly' put on the cross? what is unique or different about his experience compared to the hundreds of thousands that die in similar or worse fashions every single year. it certainly helped cement the christian religion but there is nothing unique or different about his experience. ok, there is the resurrection thingy, added to that he wasn't recognized after the fact, and then pretty much disappeared. but we all need our fairy tales.

eh, anyway, this is all from the god is 'advanced' person type view. i don't believe that. i think we are all teh number1, just lack the capability to be aware of it....

great post Jim !!!

!!!

[Death Engineer]

Curse you for editing! :P

I meant pointless in the sense that no side can win the debate. I didn't mean your personal beliefs or your posts were pointless.

Sorry. I realized I hadn't expressed myself very well. I did edit quickly. ;)

[Death Engineer]

Mmmkay, last post for a while....

I've read the bible, and actually I've read it more than once in various forms (Methodist youth bibles tend to be "translated" to make it more understandable). The "7 day" thing has always struck me as being too literal of an interpretation. How long was 7 days in the "beginning"? Everyone assumes it is based on an Earth solar day, but the Sun (and moon?) wasn't created until the 3rd day (I think). I'm really surprised that a "day" in this context hasn't been argued as being a vague reference of time instead of a literal 24-hour day.

I'm really surprised this isn't brought up more often either. In my study of the subject, I found evidence that would support the idea that it was a literal 7 days (according to today's definition). One large source of that evidence is that if you go back to the root word used for "day", and compare it to the other multiple hundred times it is used in the old testament, in every other case it means a literal day (24 hours). This goes back to what you trust for truth. I trust that the original author chose that specific word for a reason (as there are other choices that would mean something more like "generic period of time." It boils down to whether you trust the Bible literally or not.

[Death Engineer]

Im sorry ... I thought it was clear in ''considerate to others'' that I wouldnt jeapordize a person's life like driving drunk ...

and I could go in more detail in my beliefs ..but I would bore you all...but suffice it to say .. I dont believe ''god'' has yet the consiousness you attribute him... this universe is still young...



:D!

You're right. My example was poor and extreme. I'm having a hard time coming up with a concrete realistic situation that would help me describe what I'm trying to say. My point is that if there is no absolute truth, then there would be no way to know right from wrong.

[Death Engineer]

yes, god is in hitler, saddam, terrorist attacks, everything else. god created the people, is omniscient, all knowing and should know better. god bears responsibility. there is nothing special about the people you mention, along with hundreds of others from this century alone. we all have the ability to be unbelievably cruel and likely have acted upon that at one time or another. each of those people all had a large group of supporters that carried out the actions. it also helped that countries that could have done something did not.


I don't think I would say that God "is in" these people/things. He certainly created the world. But he created it perfect. Now did he know that there was a capacity for evil? Sure. But were he to have created a world without that potential, how much will would it take to love him? None. We'd all be robots that mechanically loved God without a reason.

Instead we have a choice. Love demands a choice, IMHO. You can't force someone to love you. You can lock them up and terrorize them (just watched Medea's family Reunion...great stuff....watch it), but you can't make someone love you. True love encourages freedom. That's what I have in my relationship with God.



as for god wanting us to love him, franky i doubt he really gives a damn. imagine you have an aquarium with a bunch of fish. you might enjoy watching the fish, maybe put in a few killer fish at times. do you care if they worship you? I doubt it.


Well, did I create the fish? No. But I can relate this much more closely to having a son (and daughter) of my own now. They are my flesh and blood and I desprately want them to know that I love them...and at some level want them to love me back. Many times they rebel. And sometimes they get punished. But I always let them know that I love them...no matter what.



as for jesus dying unjustly, how many people did the romans 'justly' put on the cross? what is unique or different about his experience compared to the hundreds of thousands that die in similar or worse fashions every single year. it certainly helped cement the christian religion but there is nothing unique or different about his experience. ok, there is the resurrection thingy, added to that he wasn't recognized after the fact, and then pretty much disappeared. but we all need our fairy tales.

What was different? He was perfectly perfect. Romans 3:23 says that the "wages for sin is death. But the gift of God is eternal life through Jesus Christ our Lord." Any of us that have sinned (which is all of us) have death hanging over our heads....not physical death, but spiritual death. The difference is that Jesus didn't sin. He didn't deserve his punishment. And it was much more than just physical death (though that was awful in itself). It was the separation from the Father that was so painful for Him.



eh, anyway, this is all from the god is 'advanced' person type view. i don't believe that. i think we are all teh number1, just lack the capability to be aware of it....

I can respect your opinion. But I would respectfully disagree with you based on the Bible. :)

[Pure_Evil]

Debating religion and the existance of God is pointless. You either believe, don't believe, or aren't sure. No one can provide any tangible proof no matter what their belief is. Our minds are simply too small to even begin to grasp the mysteries of the universe we live in. All debates on the subject rely on "begging the question". Essentially, the argument assumes that its central point is already proven, and uses this in support of itself.That's why I say believe in yourself and be true to yourself, and enjoy the short walk down life's path.

Religeon is used as a tool, a crutch, or a bussiness these days.

[Mad Fox]

Here's what I know

Life is eternal,
Love is immortal,
Death is only a new horizon


Other than that it is all up in the air

[Die Hard]

If God made the Dinosaurs then why did he kill them all?

[JIMINATOR]

the creationist belief is that he didn't make them, he only planted the bones for us to find them. god must have been bored that day.... :thumbs:

[Caged Anger]

:rofl: never heard that before

[Death Engineer]

If God made the Dinosaurs then why did he kill them all?

Hmm. Who says that God killed the dinosaurs? :cool:

[Death Engineer]

the creationist belief is that he didn't make them, he only planted the bones for us to find them. god must have been bored that day.... :thumbs:

Actually, there is scriptural evidence that there were dinosaurs on Noah's ark. As a creationist, I would say your statement is pretty far from any serious creationist theory I have ever heard.

[Death Engineer]

Here's what I know

Life is eternal,
Love is immortal,
Death is only a new horizon


Other than that it is all up in the air

I can only assume that you mean the spirit when you say life is eternal. The body certainly doesn't fare well after death. I do agree that your soul will not die. I can also agree that "Love covers a multitude of sins." I'm not sure about immortal though. What does that mean practically?

The last line sounds like a line David Koresh and similar cult leaders would give to their followers just before you drink the magical kool-aid. ;)

[EXEcution]

Here's what I know

Life is eternal,
Love is immortal,
Death is only a new horizon


Other than that it is all up in the air
How can you know or even claim to know these things?

I have a genuine interest in trying to understand why people belive in God and why so many have interpreted His ways differently. I am currently taking a modern philosophy (covering late 19th century through 21st century philosophers) course at my university and some of the readings and lectures have opened up my mind to trying to see a broader picture of how the world "works".

How can you believe something to be true when you have no tangible or testable grounds to base your beliefs on?

People are naturally accustomed to continue believing certain things as long as they are perceived to be true by the vast majority of other people within their community (whether that community is a whole country or a small town). We are essentially like animals, we form habits and we are not too fond of novelties. But, on the other hand, we differ from animals in that we can question the world around us and draw some very compelx conclusions. I would go so far as to say that beliveing things to be true by adopting a scientific or a pragmatic (practical) method is the most rational way. This way you can question things by stepping out of a certain set of "given" beliefs or so-called fundamental truths (which could be wrong for all we know).

Now a man who is considered by many to be one of the greatest American philosophers explained that truth is something that we can only hope to reach through infinite inquiry. This might not make sense to alot of people and this particular idea was rejected by most of the philosopher's colleagues (who taught at Harvard). From this we can deduce that there is not enough evidence on Earth to prove that God exists since even with the evidence and proofs we have now for certain things (such as the laws of physics) we cannot come to a genuinely true conclusion.

So the world as we know it is based on some truths that we can only hope are true. But this is a rational hope that we can continue to expand on and get closer and closer to the TRUTH. So it would be pointless (from a pragmatic point of view) to seek out proof that there is a God. People can hope that He exists irrationally, since they have not made great strides in finding evidence that proves that God is real. The Bible is a book written by people thousands of years ago. Who is to say that they had a better idea of how the world works than we do. We exists in the here and now so why not accept the method of science and move on to more pressing matters at hand.

[Die Hard]

Hmm. Who says that God killed the dinosaurs? :cool:Well lets put it another way. Why did he allow them all to die?

Really I'm just being facetious, I don't believe in a god. What I do believe is that we all came from soup. :)

[Sirc]

Well lets put it another way. Why did he allow them all to die?

Really I'm just being facetious, I don't believe in a god. What I do believe is that we all came from soup. :)

Vegetable soup in DH's case cause women keep asking him "Where's the beef?" :P

[Sirc]

I'm really surprised this isn't brought up more often either. In my study of the subject, I found evidence that would support the idea that it was a literal 7 days (according to today's definition). One large source of that evidence is that if you go back to the root word used for "day", and compare it to the other multiple hundred times it is used in the old testament, in every other case it means a literal day (24 hours). This goes back to what you trust for truth. I trust that the original author chose that specific word for a reason (as there are other choices that would mean something more like "generic period of time." It boils down to whether you trust the Bible literally or not.

Maybe it's a typo. :eek::P

So you take the Bible's words absolutely literally, even though it's a translation of a translation? And written by multiple fallible humans?

Who wrote Genesis anyway?

[JIMINATOR]

The Genesis story has no eyewitnesses. By the writers own words man did not exist until the sixth day. so the assumption must be that god filled them in on the details after the fact. or maybe man was really stoopid at the time, ie:

god: and write down that it took 13 billion years to create the universe.

adam: what do you mean write? written language has not been invented yet?

god: ok, I meant pass down in your oral history that it took 13 billion years to create the universe.

adam: what is 13 and this billion thing you keep talking about? is it like a day?

god: damn it you dumb ass it is like a day but a whole bunch of them. a very long time. don't you know how to count?

adam: ok ok. whatever you say. (note to self.... a day...)

adam: ok, 10 fingers, two hands, and my penis = 13

(later)

eve: how long did it take to create the universe?

adam looking down at his penis: I think god said one day?

[Sirc]

:funny:

You are so going to hell dude. :P

[Die Hard]

Oh, there is no hell either so Jim will be fine :)

[BobtheCkroach]

I believe that Moses is credited for writing the first 5 books of the Bible (I'm not sure it's fact, but rather assumed). That would include Genesis.

[FUS1ON]

While you non believers are down there, stoke the fires of hell, my feet are cold

[JIMINATOR]

While you non believers are down there, stoke the fires of hell, my feet are cold
a lot of people in the world believe the same about your religion, no matter what you are. they can't all be right.





but hey, they certainly can all be wrong. :wootrock:

[MassacreAL]

but hey, they certainly can all be wrong. :wootrock:
yep yep, thats what links different religions: they all can be wrong :rolleyes:

[MassacreAL]

The Genesis story has no eyewitnesses. By the writers own words man did not exist until the sixth day. so the assumption must be that god filled them in on the details after the fact. or maybe man was really stoopid at the time, ie:

god: and write down that it took 13 billion years to create the universe.

adam: what do you mean write? written language has not been invented yet?

god: ok, I meant pass down in your oral history that it took 13 billion years to create the universe.

adam: what is 13 and this billion thing you keep talking about? is it like a day?

god: damn it you dumb ass it is like a day but a whole bunch of them. a very long time. don't you know how to count?

adam: ok ok. whatever you say. (note to self.... a day...)

adam: ok, 10 fingers, two hands, and my penis = 13

(later)

eve: how long did it take to create the universe?

adam looking down at his penis: I think god said one day?
hahaha thats good one :rofl: if bible would look like this im sure many more people was believers

[MassacreAL]

as i read deeper to the thread, its more and more interesting.

i believe there are no souls, we all are just bunch of interacting atoms. can someone show me where in space is soul? there isnt, i know i know...

[Wiper]

"The scientist is just a way for atoms to think about atoms"

[EXEcution]

"The scientist is just a way for atoms to think about atoms"
Thats gotta be the stupidest thing I ever read.

[JIMINATOR]

Thats gotta be the stupidest thing I ever read.
really? what does that say about you?

I think it is very insightful, another varient of the "I think therefore I am" statement...

[EXEcution]

really? what does that say about you?

I think it is very insightful, another varient of the "I think therefore I am" statement...
The Cartesian saying: "I think therefore I am" is also behind on the times. Simply put, it's wrong because it leaves too many holes open. First of all Descartes was saying that truth is a product of clear and distinct thoughts. So according to his theory if I can clearly and distinctly think that there is no God then I would be right! However, Descartes also said that if one thinks then one exists and so there is a God. He though that the mind and the body were seperate things. the mind was immaterial, it consisted of though only, whereas the body was physical. But if this is so then how can the mind and body interact if the mind is immaterial, immortal, and exists seperate from the body? In other words: How can something that doesn't exist affect something that does exist?

As for the scientists being atoms and studying atoms, it's just a poor formulation of how people may perceive science. What one concludes after reading that statement is that science is basically pointless. Atoms studying atoms? How about humans studying the universe and coming up with new theories about how the universe works.

Did you stop to think that the known world goes beyond atoms. How about quantum particles? So scientists would be quantum particles studying quantum particles? Can you explain that? How can something without mental capacity study anything? An atom is a tiny particle that we study because and only because it interacts with other atoms. It's not atoms studying atoms because we've already established what an atom is. All scientists study the world as a whole.

[Wiper]

Hmm, Exe ur missing the point of what this quote says...

Makes people believe that Jezus indeed walked on water instead of see it symbolic :)

[JIMINATOR]

ok, good way to smear a whole bunch of statements on a page and make them all meaningless. for the i think statement, i don't really care about the history. it is all about self-awareness. maybe the statement is true for you. you hope it is true for everyone else but who knows, all of you may just be some crap that my mind made up. if so, it is a pretty good pretend world. for atoms studying atoms, true enough. if you were able to ride in an atom sized ship, that is all you would see. of course atoms are so much more, and also so much less. maybe to an infinite scale on each end. who really knows? that doesnt make the statement invalid. It is just a description of one way things can be viewed.

[EXEcution]

Makes people believe that Jezus indeed walked on water instead of see it symbolic :)
Well I stand on a strictly pragmatic view of the world. That's not to say that I don't respect the religious beliefs of others but I simply don't believe them myself. So technically one of us has got to be closer to the truth.

One philosopher once said that it's good the belive in a God simply because the good that comes from that belief outweighs the bad significantly. What does one lose if they belive in God? You earn the gift of eternal life if you belive in God and if you don't then you must not have believed in God. Sucks for you. This is laughable.

I don't like to view the world in terms of right and wrong. However, certain situations will force us to make a moral distinction. Moreover, most situations do not yield a neutral standpoint. Neutrality is often an illusion, we will almost always tend to lean more towards one view than another.

Religion is inexplicable in scientific terms, instead it forces one to believe something because it's perceived to be good. Then someone will come up with an argument saying that this belief is wrong and start their own religion or put their faith in a different one. This cycle will almost never end as long as religion exists and people refuse to accept the method of science as the dominant way to attempt to reach the truth.

[Wiper]

Well I stand on a strictly pragmatic view of the world. That's not to say that I don't respect the religious beliefs of others but I simply don't believe them myself. So technically one of us has got to be closer to the truth.

One philosopher once said that it's good the belive in a God simply because the good that comes from that belief outweighs the bad significantly. What does one lose if they belive in God? You earn the gift of eternal life if you belive in God and if you don't then you must not have believed in God. Sucks for you. This is laughable.

I don't like to view the world in terms of right and wrong. However, certain situations will force us to make a moral distinction. Moreover, most situations do not yield a neutral standpoint. Neutrality is often an illusion, we will almost always tend to lean more towards one view than another.

Religion is inexplicable in scientific terms, instead it forces one to believe something because it's perceived to be good. Then someone will come up with an argument saying that this belief is wrong and start their own religion or put their faith in a different one. This cycle will almost never end as long as religion exists and people refuse to accept the method of science as the dominant way to attempt to reach the truth.


First of all, quotes don't claim to be the thruth, it makes people think (just like you did) .

And second (to talk in the neutrality-illusion), u are trying to give us the same way of thinking as you have (just like a religion) :)

[Sirc]

The Cartesian saying: "I think therefore I am" is also behind on the times. Simply put, it's wrong because it leaves too many holes open. First of all Descartes was saying that truth is a product of clear and distinct thoughts. So according to his theory if I can clearly and distinctly think that there is no God then I would be right! However, Descartes also said that if one thinks then one exists and so there is a God. He though that the mind and the body were seperate things. the mind was immaterial, it consisted of though only, whereas the body was physical. But if this is so then how can the mind and body interact if the mind is immaterial, immortal, and exists seperate from the body? In other words: How can something that doesn't exist affect something that does exist?

As for the scientists being atoms and studying atoms, it's just a poor formulation of how people may perceive science. What one concludes after reading that statement is that science is basically pointless. Atoms studying atoms? How about humans studying the universe and coming up with new theories about how the universe works.

Did you stop to think that the known world goes beyond atoms. How about quantum particles? So scientists would be quantum particles studying quantum particles? Can you explain that? How can something without mental capacity study anything? An atom is a tiny particle that we study because and only because it interacts with other atoms. It's not atoms studying atoms because we've already established what an atom is. All scientists study the world as a whole.

There are so many logical fallacies in that quote that I don't even know where to start. :rolleyes:

Descartes was attempting to prove his own existance by the fact that he was self-aware. Also, just because something is not made of matter doesn't mean it doesn't exist. There are a great many things that are not made of matter, exist, and that interact with matter - gravity, electro-magnetic radiation, etc.

You are made of atoms. If you were to study atoms, you would be atoms studying atoms. You are also made of molecules, and you are also made of compounds. And you are also made of quantum particles. And you are made of skin and muscle and bones, among other things. It just depends on what level at which you want to describe what you are made of.

All scientists do not study the world as a whole. I think it's safe to say that biologists don't spend much time studying quantum physics. I assuming by "world" you mean "universe". Not that it would matter because you still would be wrong.

I'm going to need some beer if I'm going to go any farther. :P

[NightBreed]

Gonna need more than beer...

That's deep thinkin......really deep...http://www.addis-welt.de/smilie/smilie/rauchen/kos.gif

[EXEcution]

Descartes was attempting to prove his own existance by the fact that he was self-aware. Also, just because something is not made of matter doesn't mean it doesn't exist. There are a great many things that are not made of matter, exist, and that interact with matter - gravity, electro-magnetic radiation, etc.

Well gravity has been proven to exist and it makes logical sense for one to assume that a force such as gravity exists. Gravity comes from a tangible object (our planet for instance). Electro-magnetic radiation also come from atoms but exists independeny from them. Just like energy. Though cannot exist independently from your brain. Unless it exists somewhere beyond our reality or is a type of everlasting energy.


All scientists do not study the world as a whole. I think it's safe to say that biologists don't spend much time studying quantum physics. I assuming by "world" you mean "universe". Not that it would matter because you still would be wrong.

What I meant is that the broad area of all sciences is responsible for helping people understand the world empirically not theologically. So collectively ALL scientists do study the universe. Sorry for my poor phrasing.


First of all, quotes don't claim to be the thruth, it makes people think (just like you did) .

Yes it made me think that its a bit strange to say that scientists are a way for atoms to think about atoms is oversimplifying science. Perhaps that quote should not have come under my scrutiny since it's only a "clever" remark. I forgive myself for my silliness. :)

[Wiper]

Yes it made me think that its a bit strange to say that scientists are a way for atoms to think about atoms is oversimplifying science. Perhaps that quote should not have come under my scrutiny since it's only a "clever" remark. I forgive myself for my silliness. :)


You still see/read/discuss this quote in the wrong way.

No offense, but especially when you study you should keep an open mind and aproach things like they should. Most suprised I'm by the the way you see your own intelligence, ur definatly not stupid but neither a genius (like you act now). Don't be scared to try a different point of view once in a while otherwise we would still walk on our hands and feet nowadays :D

Ps.

Funny fact: gravity excists, we know what it does and how to use it in calculations. But not a single soul on this planet knows what it is...

[Sirc]

Truth is situational - based on a given frame of reference. There is no "ultimate truth" because there can alway be a larger frame of reference. By saying that truth will come from science necessarily defines a specific frame of reference and therefore cannot be the "ultimate truth".

[EXEcution]

Truth is situational - based on a given frame of reference. There is no "ultimate truth" because there can alway be a larger frame of reference. By saying that truth will come from science necessarily defines a specific frame of reference and therefore cannot be the "ultimate truth".
Science allows one to infinitely continue to reach for the truth. Religion does not since it is confined to a strict set of beliefs. These beliefs are a result of an authoritarian method being used to make people believe a certain "truth". There are other methods that can be used to create and uphold certain beliefs such as tenacity (holding on to any given belief and refusing to belive anything else), a priori, literally means to come before, (something not based on facts but still upheld as true) and finally there is the method of science which allows us to question the truth by stepping outside a "given" set of "truths".

There might not be an ultimate truth that people can grasp but it might be out there, beyond our reach. However, we can constantly work towards that truth by raising intelligent inquiries about certain things. This is the reason why humans have advanced as a civilization. If everyone still believed that God was out almighty ruler and savior then why would we create life support systems and worry about our well being in we would all end up in heaven. We are still intelligent animals at heart, constantly looking for ways to survive.

Doesn't today's world seem better than the world 100 years ago? Aren't people happier with the technological advances that they've made? And how does God fit into all of this? God certainly didn't make the laws that keep our country relatively safe today. He never said that kids should go to school and learn about math, science, and politics so that this knowledge could be passed on from one generation to the next. For all we know He would rather have us living in mud huts, praying to him every day and being "good".

You seem to forget that knowledge tends to shift one generation to the next. Old beliefs are replaced with new ones so truth is fleeting. It doesn't simply stand still. So perhaps we are constantly working towards a greater truth through the cumulation of past experiences.

[Sirc]

Yes, frames of reference change constantly. Even religious ones.

I don't think that most religions think God micro-manages. On the contrary, it is up to the individual to make his/her own choices in life. We can use our own intelligence to "improve" our lives. Is the world better now than 100 years ago? That's a whole different debate.

Wouldn't it be interesting if science ultimately lead us to God? That would be a tough one for some people to swallow, and many would probably deny it as the "truth" and believe in their hearts that science is wrong. Kind of ironic.

Anyway, I'm not a religious person. I simply enjoy debating and am usually happy challenging anything and everything. It keeps things interesting for me.

[EXEcution]

If science lead us to God (which it never will imo) then I think scientists and the clergy would both be dumbfounded simply because one would be able to conduct one or several experiments that proved that God is the reason why X occurs. So then we would eventually be able to manipulate the force of God and bring about all sorts of mischief.

[FUS1ON]

"The righteous should choose his friends carefully, for the way of the wicked leads them astray." - Proverbs 12:26

[Death Engineer]

How can you know or even claim to know these things?

...
How can you believe something to be true when you have no tangible or testable grounds to base your beliefs on?


Uhm. You do it every day. Do you know for sure that the water coming out of that water fountain isn't poisoned? (i.e. do you test it before drinking?) Do you know beyond a shadow of a doubt that the air you are breathing right now is not filled with toxins that will render your brain lifeless in a matter of minutes? No. It's called faith. You have it, whether you recognize it or not.



People are naturally accustomed to continue believing certain things as long as they are perceived to be true by the vast majority of other people within their community (whether that community is a whole country or a small town). We are essentially like animals, we form habits and we are not too fond of novelties. But, on the other hand, we differ from animals in that we can question the world around us and draw some very compelx conclusions. I would go so far as to say that beliveing things to be true by adopting a scientific or a pragmatic (practical) method is the most rational way. This way you can question things by stepping out of a certain set of "given" beliefs or so-called fundamental truths (which could be wrong for all we know).

I can agree that it makes sense to follow a logical thought process when dealing with matters like this. That is exactly what Lee Strobel did in "The Case For Christ." He was NOT a Christian and set out to disprove Christianity using logical thought processes. The rest is history. Great book.



Now a man who is considered by many to be one of the greatest American philosophers explained that truth is something that we can only hope to reach through infinite inquiry. This might not make sense to alot of people and this particular idea was rejected by most of the philosopher's colleagues (who taught at Harvard). From this we can deduce that there is not enough evidence on Earth to prove that God exists since even with the evidence and proofs we have now for certain things (such as the laws of physics) we cannot come to a genuinely true conclusion.

I disagree with the idea that truth cannot be known. I think this is a rather over-complicated way of looking at things. I will say that you cannot find truth on and of your own accord. This comes back to faith. Faith and truth and interwoven in my worldview.



So the world as we know it is based on some truths that we can only hope are true. But this is a rational hope that we can continue to expand on and get closer and closer to the TRUTH. So it would be pointless (from a pragmatic point of view) to seek out proof that there is a God. People can hope that He exists irrationally, since they have not made great strides in finding evidence that proves that God is real. The Bible is a book written by people thousands of years ago. Who is to say that they had a better idea of how the world works than we do. We exists in the here and now so why not accept the method of science and move on to more pressing matters at hand.
Which part of Christianity is not accepting the method of science? What is a more pressing question than "Who are we?" and "Why are we here?" If the answer is that life is pointless, then that's pretty depressing. If the answer is, however, that this is but a blip in the scope of eternity in which will be decided your fate for the rest of time, then that kind of puts things in a different light. Kind of a joyful one if you're looking forward to heaven as opposed to the lake of fire.

[Death Engineer]

Well lets put it another way. Why did he allow them all to die?

Really I'm just being facetious, I don't believe in a god. What I do believe is that we all came from soup. :)

I don't know the answer to why God would allow dinosaurs to die. My guess is that it followed sin entering this world. Heck, there are hundreds of endangered species of animals becoming extinct around the world now. Why would He allow that to happen? I don't know. This boils down to: Why is there sin in this world? Or another way: Why do bad things happen to good people?

One of the best explanations I have ever seen for these sorts of questions can be found in the following link:

http://www.carm.org/40_objections/40-4.htm#_1_31

I also believe that it takes more faith to believe that we evolved out of some kind of soup than it does to believe that God created us. Where did the soup come from?

[Death Engineer]

Maybe it's a typo. :eek::P

So you take the Bible's words absolutely literally, even though it's a translation of a translation? And written by multiple fallible humans?

Who wrote Genesis anyway?

Could be a typo. I've seen some pretty interesting "typos" (at least in the original language) some of which show God's humor. I don't take the translation of a translation to be authoritative (though it is a VERY good translation by any measure). I believe that the Bible is the inspired word of God written by man. John McArthur describes "inspired" pretty well in this link:

http://www.biblebb.com/files/MAC/sg1343.htm

[Die Hard]

I also believe that it takes more faith to believe that we evolved out of some kind of soup than it does to believe that God created us. Where did the soup come from?A chemical soup is at least believable to me rather than some all powerful 'thing' looking down on us, that theoretically has the power to do anything but in fact does nothing.

As to where did the soup come from? Well, I'll have to quote you again: "I don't know".

[EXEcution]

Uhm. You do it every day. Do you know for sure that the water coming out of that water fountain isn't poisoned? (i.e. do you test it before drinking?) Do you know beyond a shadow of a doubt that the air you are breathing right now is not filled with toxins that will render your brain lifeless in a matter of minutes? No. It's called faith. You have it, whether you recognize it or not.
There are limits to certain kinds of beliefs when one wishes to scientifically test them. I don't test the water myself but I can find or call someone that does and request chemical evidence that the water I drink (which comes from a local resevoir) doesn't contain any toxic substances. I can put my faith into science but that would not be the same as putting my faith into God.


I disagree with the idea that truth cannot be known. I think this is a rather over-complicated way of looking at things. I will say that you cannot find truth on and of your own accord. This comes back to faith. Faith and truth and interwoven in my worldview.
The point is that we can always hope to get to the truth so our search always continues. If we were to find the ultimate truth then would anything else matter anymore? The "truth" is that no one knows where they will end up when they die. I believe that I know and I can support my beliefs with reason and rational thought but I can never truly know. To me that seems like a good thing.



Which part of Christianity is not accepting the method of science? What is a more pressing question than "Who are we?" and "Why are we here?" If the answer is that life is pointless, then that's pretty depressing. If the answer is, however, that this is but a blip in the scope of eternity in which will be decided your fate for the rest of time, then that kind of puts things in a different light. Kind of a joyful one if you're looking forward to heaven as opposed to the lake of fire.

Well the most obvious and probably the most arguable way that Christianity does not accept science is in regards to their rival theories on how we came to be. Those being evolution and creationalism. Now I've read that some people believe that the two are compatible and can be intertwined to mean essentially the same thing. But at the same time both could be wrong and perhaps evolution is a dying theory much like the Cartesian way of thinking about the world. Some parts of evolution make logical sense but when it comes down to proving how matter came to exist in the first place it gets more complex.

Some creationalists have turned to ID (intelligent design) to explain certain phenomena. They claim that an intelligent being (essentially God) is responsible for designing the world so that it would work "perfectly". Well he must have screwed up some how and written some buggy code because from where I stand the world is far from perfect.

A late 19th to early 20th century philosopher Josiah Royce addressed the problem of evil or imperfection in the world as it relates to God. He came up with a very interesting theory in his essay titled "The Problem of Job". For those who don't know who Job (pronounced jobe) is it would probably help to read the Old Testament, but basically Job was a good and decent man who endured many harsh hardships in his life. Then he went to God and asked him why he was essentially being punished for being a good man. God basically said that He cannot answer that question and left. Royce said that perhaps God himself is imperfect and He struggles just as man stuggles. Our pains are His pains and people essentially have a divine touch to them. And so we are all working towards a greater good in an attempt to overcome evil.

[Death Engineer]

A chemical soup is at least believable to me rather than some all powerful 'thing' looking down on us, that theoretically has the power to do anything but in fact does nothing.

As to where did the soup come from? Well, I'll have to quote you again: "I don't know".

Hence, your faith in something. The soup either came from something else, or has always existed according the laws of physics. Right? So, I ask.... is it more plausible that there has been a soup of energy that has always existed that morphed into our planet? (note...we have yet to see evolution take place in a "change of kind" sort of way) Or does it make more sense that someone created all that we are seeing and entropy is rather the order of change?

[EXEcution]

Hence, your faith in something. The soup either came from something else, or has always existed according the laws of physics. Right? So, I ask.... is it more plausible that there has been a soup of energy that has always existed that morphed into our planet? (note...we have yet to see evolution take place in a "change of kind" sort of way) Or does it make more sense that someone created all that we are seeing and entropy is rather the order of change?
To be honest, neither makes much sense to me. The idea of someone creating our universe is also questionable. For instance: Where did that someone come from? Did God have a God father? It really makes no sense to say that God has always simply existed. Everything should come from something, or not...

I sat through another philosophy lecture today and our professor brought up the post-modernistic viewpoint. Basically this theory/movement rejects the very idea that philosophy is based on. This being that the world (and change) could only be understood in terms of the changeless. As I said before knowledge is fleeting and the general idea is that "You cannot step into the same river twice." So it doesn't matter where we came from because tracing back that far would be pointless since the flow of knowledge is discontinuous. What something meant 10 years ago in science or religion is not and does not mean the same thing today. There are no changeless entities that we can define change by.

So if this is true then what is our purpose in life? Simple (well not quite but it's explicable). It's called social solidarity. We live for and run on our own local interests and impressions. The decisions we make are made specifically for us and are in the interets of the society which we are part of. People's religious beliefs are not a product of religious faith (which assumes indefinitely that God exists) since faith itself would arise from a question to which we would think we have the answer to but the answer cannot be justified in terms of God or the changeless since the changeless cannot be used to define change.

That might need to be cleared up a bit but it's another idea and if you think about it we live in a post-modern world and postmodernism would deny the existance of God.

[Death Engineer]

There are limits to certain kinds of beliefs when one wishes to scientifically test them. I don't test the water myself but I can find or call someone that does and request chemical evidence that the water I drink (which comes from a local resevoir) doesn't contain any toxic substances. I can put my faith into science but that would not be the same as putting my faith into God.

Faith in science is misplaced in my estimation. The following explains this fairly succinctly:

"Within its proper bounds, science can only deal with what can be tested and worked with in one way or another. Thus it is properly bound to naturalism. We cannot work in a controlled way with the supernatural (this is the subject of witchcraft and shamanism), nor can we adequately test it. Science can only discover what already is, and learn how to use it, take care of it, appreciate it. Because science is not in possession of ALL the facts, science is in no position to make a final judgment on anything. This makes science a changing thing, and rightfully so. In any field, you only need one new contrary fact to force a rearrangement of thinking regarding the entire field. It also might be noted that changing things are not stable foundations. A good deal of what we consider fact today might not be fact tomorrow and to presume this cannot happen it to be quite naive. Mankind must find something outside of his own limited knowledge and interpretations on which to base his life if he wants any security at all. Science cannot define meaning in life, nor was it meant to. And it is meaning -- purpose -- that must be found for a man to be satisfied and have a direction in his life."
(from http://www.carm.org/evo_questions/creationmythl.htm)



The point is that we can always hope to get to the truth so our search always continues. If we were to find the ultimate truth then would anything else matter anymore? The "truth" is that no one knows where they will end up when they die. I believe that I know and I can support my beliefs with reason and rational thought but I can never truly know. To me that seems like a good thing.

I don't think there is ultimate truth or any other form of truth. There is just truth. Either I am typing this right now or I am not. I don't believe in relative truth. As a result of such thinking (and quite a bit more theology), I DO have confidence in where I am going when I die. And this confidence gives me a joy and a passion to share what I believe. I can't prove it to you in a lab, but I have faith based on a book I believe to be God's word.




Well the most obvious and probably the most arguable way that Christianity does not accept science is in regards to their rival theories on how we came to be. Those being evolution and creationalism. Now I've read that some people believe that the two are compatible and can be intertwined to mean essentially the same thing. But at the same time both could be wrong and perhaps evolution is a dying theory much like the Cartesian way of thinking about the world. Some parts of evolution make logical sense but when it comes down to proving how matter came to exist in the first place it gets more complex.

Some creationalists have turned to ID (intelligent design) to explain certain phenomena. They claim that an intelligent being (essentially God) is responsible for designing the world so that it would work "perfectly". Well he must have screwed up some how and written some buggy code because from where I stand the world is far from perfect.

Rather than rehash it here, I just (finally) responded to the other thread regarding evolution. I believe that with all of the facts laid out in front of you, creation is a more logical choice. More and more science helps me to confirm this thought pattern.



A late 19th to early 20th century philosopher Josiah Royce addressed the problem of evil or imperfection in the world as it relates to God. He came up with a very interesting theory in his essay titled "The Problem of Job". For those who don't know who Job (pronounced jobe) is it would probably help to read the Old Testament, but basically Job was a good and decent man who endured many harsh hardships in his life. Then he went to God and asked him why he was essentially being punished for being a good man. God basically said that He cannot answer that question and left. Royce said that perhaps God himself is imperfect and He struggles just as man stuggles. Our pains are His pains and people essentially have a divine touch to them. And so we are all working towards a greater good in an attempt to overcome evil.
Whoa. That's actually a pretty gross misrepresentation of God's response in Job. He actually stated something more like, "Who are you to judge me?" (see Job 40).

[Die Hard]

"Within its proper bounds, science can only deal with what can be tested and worked with in one way or another.If only that were true of religion.

Of course the problem is that religion, no matter how entrenched has no tangible evidence other than faith, peer pressure and self-interest.

Go figure....

[Death Engineer]

If only that were true of religion.

Of course the problem is that religion, no matter how entrenched has no tangible evidence other than faith, peer pressure and self-interest.

Go figure....

I wouldn't say _no_ tangible evidence. However, I will concede that you cannot accept Christianity (or any other religion) without some form of faith. But again...we all have faith. Some of us just choose different things in which to put our faith.

[Die Hard]

Well I imagine you are referring to my earlier post about soup? I don't have undying faith in that theory, rather it seems more feasable to me than the idea of religion.

The fact is DE that we will none of us change our minds. Unless of course we are vunerable, then religion will increase it's membership.

[Death Engineer]

Oh, I doubt that 100% of gamemeccians will go to their grave with their current philosophy of life. Statistics say otherwise. Like I said before...I'm not trying to convert anyone. Just trying to explain my thoughts and beliefs and perhaps provoke some discussion. Hopefully I haven't offended you or anyone else.

[Die Hard]

No offence taken whatsoever.

Now go get your shotty and lets see if there is an after life :P

[JIMINATOR]

wow, so serious all of a sudden. and I thought that this was a humor thread. i can't help but get that impression any time I see convoluted explainations for things that have much more reasonable causes.

all i would say is that if god has no sense of humor then we are all doomed.

[Die Hard]

Refer to my earlier post.

And it would be nice to see you in the servers too :)

[Death Engineer]

Very little gaming time lately. But I'll come lookin' for ya if I get chance tonight. :)

[EXEcution]

Ok well since it seems that we have exhausted this discussion for the time being there is just one more thing that I'd like to say. I am a firm believer in science, but I can tell you that I don't think that science has the answers that everyone is looking for. It is only natural for people to seek alternate means for explanation of the super natural since such phenomena cannot be explained by a naturalist.

Instead of living life as a firm beliver in God I think that I would perfer to live as a pragmatist. Then I don't have to confuse myself with meaning and truth as it relates to my religion. I am fairly open minded when it comes to religion and I dislike when anyone bashes someone's beliefs.

Here's an example. Today at my university there were a group of out of state kids (they were probably at least 21 but I can't really call them adults since they didn't look or sound much like an adult would) that had giant posters displaying messages along the lines of "Jesus loves you" and they yelled out things like "There is more to life than just having a job." They were handing out some pamphlets too but I chose not to take one, perhaps I should have. I can only assume how much trouble those kids went through to gather up the courage to freely express their beliefs and then talk to the bypassing students about their beliefs. I may not agree with the message that they are trying to push but I can understand why they are doing it. Their philosophy or religion does not have to affect me, I can freely seek out my own path towards a better life. No one forces me to accept Jesus as our Lord and Savior and so the truly great thing is that I can be an independent being.

Though can be allowed to constantly flourish if we are given the right to speak and think freely.

[Sirc]

"Thought", Execution. It's spelled: t-h-o-u-g-h-t.

If you type "though" instead of "thought" one more time in this thread (unless you actually mean "though") I'm putting you on ignore.





:P:P:P:D

[SASQUATCH]

Just trying to explain my thoughts and beliefs and perhaps provoke some discussion. Hopefully I haven't offended you or anyone else.


:thumbs: I like what you had to say it was nicely said btw.


You guys ever read the Ecclesiastes chapters? I find it so depressing. . . .
I think the best way for me is to respect people who believe in anything or any type of god. Tough subject. . . .

[EXEcution]

"Thought", Execution. It's spelled: t-h-o-u-g-h-t.

If you type "though" instead of "thought" one more time in this thread (unless you actually mean "though") I'm putting you on ignore.





:P:P:P:D
Well I am not about to change them all! This is a common mistake for me and I'll try to avoid it. But as long as you undertand what I mean since you can clearly see that I meant "thought" within the context of my writing, then it's really a minor problem. I can usually express my ideas clearly when I write and so far everyone seems to understand where I am coming from.

[Death Engineer]

Ecclesiastes. "There's nothing new under the sun." It is a rather bleak picture, but it's true. It paints a picture of the reality of life without meaning. In fact, it speaks to this generation pretty directly from a materialistic point of view. Solomon had it all...women, money, posessions... but it wasn't enough to fulfill him. From one of the wisest/richest men to ever have walked the earth. That's a pretty powerful message.

[EXEcution]

Ecclesiastes. "There's nothing new under the sun." It is a rather bleak picture, but it's true. It paints a picture of the reality of life without meaning. In fact, it speaks to this generation pretty directly from a materialistic point of view. Solomon had it all...women, money, posessions... but it wasn't enough to fulfill him. From one of the wisest/richest men to ever have walked the earth. That's a pretty powerful message.
I don't think the message is powerul at all. All it says is enjoy life while you can. I think that's much too simple. I looked up some info on Ecclesiastes and recent studies by scholars show that Solomon was probably not the author of the book and it is a pseudepigraphical work. So it may have been the work of someone wise but not as powerful or well recognized as Solomon.

Ecclesiastes seems to follow in the tradition of Epicureanism which draws the same conclusion about life; pain-free pleasure is the ideal good a person should seek out in life. In regards to religion it states that God, our souls, and our bodies are all made up of atoms. And thus thought is made up of randomly moving atoms. This actually goes back to Wiper's quote, but I think that it's foolish to think in such a way. First of all if this were true then I see no means of a power structure forming within a society. Everyone would just be too busy "enjoying life" and thus anarchy would ensure since the idea of being able to constantly act freely counters the idea of societies since they conform to certain boundaries.

We live in a world filled with meaning. Even though the meaning may not be true we constantly confrom to it. The idea of killing someone out of spite as being wrong is a result of a kind of meaning, more specifically the meaning of law. Remove all meaning and you remove all law. So meaning MUST exist otherwise we'd all be dead by now.

[Death Engineer]

Did you read the book? Or just articles/websites about it? I'm having a hard time following your conclusions based on the text. Can you list some references to corroborate your points?


13 Now all has been heard;
here is the conclusion of the matter:
Fear God and keep his commandments,
for this is the whole duty of man.

14 For God will bring every deed into judgment,
including every hidden thing,
whether it is good or evil.
(Ecc. 12:13-14 NIV)

I would hardly say that this says, "Enjoy life while you can." If I had to sum up this book I would probably say that the main points are:

1. Materialism is useless. You're going to die. You can't take it with you.
2. God is real. And you will be judged for what do, say, and think on earth.
3. True joy and fulfillment comes through God alone.

I haven't read the whole book (Ecc) in a few months, but if I didn't know better, I'd say we were talking about two different texts here.

[Die Hard]

2. God is real. And you will be judged for what do, say, and think on earth.This is the sort of thing that makes me squirm.

The European Pagans (who, collectively believed in many Gods; before Christ was even thought of) used to cast such aspersions to scare people in death as well as life.

Of course nothing happened!

[EXEcution]

Did you read the book? Or just articles/websites about it? I'm having a hard time following your conclusions based on the text. Can you list some references to corroborate your points?

(Ecc. 12:13-14 NIV)

I would hardly say that this says, "Enjoy life while you can." If I had to sum up this book I would probably say that the main points are:

1. Materialism is useless. You're going to die. You can't take it with you.
2. God is real. And you will be judged for what do, say, and think on earth.
3. True joy and fulfillment comes through God alone.

I haven't read the whole book (Ecc) in a few months, but if I didn't know better, I'd say we were talking about two different texts here.
Well I did get the basic rundown of facts about the book on Wikipedia. But the first point is pretty paradoxical. First of all we are talking about the here and now and not thousands of years ago. back then their idea of materialism might have completely differed from what we now think of when we hear the word "materialism".

It's obvious that our society relies on our economy and capitalism in order to sustain itself. If we were to abandon everything (because we saw it as pointless) then what would be left? Undying faith in God and the everlasting? I highly doubt it. We live in a pluralistic society, which means that we accept diversity among other things. "In ultimate consequence, pluralism thus also implies the right for individuals to determine values and truths for themselves instead of being forced to follow the whole of society or, indeed, their own group."

[JIMINATOR]

god must be a pretty boring person if all he has to look forward to is judging people after they are dead. or maybe he is the low man on the totem pole, he gets to watch the humans, other greater gods get to do stuff like create universes or so forth. or maybe it is a brotherhood of bickering gods, like the greek gods. but with the "have no other gods before me" the thought is that there must be other gods.... not that I believe in god(s) but I do find the concept amusing. (with my toasty feet)

[Death Engineer]

Well I did get the basic rundown of facts about the book on Wikipedia. But the first point is pretty paradoxical. First of all we are talking about the here and now and not thousands of years ago. back then their idea of materialism might have completely differed from what we now think of when we hear the word "materialism".

It's obvious that our society relies on our economy and capitalism in order to sustain itself. If we were to abandon everything (because we saw it as pointless) then what would be left? Undying faith in God and the everlasting? I highly doubt it. We live in a pluralistic society, which means that we accept diversity among other things. "In ultimate consequence, pluralism thus also implies the right for individuals to determine values and truths for themselves instead of being forced to follow the whole of society or, indeed, their own group."

The point about materialism is that Solomon had it all (not that he called it that). He was basically the richest man in the world at that time (and probably for a much longer time). There are arguments that given how much was discovered at the time, he had more % of total wealth than any other man in history ever has. And it didn't satisfy him. That's the point. It's not about going homeless, naked, and destitute for Jesus. Rather, it's having an eternal perspective. That perspective many times precludes the need to keep up with the Jonses'.

As far as who wrote it, based on a brief internet search, it does appear that there are at least some questions about the author. This matters little to someone who believes that the Bible is the inspired word of God though. The message isn't changed. Further info on who wrote Ecc. at:

http://www.theology.edu/biblesurvey/eccles.htm

It's certainly no book for a pick-me-up. But there is a message there that has spoken to me on more than one occasion.

[Death Engineer]

This is the sort of thing that makes me squirm.

The European Pagans (who, collectively believed in many Gods; before Christ was even thought of) used to cast such aspersions to scare people in death as well as life.

Of course nothing happened!

Just summing up the book (Ecc). It's the Bible. It makes me squirm too. But just because it makes me uncomfortable doesn't make it untrue. Heck, there are alot of things about this life that make me uncomfortable. But I can't ignore truth.

[EXEcution]

Well if we take truth to be a product of good then I don't see how things that make people squirm when reading and understanding the Bible can be true.

[Death Engineer]

Truth is not a product of good in my mind. Would I be speaking truth if I said that terrorists flew two planes into the WTC and thousands of people lost their lives? Yes. Is that truth a product of good? Not unless you're a disturbed extremist muslim.

Life is filled with hard truths. Relatives die. Pets die. People lose their jobs. Children get sick. There's cancer, STDs, wars, etc. If you limit truth to just products of good, I would surmise you would be missing quite a bit of reality.

[Mad Fox]

I find myself looking for the good in tragic events. Can I lern something, what good came of the event.


God promises that good will triumph over evil.

[Death Engineer]

I completely agree. I'm not saying that God can't work through trying situations. But to claim that if something didn't come from good, then it is not true is something that does not sit well with me.

I'll give you an example. Recently I heard a story about a leader of a small country that claimed the halocaust never happened. Now that would be an easier way to look at it. And I certainly don't think the halocaust was "caused by good." But it is TRUE. It really happened. And to claim that is didn't is deeply offensive to me....and I'm not even jewish. You can imagine how that would make people feel that have relatives that perished in those camps.

Now I have heard some incredible stories from second generations of people that were in those camps. And I know that God worked good out of evil in that situation. But the circumstance was not 'good' by any definition. And to claim it was not TRUE because of this would be lunacy.

[Pure_Evil]

God promises that good will triumph over evil.

:hmmm:

[Mad Fox]

:hmmm:


Lets hope right!

[Pure_Evil]

What's wrong with Evil? Without it, you have no balance

[EXEcution]

I am not talking about moral truth. What I mean to say is that rational and scientific truth is good. When speaking about a humanistic approach to truth we must only choose, with a sense of discresion, which moral truth is better than the other.

[JIMINATOR]

there is no such thing as good or evil. these are just terms that apply to actions/things that people do/happen. the same action may be bad for one person/thing and good for other person/things. Virtually everything can be viewed in this context.

society has the norms ('morals') by which such things are judged, but societies vary as do individuals.

[Wiper]

At least God would be pleased with the size of the thread we're creating here :wootrock:

[Mpulse]

I have read this thread from beginning to the end, and found it quite interesting what everybody believes as far as God's existance. I believe there IS a God, and that Jesus died for all out sins on the cross so that we have eternal life in heaven. After reading this thread I've come to an obvious conclusion: either you do or you don't believe in God. God gave man the gift of free will, which explains why evil exists here on earth. Without free will, mankind would all love, believe and worship God with no holding back or second thoughts.

There was this episode of *MASH* where this injured soldier was choppered in and Doctor "Hawkeye" Pierce (Alan Alda) reads the soldier's dog tags which read "atheist" for religion. Hawkeye asks the soldier, "So, you're an atheist?" to which the soldier responded, "Swear to God!"

[Die Hard]

God gave man the gift of free will, which explains why evil exists here on earth. Without free will, mankind would all love, believe and worship God with no holding back or second thoughts.Blanket statements, I hate them!

This may be true of you my friend but mine comes from within.

[Death Engineer]

I am not talking about moral truth. What I mean to say is that rational and scientific truth is good. When speaking about a humanistic approach to truth we must only choose, with a sense of discresion, which moral truth is better than the other.

I'm not sure I really want to devle into this, but hey...why let this thread die. ;)

How would you define moral truth vs. rational/scientific truth? I don't see how you can make a division of truth. Either something happened or it didn't. Either Jesus walked this earth and did the things described in the Bible or He didn't. You can choose to believe them or not, but that doesn't change whether it is true or not.

[Mpulse]

Blanket statements, I hate them!

This may be true of you my friend but mine comes from within.

We can discuss this further in Mpulse's Place (SSSE), over a couple beers and a double shotty.

Mpulse's Place; where the floor is ice cold, and the bullets are red hot....

[Die Hard]

And I pwn joo ass :P

[JIMINATOR]

sheesh, again truth is relative. go in a space ship and circle the solar system at a fraction of the speed of light. When finished you will come back younger than the people you had left behind. even logging lots of time in a plane can have the same effect on watches. the truth there is that relative motion can distort time. which one has the 'true' time?

I am not sure what is up with the 'absolutes' type of mentality.

If things happen in this world, the lies and distortions happen immediately. other people later may piece things together to come up with a true story. Interview two different people about the same event and you have two different stories. Three actually, his, hers, and what really happened. :)

like the Lazarus story. sorry bud, but jesus did not put life back into some rotting stinking bloated body. no doubt, the dude may have been near death, or unconscious to where he appeared dead, and jesus 'healed' him, (which I believe can happen). so there is likely a grain of truth there. mankind tends to exaggerate the retelling of any story. it is a survival mechanism, part of what we do. its why women are disappointed when the pants finally come down. (j/k :) ) They are not outright lies. But someone writing things down a couple of hundred years later does not make for the word of god literal truth. The oldest bibles compared to later ones also show differences. Hey, lets add a few lines about the ascension to john. etc. so there are no absolutes.

[Death Engineer]

sheesh, again truth is relative. go in a space ship and circle the solar system at a fraction of the speed of light. When finished you will come back younger than the people you had left behind. even logging lots of time in a plane can have the same effect on watches. the truth there is that relative motion can distort time. which one has the 'true' time?


I'm not sure how space travel proves anything about relative truth. You aren't changing time or the past. Also, please point out any example of this that has been done and documented outside of the theoretical domain.



I am not sure what is up with the 'absolutes' type of mentality.

If things happen in this world, the lies and distortions happen immediately. other people later may piece things together to come up with a true story. Interview two different people about the same event and you have two different stories. Three actually, his, hers, and what really happened. :)

Let's cut to the chase. It boils down to whether you believe there is a higher authority. Someone/something that defines the difference between good and bad, right and wrong. Relative truth leads down a slippery logical path to the idea that we are not responsible for our actions (the McDonalds thread springs to mind). I think we can agree to disagree on this point, but I would like to point out that if there is no higher authority on morality, then why do we live as if there were? Why is it "wrong" to do anything?



like the Lazarus story. sorry bud, but jesus did not put life back into some rotting stinking bloated body. no doubt, the dude may have been near death, or unconscious to where he appeared dead, and jesus 'healed' him, (which I believe can happen). so there is likely a grain of truth there. mankind tends to exaggerate the retelling of any story. it is a survival mechanism, part of what we do. its why women are disappointed when the pants finally come down. (j/k :) ) They are not outright lies. But someone writing things down a couple of hundred years later does not make for the word of god literal truth. The oldest bibles compared to later ones also show differences. Hey, lets add a few lines about the ascension to john. etc. so there are no absolutes.
Again, we'll have to agree to disagree. There are many miracles listed in the Bible. I can choose to disagree with them based on the incredible descriptions. But just indulge me for a minute here... let's say that hypothetically, Lazarus really did die. He was clinically dead. And he came back to life at Jesus' hands. Would it make it any less true if some people said, "That's not possible"?

I choose to believe that God is more powerful than death. Because He says so in the Bible. I choose to take the Bible at face value for a variety of reasons I won't get into now. If you believe God created the solar system, plants, animals, etc., is it really too much to believe that he could bring a dead person back to life?

And if Lazarus didn't come back to life, I suppose that Jesus didn't come out of his tomb either. ;)

[EXEcution]

I'm not sure I really want to devle into this, but hey...why let this thread die. ;)

How would you define moral truth vs. rational/scientific truth? I don't see how you can make a division of truth. Either something happened or it didn't. Either Jesus walked this earth and did the things described in the Bible or He didn't. You can choose to believe them or not, but that doesn't change whether it is true or not.
Why not let a true philosopher describe it for you, because I lack the rhetotic. From Richard Rorty's "Science as Solidarity". I think many will enjoy this.

"These distinctions between hard facts and soft values, truth and pleasure, and objectivity and subjectivity are awkward and clumsy instruments. they are not suited to dividing up culture; they create more difficulties than they resolve. it would be best to find another vocabulary, to start afresh. But in order to do so, we first have to find a new way of describing the natural sciences. It is not a question of debunking or downgrading the natural scientist, but simply of ceasing to see him as a priest [or moral judge so to say]. We need to stop thinking of science as the place where the human mind confronts the world, and the scientist as exhibiting proper humility in the face of superhuman forces. We need a way of explaining why scientists are, and deserve to be, moral exemplars which does not depend on a distinction between objective fact and something softer, squishier, and more dubious.

To get such a way of thinking we can start by distinguishing two sense of the term 'rationality'. In one sense, the one I have already discussed, to be rational is to be methodical: that is, to have criteria for success laid down in advance. We think of poets and painters as using some faculty other than 'reason' in their work because, by their own confession, they are not sure of what they want to do before they have done it. They make up new standards of achievement as they go along. By contrast, we think of judges as knowing in advance what criteria to a brief will have to satisfy in order to invoke a favorable decision, and of business people as setting well-defined goals and being judged by their success in achieving them. Law and business are good examples of rationality, but the scientist, knowing in advance what would count as disconforming his hypothesis and prepared to abandon that hypothesis as a result of the unfavorable outcome of a single experiment, seems a truly heroic example. Further, we seem to have a clear criterion for the success of a scientific theory--namely, its ability to predict, and thereby enable us to control some portion of the world. If to be rational means to be able to lay down criteria in advance, then it is plausible to take natural science as the paradigm of rationality.

The trouble is that in this sense of 'rational' the humanities are never going to qualify as rational activities. If humanities are concerned with ends rather than means, then there is no way to evaluate their success in terms of antecedently specified criteria. If we already knew what criteria we wanted to satisfy, we would not worry about whether we were pursuing the right ends. If we thought we knew the goals of culture and society in advance, we would have no use for the humanities--as totalitarian societies in fact do not. It is characteristic of democratic and pluralistic societies to continually redefine their goals. But if to be rational means to satisfy criteria, then this process of redefinition is bound to be nonrational. So if the humanities are to be reviewed as rational activities, rationality will have to be thought of as something other than the satisfaction of criteria which are statable in advance".

There's alot more but I think this brings my point across about the rationality of science and the irrationality of religion and the humanities.

[JIMINATOR]

And if Lazarus didn't come back to life, I suppose that Jesus didn't come out of his tomb either. ;)

Excellent. I see that you are starting to understand the way of things. :thumbs:

[JIMINATOR]

for a time example, if you can speak higher math, you can take a look at this page.

http://galileoandeinstein.physics.virginia.edu/lectures/time_dil.html

The plane thing I mentioned was in regards to atomic clock synchronization. They don't go fast enough for anything more.

and wiki

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Time_dilation

[Sirc]

Two years ago I would be vehemently arguing against religious beliefs in this thread. Since then my oldest son has become very involved in the church, is a youth leader, and will be attending a Christian university in pursuit of his beliefs. His life is based on Christianity. I'm enormously proud of the exemplary young man that he has become. He and I have entered into a lengthy discussion about religion once, and his convictions are very strong.

As much as I enjoy debating, I have realized, or rather foreseen, the folly of trying to convince him that his belief system is flawed. Who am I to say it is flawed anyway? What good could ever come out of taking hope and happiness away from someone? What do I have to offer him that is better than what he has found? His life has purpose, and meaning, and he has a path to follow. I am very proud of him, and I envy him.

Maybe he will eventually show me the light, who knows. I think he is waiting for me to take the first step. If I do ever decide to take that step, it's nice to know that there will be an outstretched hand for me to take hold of. The son guiding the father.

[EXEcution]

Well a person doesn't necessarily have to believe in God in order to see the good in some Christian traditions. Even I can appreciate some of the rituals and practices Christians partake in without beliveing that God is behind those actions. The famed Spanish-American philosopher George Santayana was a pragmatist and an atheist he called himself a "atheist Catholic" because of his appreciation of the Catholic rituals and practices.

[EXEcution]

Oh and I'm glad to hear that your son is doing so well for himself and has such a strong belief system. With those tools at hand he will definitely become a great person later on in life.

[Sirc]

Well a person doesn't necessarily have to believe in God in order to see the good in some Christian traditions. Even I can appreciate some of the rituals and practices Christians partake in without beliveing that God is behind those actions. The famed Spanish-American philosopher George Santayana was a pragmatist and an atheist he called himself a "atheist Catholic" because of his appreciation of the Catholic rituals and practices.

Rituals and practices without the underlying belief system don't have meaning associated with them.

I'm not too thrilled with the Catholic religion - it is very controlling. You are either a fundamentalist Catholic or you are not really following the Catholic religion. That's what spawned Protestantism. Catholicism tries to govern with an iron fist, while Protestantism tries to lead. A good example is birth control. If I use a condom to prevent pregancy, am I really disobeying the will of God? Where in the Bible does it say that? The birth control issue literally came from Catholics trying to increase their numbers.

[EXEcution]

Rituals and practices without the underlying belief system don't have meaning associated with them.
That depends on what you take the meaning of meaning to be. I can make up my own meaning withing the context of a religious practice excluding the existance of God. For instance I can say that I go to church to learn how to better serve mankind through the good in my heart.

[Sirc]

That depends on what you take the meaning of meaning to be. I can make up my own meaning withing the context of a religious practice excluding the existance of God. For instance I can say that I go to church to learn how to better serve mankind through the good in my heart.

Do you go to church?

By "meaning" I'm talking about the belief in the religion that is teaching the rituals and practices. Otherwise they are just rules, or guidelines, that you have voluntarily set for yourself and aren't based on a deeper belief in where they came from.

[Sirc]

Oh my, we've given DE lots to reply to, lol. :D

I'd like to know which religion DE follows - specifically.

[EXEcution]

Do you go to church?

By "meaning" I'm talking about the belief in the religion that is teaching the rituals and practices. Otherwise they are just rules, or guidelines, that you have voluntarily set for yourself and aren't based on a deeper belief in where they came from.
No, but I have in the past.

And for me there essentially is no deeper meaning than doing something good because it's seen as good by the good people around me. Again this goes back to pluralism. Religions are essentially groups of people working toward a common good and are more concerned with the ends rather than the means.

[Death Engineer]

Oh my, we've given DE lots to reply to, lol. :D

I'd like to know which religion DE follows - specifically.

Indeed! And I have a business trip that I have to get up at 4:15am for tomorrow morning. So I'll make this brief and will try to catch up on Monday.

I attend Grace Covenant church (www.grace360.org). There are sermons and all kinds of stuff at the link if you're interested. The last sermon is a good listen no matter what...talked about skunk lovers. ;)

On a side note, I don't really like the question, "What is your religion?" My spiritual life is more about a personal relationship with God than it is about a set of rules and rituals. Nor would I expect any hindu or muslim to like that question as every person is unique. Even baptists and catholics can be at different places in their faith. My point is that it is too easy to assume too much about where people are spiritually based on a simple answer like "what is your religion?" /rant off. :-D

Thanks for the links Jim. I'll look over them Monday. I did well in upper level math in school. We'll see what I can remember. :confused: :bawling:

[JIMINATOR]

well, i'd like to thank DE for being so level headed. It is probably hard to come and express ones self when a lot of people believe differently. like I say, i don't think its important what or who you believe in, as long as you believe in something. certainly a lot of the beliefs can be taken to extreme. we see that in a lot of the fundamentalist movements around the world. I guess what I mainly have a problem with is the people who are intolerant. They will also claim the bible to be literal truth, and locally they will express their beliefs by holding signs in front of the wal-mart parking lot, saying things like "******s are going to burn in hell" and so forth. Now given the two groups of people, I doubt it is the '******s' that are going to hell, if there was a hell. How can such behavior be explained, since they are expressing the literal truth of the bible? Well, others will say it is their interpretation. So there you have it. You can pretty much say anything you want and do anything you want and still follow the literal truth of the bible. All you need to do is find some passages that say what you want to say, then hang your hat on them. It is what allows some muslims to kill masses of innocent people while others will proclaim that their religion is a peaceful religion. interpretation. not literal truth.

[Die Hard]

Yes, I would also like to thank DE and most others in this thread for keeping it within the bounds of true debate.

What a lovely bunch of GMians we are, whatever we believe :)

[EXEcution]

I agree, great thread and a great discussion. One of the most lively and non-controversial ones that we've had since that other threat "God" thread. Good to see that we can all be intelligent and rational about this issue which seems to supersede human rationality.

[Mpulse]

Two years ago I would be vehemently arguing against religious beliefs in this thread. Since then my oldest son has become very involved in the church, is a youth leader, and will be attending a Christian university in pursuit of his beliefs. His life is based on Christianity. I'm enormously proud of the exemplary young man that he has become. He and I have entered into a lengthy discussion about religion once, and his convictions are very strong.

As much as I enjoy debating, I have realized, or rather foreseen, the folly of trying to convince him that his belief system is flawed. Who am I to say it is flawed anyway? What good could ever come out of taking hope and happiness away from someone? What do I have to offer him that is better than what he has found? His life has purpose, and meaning, and he has a path to follow. I am very proud of him, and I envy him.

Maybe he will eventually show me the light, who knows. I think he is waiting for me to take the first step. If I do ever decide to take that step, it's nice to know that there will be an outstretched hand for me to take hold of. The son guiding the father.

Stop it... you're making me weepy.....

[Sirc]

Stop it... you're making me weepy.....

Who are you?

[EXEcution]

Who are you?
HAHA! Best response ever. :thumbs: :thumbs: :thumbs:

[Death Engineer]

I must agree with you. It is nice to be able to bring some of these controversial topics to the table and actually be able to discuss them as opposed to what normally happens (I'm picturing a bunch of monkeys flinging poo at each other).

Sirc...cool stuff about your son.

Mpulse... I'm with Sirc. Who are you??

Completely off-topic: San Francisco is really nice this time of year. A bit breezy on fisherman's wharf and north beach in the evening though. Oakland just looks plain nasty compared to some nicer parts of Cali. I'm glad to be home. :)