God Debate

[tambam]

We've been having a god debate in my philosophy class. Basically, we were split up into groups and had to defend that group's theory despite our own personal beliefs. There was Pascal's Wager (which basically said that you can bet to believe in God or not. If you do and he doesn't exist, you don't miss out. If you don't and he does exist, you're screwed.), Agnostics (you can never know), Cosmologists (everything has a cause and affect. something had to have created life, whether or not it is a supreme being), Intelligence by Design (the universe is too complicated to have been created by science), a group that believed in one perfect, all powerful and loving God, and the Atheists which I was a part of.

This debate really started getting me thinking on all of the debates, and the arguments each group has. Some I personally think are a load of crap, while others I can relate to. I'm personally an agnostic.


So, anywho, I was wondering where you guys stand. What do you believe in? And if so, why do you believe in it and what evidence do you have to support your beliefs? Do you believe the concept of God was created by people to comfort themselves, or do you think the concept was put into our heads by an actual supreme being?

[ptulachanh]

I believe in god...because somebody is out to get me.

[tambam]

I believe in god...because somebody is out to get me.

:-(

[ptulachanh]

but in all seriousness I don't believe in god. I use to pray every night when i was little and would pray for the same things and god never listened...So that among what science has proved...gods not there.

[tambam]

but in all seriousness I don't believe in god. I use to pray every night when i was little and would pray for the same things and god never listened...So that among what science has proved...gods not there.

Yeah, I can understand that. I know a lot of people have stopped believing in god because they've kind of lost hope, too. It's better to try and make your own prayers come true if that's at all possible. Not needing god as a crutch to get through life makes you a much stronger person.

[Lueda Alia]

I like what Freud said about this: God is just an illusion - people just want to believe that there is someone out there watching over and protecting them.

Not the exact quote, but he said something along those lines. I'm not quite sure what I believe in. However, I do know that I don't believe in theism. As I grow older, I feel myself becoming more of an Agnostic than anything else. Theism just doesn't make sense to me anymore.

[Lueda Alia]

Are you writing any papers/ISP in this class, Tam? I'm reading about John Rawls right now because I'm writing a paper on him for my Philosophy and it's so boring.

[tambam]

I like what Freud said about this: God is just an illusion - people just want to believe that there is someone out there watching over and protecting them.

Not the exact quote, but he said something along those lines. I'm not quite sure what I believe in. However, I do know that I don't believe in theism. As I grow older, I feel myself becoming more of an Agnostic than anything else. Theism just doesn't make sense to me anymore.

Same deal here. When I was little, I did believe in God because that was what I was told. But now that I've grown up and have seen the world and have researched other religions, the idea of theism doesn't make sense to me either. I agree with what Freud said. That was actually one of my group's argument for atheism. It does make a lot of sense. I just think that you can never really know. Theism has very little to back up it's argument, and atheism, though I can relate to more than theism, doesn't exactly have any proof that god didn't cause the big bang and evolution (both in which I believe in), so I'm sticking with agnostic. For me, it's the only way to go.

[tambam]

Are you writing any papers/ISP in this class, Tam? I'm reading about John Rawls right now because I'm writing a paper on him for my Philosophy and it's so boring.

Yeah, we have an ISP. My topic is the self, and whether or not the mind is separate from the body as it's own entity or is simply part of the brain's scientific functions. We don't get very many papers, though I do have one coming up soon about the god debate.

Who's John Rawls?

[Lueda Alia]

Yeah, we have an ISP. My topic is the self, and whether or not the mind is separate from the body as it's own entity or is simply part of the brain's scientific functions. We don't get very many papers, though I do have one coming up soon about the god debate.

Who's John Rawls?
Ah, sweet.

He's an American Philosopher of the 20th century. I like what I've read about him, but all the material feels so dry and I'm not sure what to include in my paper. My ISP is due Monday, too. I think I'll ask my teacher tomorrow to write about someone else. I've been looking up Kant, William James and Locke because they're the only ones that I can think of right now that I like in a way or another. :-D I'm still looking though.

Do you have a favourite or anything?

[tambam]

Ah, sweet.

He's an American Philosopher of the 20th century. I like what I've read about him, but all the material feels so dry and I'm not sure what to include in my paper. My ISP is due Monday, too. I think I'll ask my teacher tomorrow to write about someone else. I've been looking up Kant, William James and Locke because they're the only ones that I can think of right now that I like in a way or another. :-D I'm still looking though.

Do you have a favourite or anything?

Oh, yeah? Awesome. Good luck with that. I don't think we've learned about him. I've heard about Locke and Kant, but I can't really remember what they're about.

I don't really have a favourite, I don't think. I agree with some on some aspects, but not on others. A lot of them have some really messed up views, in my opinion.

[Lueda Alia]

Oh, yeah? Awesome. Good luck with that. I don't think we've learned about him. I've heard about Locke and Kant, but I can't really remember what they're about.

I don't really have a favourite, I don't think. I agree with some on some aspects, but not on others. A lot of them have some really messed up views, in my opinion.
I'm the same way, I don't agree with anyone completely so it's hard to pick one.

[thejetstolehome]

i'i definitely lean towards what freud said.

[tambam]

I'm the same way, I don't agree with anyone completely so it's hard to pick one.

Yeah, they're all so varied.

[Shoes]

I believe in God, I don't believe we all just merely came to be one day. Because as much as God may seem far fetched to others, a sudden creation on its own seems pretty far fetched for me. I don't really understand the point of view of an agnostic though, I always think you should kindof make your mind up about where you stand in relation to the existance to God.

[tambam]

I believe in God, I don't believe we all just merely came to be one day. Because as much as God may seem far fetched to others, a sudden creation on its own seems pretty far fetched for me. I don't really understand the point of view of an agnostic though, I always think you should kindof make your mind up about where you stand in relation to the existance to God.

It's not that easy for me to make a decision because if the answer was obvious, there would be no debate on it. God existing has no valid proof to it. Some people say that they don't think we all came to be one day, some people think it was purely by chance. Some people think the universe is too complicated to be completely scientific, others don't think it's complicated at all. Complete atheism also has no valid proof to back it up. I personally think agnostic is the best way to be because we're open to either possibilities, but we're not denying them either. I can't make up my mind on something that I know nothing about, because how am I supposed to know? I haven't died yet.

[IAmNietzche]

This thread should be entitled "Let's Get Offended". Cause its gonna happen eventually.

And the fact that this is in the Politics thread gave me a nice chuckle.

[tambam]

This thread should be entitled "Let's Get Offended". Cause its gonna happen eventually.

And the fact that this is in the Politics thread gave me a nice chuckle.

I think people eventually get offended in any debate that takes place.

And I didn't know where to put it. I just know that a lot of non-politics debates happen here, too. So I thought I'd put it here.

[notoaststereo]

i dont know if i believe in God. but i try not to doubt it, just in case

[tambam]

i dont know if i believe in God. but i try not to doubt it, just in case

A thing that bothers me about that kind of belief is that some people are scared they're going to go to hell if they don't believe. If god did exist, I don't think he would put a person in hell for not believing. Doesn't just being a good person count? If a person was an atheist and went to Africa and devoted their lives to feeding the poor, would they go to hell because they were simply atheist? That kind of makes god sound evil and egotistical, don't you think? It doesn't make any sense to me. I kind of see it as a man-made scare tactic used to get people to believe.

[FondestMemory]

i'm an atheist.

i don't have any facts or evidence to support my views, because i don't need them. just like i don't need somebody who believes differently to back up their beliefs to me. i never got the point of defending what you believe. if you believe it, awesome. if others don't, whatever.

[thejetstolehome]

i'm an atheist.

i don't have any facts or evidence to support my views, because i don't need them. just like i don't need somebody who believes differently to back up their beliefs to me. i never got the point of defending what you believe. if you believe it, awesome. if others don't, whatever.

:inlove:

[tambam]

:inlove:

Hahaha!

[TranscendTrends]

wow, what a freakin coincidence. i just turned in my final paper in philosophy. it was about the (non)existence of god. i based my arguments on the writings of Mill and Kant.

so yeah, to sum it up, i sided with agnosticism as well.

also, i agree that this topic should probably not belong in the political section, even if it was unintentional. maybe general or education instead.

[tambam]

wow, what a freakin coincidence. i just turned in my final paper in philosophy. it was about the (non)existence of god. i based my arguments on the writings of Mill and Kant.

so yeah, to sum it up, i sided with agnosticism as well.

also, i agree that this topic should probably not belong in the political section, even if it was unintentional. maybe general or education instead.

I just thought it would be fine since the evolution debate is in here, too, and that kind of deals with the debate between god and science.

[petey536]

A thing that bothers me about that kind of belief is that some people are scared they're going to go to hell if they don't believe. If god did exist, I don't think he would put a person in hell for not believing. Doesn't just being a good person count? If a person was an atheist and went to Africa and devoted their lives to feeding the poor, would they go to hell because they were simply atheist? That kind of makes god sound evil and egotistical, don't you think? It doesn't make any sense to me. I kind of see it as a man-made scare tactic used to get people to believe.
its not really if you dont believe than your going to go to hell. i think its more of if you lead a good life and you follow the commandments(but come on who can say they live without breaking atleast one of those), but if you are totally against God and say hes not real than its a different story. and yes i do believe in God, but i dont disregard other theories, im very open about the subject, i like to hear both sides of the story

[dw1003]

There must be an ultimate cause for all subsequent causations...

[tambam]

There must be an ultimate cause for all subsequent causations...

Of course. The debate lies in what this cause is- supreme being or science.

[tambam]

its not really if you dont believe than your going to go to hell. i think its more of if you lead a good life and you follow the commandments(but come on who can say they live without breaking atleast one of those), but if you are totally against God and say hes not real than its a different story. and yes i do believe in God, but i dont disregard other theories, im very open about the subject, i like to hear both sides of the story

Even religious people can't live by all of the commandments.

I don't believe in organized religion or anything associated to it, personally. As far as I'm concerned, they're all man-made, contradictory of each other, etc. But I agree that being a good person is all that matters.

[dw1003]

Of course. The debate lies in what this cause is- supreme being or science.

Logic dictates that "science" does or could not have the capacitly to facilitate or enact an initial cause.
This being the basic logic behind intelligent design.

[dw1003]

Even religious people can't live by all of the commandments.

I don't believe in organized religion or anything associated to it, personally. As far as I'm concerned, they're all man-made, contradictory of each other, etc. But I agree that being a good person is all that matters.

If you analyze the purpose behind the Ten Commandments, you find that they were designed to create the need for a savior, to put into to stone (pun intended) the gap between God's righteousness and the futility and total depravity of man.

It is a misinterpretation of Biblical theology to see the Ten Commandments as the road to righteousness in and of themselves.

[petey536]

If you analyze the purpose behind the Ten Commandments, you find that they were designed to create the need for a savior, to put into stone (pun intended) the gap between God's righteousness and the futility and total depravity of man.

It is a misunderstanding of Biblical theoloy to see the Ten Commandments as the road to righteousness in and of themselves.
well said

[cantnokdahustle]

Athe'e

No theodicy can overcome the natural suffering of children/babies. If you think that a child with Tay Sachs is punished due to original sin, then fuck yourself.

In the immortal words of Mark Twain "If there is a god [there certainly is not], he's a malign thug!"

[dw1003]

Athe'e

No theodicy can overcome the natural suffering of children/babies. If you think that a child with Tay Sachs is punished due to original sin, then fuck yourself.

In the immortal words of Mark Twain "If there is a god [there certainly is not], he's a malign thug!"

I assume that you are refering to the Biblical God. In my opinion the Bible is very clear that God is a judge, He is omnipotent and responsible for good and evil alike. Reconciling these Biblical ideas with humanity is very difficult. This is why Christian theology is poured over and picked apart to try and reconcile these extremely difficult issues of evil, suffering and the goodness of God.

I believe Calvin is the best source if you are interested in confronting this issue

[punklet2101]

I'm a Christian, although sometimes I wonder if it's better to refer to myself as "a passionate follower of Christ".

I was not raised this way and I don't come from a religious family, so pretty much I found this by myself. I had a hard time growing up and I did a lot of stuff. But i'm not going to sit here and type "then I found God and I lived happily ever after" cause that's just not true. If anything it became harder. I'm sick of hearing Christians portraying this faith as a walk in the park. It's not even supposed to be.

Anyway. I started going to a church and liked it. Asked myself a lot of questions and deeply considered, well.. everything. And my life changed from there, I guess. It was definately a process. I love learning stuff, i've tested myself as the word instructs, and come a pretty long way and i'm still strong in my faith.

[dangets]

i'm probably an agnostic, but i didn't really used to be. quantum mechanics made my ideas about existence much fuzzier.

and if your values system is not dependent upon the existence of God, then you have no need to decide either way.

[TxRepresent]

I had to write a paper on Mill and Kant earlier in the year, and it was probably the worst fucking 2 weeks of my life. Kant is one of the hardest people ever to understand, he goes from one theory to the next all of the time. I guess that is just how a lot of the philosophers were though because Mill was the same way probably worse, but at least he didn't use the kind of technical writing style that Kant used. Anyways I'm reading a book on Social Darwinism right now that is kind of interesting, being in college has definitely turned me more agnostic though just getting out and thinking for myself. So agnostic ftw?

[dw1003]

I had to write a paper on Mill and Kant earlier in the year, and it was probably the worst fucking 2 weeks of my life. Kant is one of the hardest people ever to understand, he goes from one theory to the next all of the time. I guess that is just how a lot of the philosophers were though because Mill was the same way probably worse, but at least he didn't use the kind of technical writing style that Kant used. Anyways I'm reading a book on Social Darwinism right now that is kind of interesting, being in college has definitely turned me more agnostic though just getting out and thinking for myself. So agnostic ftw?

what book is it?

[TranscendTrends]

Of course. The debate lies in what this cause is- supreme being or science.

you've made some good points throughout, but i'd like to think that science and the 'creator' are not opponents--rather, science is man's attempt at making sense of the universe by trying to understand the laws, or guidelines, of the 'creator'.

science was a way to rationalize unnatural occurances, and this might be why the more close-minded religous leaders wag their fingers at scientists. they might feel that they are taking away the sacredness of their beliefs, but I'd like to think that by attempting to gain understanding of the intricate way this world behaves, we get to glimpse at the beauty the 'creator' has made.

that much being said, i'm still a humanist agnostic, lol.

[TranscendTrends]

i'm probably an agnostic, but i didn't really used to be. quantum mechanics made my ideas about existence much fuzzier.

and if your values system is not dependent upon the existence of God, then you have no need to decide either way.

AGREED and AGREED. quantum physics is a mind trip. although, there are some quantum physicists who have since become religious upon examining the world of sub-particles, stating that a system that perfect and elaborate could not have been made by accident.

I also liked what Newton has said on the subject of moral experience (Kant stole some of it from him and turned it into religious philosophy). He believed that God created the universe, and that the universe was governed by specific laws. If you understood the laws, then you no longer needed God in the conversation. The same thing goes for the moral imperative with humans.

[dw1003]

you've made some good points throughout, but i'd like to think that science and the 'creator' are not opponents--rather, science is man's attempt at making sense of the universe by trying to understand the laws, or guidelines, of the 'creator'.

science was a way to rationalize unnatural occurances, and this might be why the more close-minded religous leaders wag their fingers at scientists. they might feel that they are taking away the sacredness of their beliefs, but I'd like to think that by attempting to gain understanding of the intricate way this world behaves, we get to glimpse at the beauty the 'creator' has made.

that much being said, i'm still a humanist agnostic, lol.

I agree, science and religion are not diametrically opposed.

If you don't mind... give me a run down on your humanist agnostic views... I'm interested to hear your perspective...

[dw1003]

AGREED and AGREED. quantum physics is a mind trip. although, there are some quantum physicists who have since become religious upon examining the world of sub-particles, stating that a system that perfect and elaborate could not have been made by accident.

I also liked what Newton has said on the subject of moral experience (Kant stole some of it from him and turned it into religious philosophy). He believed that God created the universe, and that the universe was governed by specific laws. If you understood the laws, then you no longer needed God in the conversation. The same thing goes for the moral imperative with humans.


That completely depends on how you define God. An agnostic view of God allows you to write him out of the conversation upon understanding of scientific law. If you define God as a personal, relvealed God (Christianity, Islam) than the human moral imperative is further complicated by devine revelation and responsibility.

[heyjohnnyfive]

I believe in God, more specifically the Christian triune God. Why do I believe it? Because it makes sense. No, everything is not crystal clear and it never will be until the end - that's where the human element of faith and freedom come in. But for the logical side of me, it makes more sense than choosing to say "I'll never know so I won't choose" or "he doesn't exist."

In the end, though, this entire debate is a personal decision. Search, ask questions - it's part of being a human. Why do you think this "God Debate" is such a hot argument throughout the centuries? Could it be because God is real?

[dw1003]

I believe in God, more specifically the Christian triune God. Why do I believe it? Because it makes sense. No, everything is not crystal clear and it never will be until the end - that's where the human element of faith and freedom come in. But for the logical side of me, it makes more sense than choosing to say "I'll never know so I won't choose" or "he doesn't exist."

In the end, though, this entire debate is a personal decision. Search, ask questions - it's part of being a human. Why do you think this "God Debate" is such a hot argument throughout the centuries? Could it be because God is real?

maybe you could construct and argument out of a match stick, rubberband and paper clip...

[TranscendTrends]

I agree, science and religion are not diametrically opposed.

If you don't mind... give me a run down on your humanist agnostic views... I'm interested to hear your perspective...

hey, thanks. well, I'm running on about four hours of sleep after finishing that paper (big yawn), so I'll apologize beforehand if it doesn't sound too coherant, lol.

Basically, I was raised in a lutheran family, and I was the kid at sunday school who never stopped asking questions. And since I wouldn't get straight answers from any of the teachers, I became a skeptic at a young age, lol. As a humanist, I believe that there is good in all humans, and that everyone can be reached at a certain level (a bit idealistic, i know, but i like looking for the good in all of us). As an agnostic, I doubt the existence of God, but I do not rule out the possibility that there is a Creator. Honestly, I would be very relieved to know there was a God; it makes this whole existence thing a lot less lonely for us. But, I have yet to be convinced.

Anyways, as a random sidenote, if given the choice, I think that Buddhism is the coolest religion. I always thought buddhist monks were the coolest in the 'biz', lol.

[heyjohnnyfive]

maybe you could construct and argument out of a match stick, rubberband and paper clip...

yeah, maybe I could. I'm not arguing anything - I'm just stating my point of view. You have your views, I have mine. I respect that. It's not like anything anyone says on here is going to change an athiest/agnostic into a believer or vice versa. This is the ap.net forums, not a good place for a great religious debate.

[dw1003]

hey, thanks. well, I'm running on about four hours of sleep after finishing that paper (big yawn), so I'll apologize beforehand if it doesn't sound too coherant, lol.

Basically, I was raised in a lutheran family, and I was the kid at sunday school who never stopped asking questions. And since I wouldn't get straight answers from any of the teachers, I became a skeptic at a young age, lol. As a humanist, I believe that there is good in all humans, and that everyone can be reached at a certain level (a bit idealistic, i know, but i like looking for the good in all of us). As an agnostic, I doubt the existence of God, but I do not rule out the possibility that there is a Creator. Honestly, I would be very relieved to know there was a God; it makes this whole existence thing a lot less lonely for us. But, I have yet to be convinced.

Anyways, as a random sidenote, if given the choice, I think that Buddhism is the coolest religion. I always thought buddhist monks were the coolest in the 'biz', lol.

interesting, I believe in a creator God because of the archeological and literary evidence of the Bible's validity... but it was a long, tiring, painful process... through that process I have come to really resent most "christians" because of behavior issues and zealous irrationality and useless tradition.

[dw1003]

yeah, maybe I could. I'm not arguing anything - I'm just stating my point of view. You have your views, I have mine. I respect that. It's not like anything anyone says on here is going to change an athiest/agnostic into a believer or vice versa. This is the ap.net forums, not a good place for a great religious debate.

ummm you got the Mcgiver joke... right?

[cantnokdahustle]

I believe in God, more specifically the Christian triune God. Why do I believe it? Because it makes sense. No, everything is not crystal clear and it never will be until the end - that's where the human element of faith and freedom come in. But for the logical side of me, it makes more sense than choosing to say "I'll never know so I won't choose" or "he doesn't exist."

In the end, though, this entire debate is a personal decision. Search, ask questions - it's part of being a human. Why do you think this "God Debate" is such a hot argument throughout the centuries? Could it be because God is real?

Or, perhaps because the most atrocious campaigns have been waged upon the idea. Or, is it because no apologist has ever given a nice detailed account of a god's attributes that do not logically undermine what we we can empirically validate. Perhaps, because many religions (not all), with appeal to god, have tried to stifle human progress. Perhaps, because the god espoused by the Abrahamic faiths is one of the most despicable characters known to literature this side of Fyodor Pavlovich Karamazov, and many wish to base an ethical theory of value on following its dictates... Perhaps because the catholic church actively crusades against condom use in Africa...Shall I continue?

The only way one can respect humanity is to be a humanist, whether they be secular or religious.

[cantnokdahustle]

interesting, I believe in a creator God because of the archeological and literary evidence of the Bible's validity... but it was a long, tiring, painful process... through that process I have come to really resent most "christians" because of behavior issues and zealous irrationality and useless tradition.

what archeological evidence exactly are you referring to?

[TranscendTrends]

maybe you could construct and argument out of a match stick, rubberband and paper clip...

hahahaha...

well, going back to macguyver there, I've always felt the need to question the thought processes I was raised to believe. It's like an itch that I can't stop scratching, lol. I feel that people do not always have to be a product of the environment in which they're raised. That's why I questioned Christianity at such a young age. I figured that as I got older, I should go out and experience and listen to other people's beliefs, even if they were foreign ideas to me at the time. So that's what I've been doing. I have friends at college who are Hindi, Buddhist, Muslim, Christian, Agnostic, and Athiest, and I love learning about other peoples' belief systems.

I think that the belief in and the existence of God is the biggest and most important question we ask as humans, and I'm just not ready to decide yet. I still have a lot to learn.

[dw1003]

what archeological evidence exactly are you referring to?

The discovery Jericho, The discovery of the Hitite empire, dead sea scrolls, ruins of sodom and gomorrah etc... This was just the beginning of a long process of personal discovery... you may want to check it out if you're interested.

[cantnokdahustle]

The discovery Jericho, The discovery of the Hitite empire, dead sea scrolls, ruins of sodom and gomorrah etc... This was just the beginning of a long process of personal discovery... you may want to check it out if you're interested.

Who claims to have found Sodom and Gomorrah?

I know of the ancient Anatolian's colloquially called the "Hittites" by archaeologists ( or transliteration Hati) but how is this confirmation of the same peoples referred to in the te biblia. By that same reasoning, the bible mentions Egypt, and because there is in fact a synthetic linguistic and empirically verified confirmation of such a place you would take that as a evidence for the truth of the authenticity of the entire bible?

Now, some biblical history is, indeed accurate, but no where near all (no trace of the ancient isrealites having wandered the desert for forty years?)

I'm not going to pretend that I know all about the archaeological discoveries, except for the most significant finds, my area is in the evolution of religious thought, and I have done quite a bit of work in geology. Our understanding of geology in no way can be reconciled with what the bible illustrates happened, except by taking the bible to be the most vague and non-literal document ever to exist.

Perhaps I am being unfair with the take all or nothing attitude, but this is supposed to be the most important work for all of humanity (except for those people over there, and over there, and over on that island there), I guess I just expect more from a perfectly good, omniscient, and omnipotent being, than vague babbling and a screwed picture of the geologic column.

[TranscendTrends]

Who claims to have found Sodom and Gomorrah?

I know of the ancient Anatolian's colloquially called the "Hittites" by archaeologists ( or transliteration Hati) but how is this confirmation of the same peoples referred to in the te biblia. By that same reasoning, the bible mentions Egypt, and because there is in fact a synthetic linguistic and empirically verified confirmation of such a place you would take that as a evidence for the truth of the authenticity of the entire bible?

Now, some biblical history is, indeed accurate, but no where near all (no trace of the ancient isrealites having wandered the desert for forty years?)

I'm not going to pretend that I know all about the archaeological discoveries, except for the most significant finds, my area is in the evolution of religious thought, and I have done quite a bit of work in geology. Our understanding of geology in no way can be reconciled with what the bible illustrates happened, except by taking the bible to be the most vague and non-literal document ever to exist.

Perhaps I am being unfair with the take all or nothing attitude, but this is supposed to be the most important work for all of humanity (except for those people over there, and over there, and over on that island there), I guess I just expect more from a perfectly good, omniscient, and omnipotent being, than vague babbling and a screwed picture of the geologic column.

wow, there's some impressive rhetoric in that post man. good work. i've found that it is much harder to prove that a creator god exists when it is declared to be both omniscient and omnipotent. however, omnibenevolence (perfect goodness) is a title that is a little easier to defend. anyways, that's all i've got for input right now.

[TranscendTrends]

interesting, I believe in a creator God because of the archeological and literary evidence of the Bible's validity... but it was a long, tiring, painful process... through that process I have come to really resent most "christians" because of behavior issues and zealous irrationality and useless tradition.

yeah man, I'm also annoyed by the 'hardcore' religious zealots who at blind face value believe that their denomination's teachings are the only true and right beliefs. get out there and learn something for christ's sake (pun intended) lol.

[dw1003]

Who claims to have found Sodom and Gomorrah?

I know of the ancient Anatolian's colloquially called the "Hittites" by archaeologists ( or transliteration Hati) but how is this confirmation of the same peoples referred to in the te biblia. By that same reasoning, the bible mentions Egypt, and because there is in fact a synthetic linguistic and empirically verified confirmation of such a place you would take that as a evidence for the truth of the authenticity of the entire bible?

Now, some biblical history is, indeed accurate, but no where near all (no trace of the ancient isrealites having wandered the desert for forty years?)

I'm not going to pretend that I know all about the archaeological discoveries, except for the most significant finds, my area is in the evolution of religious thought, and I have done quite a bit of work in geology. Our understanding of geology in no way can be reconciled with what the bible illustrates happened, except by taking the bible to be the most vague and non-literal document ever to exist.

Perhaps I am being unfair with the take all or nothing attitude, but this is supposed to be the most important work for all of humanity (except for those people over there, and over there, and over on that island there), I guess I just expect more from a perfectly good, omniscient, and omnipotent being, than vague babbling and a screwed picture of the geologic column.

The Bible is not a science book. It never claims to be.
The Biblical account of creation is told to illustrate the idea a singular creator God.
The Bible is full of poems and illustrations as well as history books, prophecy and instruction.
The Bible should be examined by author intent, intended audience and book by book

If you want to use geology to deconstruct Biblical theology, than go ahead. Just know that you are starting off with a false premise of the purpose and scope of the Biblical text.

[cantnokdahustle]

No one is using geology to explicitly deconstruct biblical theology. If the biblical authors want us to take the bible as an entity as seriously as they state it is, then we must appeal to how well the bible can explain what it says it can explain. If the author is divine or divinely inspired and the attribute of omniscience is claimed by that author, then it looks rather silly if we find anything to be contrary to the given account. This makes any theological ideas espoused highly suspect.

I was led to believe by many believers that the bible's purpose is all things, so convince me why we should take the bible seriously when it seems to be confirmed by archaeological evidence, but not when it is seemingly disconfirmed by geological evidence, as you seem to be implying. If this is a misrepresentation of your stance, then I offer my apology.

[dw1003]

No one is using geology to explicitly deconstruct biblical theology. If the biblical authors want us to take the bible as an entity as seriously as they state it is, then we must appeal to how well the bible can explain what it says it can explain. If the author is divine or divinely inspired and the attribute of omniscience is claimed by that author, then it looks rather silly if we find anything to be contrary to the given account. This makes any theological ideas espoused highly suspect.

I was led to believe by many believers that the bible's purpose is all things, so convince me why we should take the bible seriously when it seems to be confirmed by archaeological evidence, but not when it is seemingly disconfirmed by geological evidence, as you seem to be implying. If this is a misrepresentation of your stance, then I offer my apology.

Because archeology evidence supports the characters, civilizations, cities, etc that the Bible describes. If the Bible says the Israelites ran into the Hitites, and there is archeological evidence to support what the Bible is claiming about it, than obviously that becomes important in validating the stories, characters, described in the Bible.

But since the Bible does not describe geologic events or make geo-specific claims than using geological evidence is kind of useless...

The Bible's purpose is not in all things. for example it's purpose is not to address capitalsm vs marxism... or abortion... or what college to go to... or who to marry...

common misconception in my opinion.

[thatwasamoment]

i guess i'm a "i need to see it to beleive it" kind of guy.

ive yet to see it, so i dont believe it.

[cantnokdahustle]

Because archeology evidence supports the characters, civilizations, cities, etc that the Bible describes. If the Bible says the Israelites ran into the Hitites, and there is archeological evidence to support what the Bible is claiming about it, than obviously that becomes important in validating the stories, characters, described in the Bible.

I don't see how this can be said to be any more impressive than Herodotus' Histories, except that he himself recognized that some of the stories he reported were a bit sketchy, and he did it with much more efficiency and accuracy.

But since the Bible does not describe geologic events or make geo-specific claims than using geological evidence is kind of useless...

The Bible's purpose is not in all things. for example it's purpose is not to address capitalsm vs marxism... or abortion... or what college to go to... or who to marry...

common misconception in my opinion.

I'm sorry but I must contend with the bolded statement. The bible most certainly describes geologic events, quite catastrophically actually. The two contradictory creation stories of the Genesis for one, and two: the story of Noah makes some extremely outlandish claims as to what is not only possible but what "actually happened" in reference to the universal deluge. Though this story was common in the ancient near east due to proximity to the Tigris and Euphrates, the biblical account suggests that the earth could physically sustain an incredible amount of water, which it cannot. Not only could it not sustain this deluge but there is no possibility that the amount of water that the earth has on or in it could produce a universal flood.

[mikeford]

The only scientifically responsible stance to take is that of agnostic.

We will never be able to prove whether there is or is not a God or gods.

Thus, being open to the idea, but not committed, is the responsible stance to take.

I do not personally believe in a God or gods, but if presented with the facts that one(s) exist, I will gladly accept that.

[cfear]

We've been having a god debate in my philosophy class. Basically, we were split up into groups and had to defend that group's theory despite our own personal beliefs. There was Pascal's Wager (which basically said that you can bet to believe in God or not. If you do and he doesn't exist, you don't miss out. If you don't and he does exist, you're screwed.), Agnostics (you can never know), Cosmologists (everything has a cause and affect. something had to have created life, whether or not it is a supreme being), Intelligence by Design (the universe is too complicated to have been created by science), a group that believed in one perfect, all powerful and loving God, and the Atheists which I was a part of.

I didn't read through this whole thread, and I don't care to, but I wanted to comment on the validity of this setup. Think about it, your teacher came up with five groups who he/she felt explained the majority of theological thought/non-thought in the modern world, but these five groups are not really related. Pascal's Wager, for those of you who have actually read any, is a method Pascal used to help convert people to Christianity (or, as this debate is set up the "Intelligence by Design" group ). Pascal's Wager is practically a tool of Creationist religions (monotheistic or polytheistic). So Pascal's Wager cannot be used to argue [I]against organized religion. You are now down to four groups debating.

Atheism, as some may have realize (read: people who understand Atheism), is not related to theism in any way. In Smith's Atheism: The Case Against God he explains that the term "atheism" doesn't apply to people who absolutely do not believe in God. While a percentage of "atheists" have determined that "God does not exist" they are not truly Atheists. True Atheists, he argues, hold no theistic thought whatsoever. When a baby is born it does not know of God. It doesn't hold any views regarding it's origin (i.e, it wasn't created by God, similarly it wasn't not created by God). So, technically, all babies are Atheists (even ones that are baptised since they have not made their own decision to have been baptised). This manifests itself later in life in many ways. There are people who adamantly try and prove that God doesn't exist who call themselves "athesists," but at the point that they argue that God doesn't exist they are acknowledging that God may in fact exist. Think of it this way: When your brother tells you that you are stupid for leaving your bike in the street you argue that you are not stupid, but while you are arguing you acknowledge the fact that the potential for you to be called stupid exists enough for you to argue about it. I link this with Atheism. Don't get me wrong here: I consider myself an Atheist, but not in the way many of my friends do. I don't hold any views relating to God. I wasn't raised with any kind of theistic belief, and the period of my life I went to a church youth group regularly wasn't linked to my theistic beliefs (or rather, lack thereof). Atheism, as a concept, can't be used to argue against a method of theistic belief, or, in my opinion, the position is meritless. You will all probably think this is bollocks, but it actually makes a lot of sense. Now you are left with Agnostics, Cosmologists, and Creationists (a much better term than the one your teacher used).

Now to Agnosticism. Fuck, this is one confusing philosophy. Remember what I said about Atheism? (I should hope so.) Many "atheists" are actually Agnostic. They believe that believing in dieties is unnecessary because the probability that God exists is as equally warranted by the fact that God does not exist. Which I explained earlier. With this position debate is possible, so the debate on a higher deity can exist between Agnostics and Creationists, but it would be cyclical.

Cosmologists are Creationists. If you've ever taken a cultural anthropology class you will know that a cosmology is basically the system of belief used in any culture/society/civilization. I'm getting a minor in anthropology, and pretty much laughed at the use of "Cosmology" in the context your teacher used it. By that definition science could be used as a cosmology, but science is not a cosmology because it is not a belief system.

Anways, if you only have two sides able to debate each other (which you do) this becomes a Lincoln-Douglas round, and since both sides have common ground it is any shitty prelim round I've ever judged. A debate between Agnostics and Creationists is useless.

It's better off to not give a fuck about theology. It's hard to when you've been indoctrinated into a world where religious leaders have more influence in world politics than they should, but it's possible. I mean, it's very hard to convince a rational person into accepting your own viewpoint (or lack of one), so why try? I have absolutely no thought on the abscence, or presence, of a higher being. I live in my own world, by my own rules, and generally try to stay out of theological discussions (though, I do have fun messing with my really, really religious friends; what can I say, it's fun), that's my thought on religion: Some people have it, others say the don't want it, and others just don't give a fuck one way or the other.

[punklet2101]

I don't think I could explain very well why I believe what I do..

i've seen before my eyes, someone's leg (which because of an accident, was about half the length of the other) grow back when they were prayed for.
there was this guy in my old church who had no toes on his right foot. a guy prayed for him, with his shoe and sock off.. and we saw toes grow on his foot.
i was a leader at a youth camp last year, and there was a kid there who didn't have the part of his nose that seperates the nostrils, because he'd sniffed drugs for years and it had rotted away. he left the camp with that part of his nose.
i prayed for my friend who had major scoliosis (bent spine). my hand was on her back and i felt the spine move back into place and she said the pain was gone.

i have a friend who is seriously ill. and every night i pray for him in my room, sometimes for hours, and at times i've looked down at my hands to see oil leaking out of my pores.

I don't really have to go on with any more, there's countless things I could say, you can even not believe me i'm not forcing anyone to.. but I know that these things happened right before my eyes, and that's probably the best thing I can offer for this at the moment, I was reluctant to share it when I posted before but there it is.

that contributes to why i believe. but i wouldn't want to force it on anybody because everyone has a right to what they believe.

[we are cured]

my stance is this - our world and universe are full of so many complex physical occurrences of which we cannot possibly comprehend. if one can't understand their meaning, then what makes anyone think they can comprehend what created these occurrences?

[NickBender]

I had a discussion with a double religion major a few months ago and he explained that the word Agnostic meant idiot. I'm unsure how valid that is.

[TranscendTrends]

I had a discussion with a double religion major a few months ago and he explained that the word Agnostic meant idiot. I'm unsure how valid that is.

well, that statement your friend made is a bit sketch. the word comes from the combination of the greek words a-(meaning without) and gnosis-(meaning knowledge). to assume that this translates to idiot, is a bit, well, idiotic. It means unknowable, as in it is impossible to be certain whether or not god exists, since as far as we know with current knowledge, god is not a tangible 'thing' that you can see or otherwise feel.
this friend of yours is seriously a religious studies major? maybe he should think a bit for himself instead of just spouting off what his professor told him.

[TranscendTrends]

my stance is this - our world and universe are full of so many complex physical occurrences of which we cannot possibly comprehend. if one can't understand their meaning, then what makes anyone think they can comprehend what created these occurrences?

exactly. couldn't have said it better myself. we can continue to try and learn to understand the mechanisms that run our universe, but how can we possibly be expected to truly know our 'creator' or lack thereof if we don't attempt to learn these laws?

[we are cured]

exactly. couldn't have said it better myself. we can continue to try and learn to understand the mechanisms that run our universe, but how can we possibly be expected to truly know our 'creator' or lack thereof if we don't attempt to learn these laws?

yeah. i mean its one thing to believe in something (god), but to try and use it to explain other mind blowing occurrences is not very logical.

[s.t.e.v.e.n.]

If we could comprehend God, then he wouldnt be much of a God at all

[Shatter590]

ive played the devout christian card, and it didnt stick.
ive played the atheist, and it didnt stick.
ive played the agnostic, and it didnt stick.

i cant say what i believe anymore. i just know that i believe in something, and its been wonderfully helpful in keeping me sane.

[dw1003]

I don't see how this can be said to be any more impressive than Herodotus' Histories, except that he himself recognized that some of the stories he reported were a bit sketchy, and he did it with much more efficiency and accuracy.



I'm sorry but I must contend with the bolded statement. The bible most certainly describes geologic events, quite catastrophically actually. The two contradictory creation stories of the Genesis for one, and two: the story of Noah makes some extremely outlandish claims as to what is not only possible but what "actually happened" in reference to the universal deluge. Though this story was common in the ancient near east due to proximity to the Tigris and Euphrates, the biblical account suggests that the earth could physically sustain an incredible amount of water, which it cannot. Not only could it not sustain this deluge but there is no possibility that the amount of water that the earth has on or in it could produce a universal flood.

The story of Noah's flood should be looked with the criteria I spoke of earlier...

what is the authors intent? to describe a wicked world and a God who is able to judge.
to describe how and a singular individual be righteous in an unrighteous world. To reveal the promise that God will never destroy humanity again. Whether Noah's flood was a global or local event I think is up for debate... The premise of the story is the interaction between God and man and what that relation is like... the premise is not to validate geologic time through biblical characters or events.

I'm not saying that you are off base in questioning the flood, it is a very very odd story.
I'm saying that if a person is interested in understanding the Biblical message it should
be studied within a certain criteria... like I said before, the Bible's application is limited...
It's not a science book or primer on world history. It's a detailed account of Jewish history
that tell's the story of mans redemtion.

I've known many people who try to de-bunk the Bible's validity without ever really understanding the purpose and scope of the Biblical message. I'm not saying it's for everyone, but the message of human redemtion is very powerful and it resinates with alot people across many cultures.

[heyjohnnyfive]

ummm you got the Mcgiver joke... right?

ah, man I was too tired to catch the awesome pun. Maybe if you had included duct tape in the list... anyway, MacGyver rules.

[we are cured]

If we could comprehend God, then he wouldnt be much of a God at all

i guess you're right

so under that assumption, if i believed in god i would define him as:

something we cannot comprehend that is the explanation for all that is existant

if you believe in these kind of things, more power to you.

[TxRepresent]

what book is it?

The Groundwork for the Metaphysics of Morals

[tambam]

my stance is this - our world and universe are full of so many complex physical occurrences of which we cannot possibly comprehend. if one can't understand their meaning, then what makes anyone think they can comprehend what created these occurrences?

Completely agree.

[petey536]

I but i wouldn't want to force it on anybody because everyone has a right to what they believe.
true that, believe what you believe, just dont knock what i think

[tambam]

I didn't read through this whole thread, and I don't care to, but I wanted to comment on the validity of this setup. Think about it, your teacher came up with five groups who he/she felt explained the majority of theological thought/non-thought in the modern world, but these five groups are not really related. Pascal's Wager, for those of you who have actually read any, is a method Pascal used to help convert people to Christianity (or, as this debate is set up the "Intelligence by Design" group ). Pascal's Wager is practically a tool of Creationist religions (monotheistic or polytheistic). So Pascal's Wager cannot be used to argue [I]against organized religion. You are now down to four groups debating.

Atheism, as some may have realize (read: people who understand Atheism), is not related to theism in any way. In Smith's Atheism: The Case Against God he explains that the term "atheism" doesn't apply to people who absolutely do not believe in God. While a percentage of "atheists" have determined that "God does not exist" they are not truly Atheists. True Atheists, he argues, hold no theistic thought whatsoever. When a baby is born it does not know of God. It doesn't hold any views regarding it's origin (i.e, it wasn't created by God, similarly it wasn't not created by God). So, technically, all babies are Atheists (even ones that are baptised since they have not made their own decision to have been baptised). This manifests itself later in life in many ways. There are people who adamantly try and prove that God doesn't exist who call themselves "athesists," but at the point that they argue that God doesn't exist they are acknowledging that God may in fact exist. Think of it this way: When your brother tells you that you are stupid for leaving your bike in the street you argue that you are not stupid, but while you are arguing you acknowledge the fact that the potential for you to be called stupid exists enough for you to argue about it. I link this with Atheism. Don't get me wrong here: I consider myself an Atheist, but not in the way many of my friends do. I don't hold any views relating to God. I wasn't raised with any kind of theistic belief, and the period of my life I went to a church youth group regularly wasn't linked to my theistic beliefs (or rather, lack thereof). Atheism, as a concept, can't be used to argue against a method of theistic belief, or, in my opinion, the position is meritless. You will all probably think this is bollocks, but it actually makes a lot of sense. Now you are left with Agnostics, Cosmologists, and Creationists (a much better term than the one your teacher used).

Now to Agnosticism. Fuck, this is one confusing philosophy. Remember what I said about Atheism? (I should hope so.) Many "atheists" are actually Agnostic. They believe that believing in dieties is unnecessary because the probability that God exists is as equally warranted by the fact that God does not exist. Which I explained earlier. With this position debate is possible, so the debate on a higher deity can exist between Agnostics and Creationists, but it would be cyclical.

Cosmologists are Creationists. If you've ever taken a cultural anthropology class you will know that a cosmology is basically the system of belief used in any culture/society/civilization. I'm getting a minor in anthropology, and pretty much laughed at the use of "Cosmology" in the context your teacher used it. By that definition science could be used as a cosmology, but science is not a cosmology because it is not a belief system.

Anways, if you only have two sides able to debate each other (which you do) this becomes a Lincoln-Douglas round, and since both sides have common ground it is any shitty prelim round I've ever judged. A debate between Agnostics and Creationists is useless.

It's better off to not give a fuck about theology. It's hard to when you've been indoctrinated into a world where religious leaders have more influence in world politics than they should, but it's possible. I mean, it's very hard to convince a rational person into accepting your own viewpoint (or lack of one), so why try? I have absolutely no thought on the abscence, or presence, of a higher being. I live in my own world, by my own rules, and generally try to stay out of theological discussions (though, I do have fun messing with my really, really religious friends; what can I say, it's fun), that's my thought on religion: Some people have it, others say the don't want it, and others just don't give a fuck one way or the other.

I see exactly what you mean.

[petey536]

I've known many people who try to de-bunk the Bible's validity without ever really understanding the purpose and scope of the Biblical message. I'm not saying it's for everyone, but the message of human redemtion is very powerful and it resinates with alot people across many cultures.
yeah i know people who try to rip on the bible without ever really reading it, annoys the crap out of me

[punklet2101]

true that, believe what you believe, just dont knock what i think

indeed

[Scott Weber]

The Bible is not a science book. It never claims to be.
The Biblical account of creation is told to illustrate the idea a singular creator God.
The Bible is full of poems and illustrations as well as history books, prophecy and instruction.
The Bible should be examined by author intent, intended audience and book by book

If you want to use geology to deconstruct Biblical theology, than go ahead. Just know that you are starting off with a false premise of the purpose and scope of the Biblical text.
This is very important to understand when observing the Christian faith. I pretty much came in this thread to say the same thing.

[Jason Tate]

The Bible is not a science book. It never claims to be.
The Biblical account of creation is told to illustrate the idea a singular creator God.
The Bible is full of poems and illustrations as well as history books, prophecy and instruction.
The Bible should be examined by author intent, intended audience and book by book

If you want to use geology to deconstruct Biblical theology, than go ahead. Just know that you are starting off with a false premise of the purpose and scope of the Biblical text.
What you're missing is that that's what many in the religion claim it to be - when the vast majority of a "faith" makes a claim, it takes on that entity. If that was the intent or not or the truth or not - no longer matters.

[Jason Tate]

The story of Noah's flood should be looked with the criteria I spoke of earlier...

what is the authors intent? to describe a wicked world and a God who is able to judge.
to describe how and a singular individual be righteous in an unrighteous world. To reveal the promise that God will never destroy humanity again. Whether Noah's flood was a global or local event I think is up for debate... The premise of the story is the interaction between God and man and what that relation is like... the premise is not to validate geologic time through biblical characters or events.

I'm not saying that you are off base in questioning the flood, it is a very very odd story.
I'm saying that if a person is interested in understanding the Biblical message it should
be studied within a certain criteria... like I said before, the Bible's application is limited...
It's not a science book or primer on world history. It's a detailed account of Jewish history
that tell's the story of mans redemtion.

I've known many people who try to de-bunk the Bible's validity without ever really understanding the purpose and scope of the Biblical message. I'm not saying it's for everyone, but the message of human redemtion is very powerful and it resinates with alot people across many cultures.

Then a) tell the religion to stop teaching it as historical fact, b) to stop changing the "meaning" with each new wave of criticism.

Either way, you sound like you've memorized CS Lewis. Care to offer any of your own thoughts on the topic, or is this just for those that have never read any of his books?

Lastly, from the cynic: "man's redemption" is an oxymoron.

[Scott Weber]

What you're missing is that that's what many in the religion claim it to be - when the vast majority of a "faith" makes a claim, it takes on that entity. If that was the intent or not or the truth or not - no longer matters.
Which is why I have a hard time associating myself with Christianity. But just because many believe in something incorrectly does not make it truth, it makes a lot of people misinformed and miseducated. I have taken religion classes in college, and it's still being educated correctly that the Bible is full of books and letters to specific groups of people. Whether people want to live with naive views is up to them, but it doesn't change why the Bible was written or the context of it.

[Jason Tate]

Which is why I have a hard time associating myself with Christianity. But just because many believe in something incorrectly does not make it truth, it makes a lot of people misinformed and miseducated. I have taken religion classes in college, and it's still being educated correctly that the Bible is full of books and letters to specific groups of people. Whether people want to live with naive views is up to them, but it doesn't change why the Bible was written or the context of it.
Ditto.

The indoctrination of false claims, and the ludicrous premises that permeate throughout organized religion drives me absolutely crazy. Until that's changed - I can't put myself under the "church" umbrella.

[Scott Weber]

Ditto.

The indoctrination of false claims, and the ludicrous premises that permeate throughout organized religion drives me absolutely crazy. Until that's changed - I can't put myself under the "church" umbrella.
So I choose to believe in God, and God alone. Organized religion is full of fakes, blind followers, and the likes. I believe in God, not Christianity. I believe in faith, not religion. People have to find their own truths instead of accepting the "package deal" that organized religion often offers up, or at least find a church that thinks rationally and outside the literal box. And for what it's worth, they do exist. I just haven't taken the time to find one yet, because honestly my church expierence is so soured.

[tambam]

So I choose to believe in God, and God alone. Organized religion is full of fakes, blind followers, and the likes. I believe in God, not Christianity. I believe in faith, not religion. People have to find their own truths instead of accepting the "package deal" that organized religion often offers up, or at least find a church that thinks rationally and outside the literal box. And for what it's worth, they do exist. I just haven't taken the time to find one yet, because honestly my church expierence is so soured.

It's refreshing to hear that. I don't hear it often. I agree for the most part.

[preppyak]

hope this already hasn't been linked, but here is an interesting read for anyone really into this topic

http://www.wired.com/wired/archive/14.11/atheism.html?pg=1&topic=atheism&topic_set=

Also, a fun read is also Bertrand Russel's "Why I am not a Christian" (http://users.drew.edu/%7Ejlenz/whynot.html)...certiantly a more philisophical approach to it all

[Jason Tate]

So I choose to believe in God, and God alone. Organized religion is full of fakes, blind followers, and the likes. I believe in God, not Christianity. I believe in faith, not religion. People have to find their own truths instead of accepting the "package deal" that organized religion often offers up, or at least find a church that thinks rationally and outside the literal box. And for what it's worth, they do exist. I just haven't taken the time to find one yet, because honestly my church expierence is so soured.
Agreed.

[punklet2101]

So I choose to believe in God, and God alone. Organized religion is full of fakes, blind followers, and the likes. I believe in God, not Christianity. I believe in faith, not religion. People have to find their own truths instead of accepting the "package deal" that organized religion often offers up, or at least find a church that thinks rationally and outside the literal box. And for what it's worth, they do exist. I just haven't taken the time to find one yet, because honestly my church expierence is so soured.

thank you, i agree completely and i never knew how to explain that to anybody!

i am attending a church though, because i sing for kids church and some youth stuff.. and that's fine for me.

[eye<3n00dz]

only liberals and pussies like god.

[blinkonce82]

I'm an atheist. I believed in god when I was a kid, and even last year I had this huge thing about god really existing. But I am absolutely convinced that god does not exist. People need to believe in another all-powerful being to stay sane- to believe that the universe is not fake, or made up if your mind. There has to be one ultimate force that controls everything else.
When it really comes down to it- if there really were a supernatural, all-knowing being, why would it really care about our downfalls and frustrations? Would it really care if you got that promotion or if you got fired instead? Humans are egotistical, and they need to believe that there is something out there that is out of anybody else's control, and of course, this being wants to cause you absolute happiness.
I interpret the world as, "what you see is what you get". I really doubt there is any kind of magic in the world.
I've tried to disprove myself of this, I've read about christianity and catholism- I've looked up their beliefs and everything, and I still cannot bring myself to say that I believe in god.
My father went to a seminary throughout his education. He is now forty, and he does not believe in god. If there really were to be a being that cared about humans' well-being, why would he create us in such a way that we kill each other, and cause each other harm?
I have so much more to write about on this topic, but I can't think of it right now. I hope I did not offend anyone, and if I did, I apologize. And if these thoughts are put together all weird.. I was rushing as I wrote this.

[dw1003]

Then a) tell the religion to stop teaching it as historical fact, b) to stop changing the "meaning" with each new wave of criticism.

Either way, you sound like you've memorized CS Lewis. Care to offer any of your own thoughts on the topic, or is this just for those that have never read any of his books?

Lastly, from the cynic: "man's redemption" is an oxymoron.

wow, hostile much?

actually I've never read a CS Lewis book...
I've never even claimed to be a christian...
I just happen to know the Bible the really well.

also... how do you tell a religion to stop teaching a certain way... maybe you could kick me
down a phone number for "religion" and give em a call...

[make_this_hurt]

I'm an atheist. I believed in god when I was a kid, and even last year I had this huge thing about god really existing. But I am absolutely convinced that god does not exist. People need to believe in another all-powerful being to stay sane- to believe that the universe is not fake, or made up if your mind. There has to be one ultimate force that controls everything else.
When it really comes down to it- if there really were a supernatural, all-knowing being, why would it really care about our downfalls and frustrations? Would it really care if you got that promotion or if you got fired instead? Humans are egotistical, and they need to believe that there is something out there that is out of anybody else's control, and of course, this being wants to cause you absolute happiness.
I interpret the world as, "what you see is what you get". I really doubt there is any kind of magic in the world.
I've tried to disprove myself of this, I've read about christianity and catholism- I've looked up their beliefs and everything, and I still cannot bring myself to say that I believe in god.
My father went to a seminary throughout his education. He is now forty, and he does not believe in god. If there really were to be a being that cared about humans' well-being, why would he create us in such a way that we kill each other, and cause each other harm?
I have so much more to write about on this topic, but I can't think of it right now. I hope I did not offend anyone, and if I did, I apologize. And if these thoughts are put together all weird.. I was rushing as I wrote this.
You offend me with your idiocity.

[ResideInMyMind]

all of you (especially you agnostics and deists) should read Age of Reason by Thomas Paine. good work of classic literature regarding religion.

[ResideInMyMind]

and i like how this is in the politics forum... does anyone here actually think that faith and government should be amalgamated? and if you do, can you explain why?

[Harold Wood]

only liberals and pussies like god.

way to make an ignorant statement


Everyone on this forum has faith in something. Some of us faith in God, some of us have faith there is no God. Faith is all that matters, like the guy a few post back said; I only care about my faith. I know God, I honestly have faith in that. The bible, religion, nothing means more to me than that.

[TxRepresent]

only liberals and pussies like god.


You're a fucking idiot on so many levels.

[thejetstolehome]

and i like how this is in the politics forum... does anyone here actually think that faith and government should be amalgamated? and if you do, can you explain why?

the reason this is in the politics forum has already been stated.

and, no, for the record.

[tambam]

and i like how this is in the politics forum... does anyone here actually think that faith and government should be amalgamated? and if you do, can you explain why?

If the evolution thread can be here, why not this one?

[Harold Wood]

If the evolution thread can be here, why not this one?

it can be

it's the place to debate and discuss

[tambam]

it can be

it's the place to debate and discuss

That's what I'm saying. I hate it when people get off topic and start being picky about where boards are posted.

[Harold Wood]

That's what I'm saying. I hate it when people get off topic and start being picky about where boards are posted.

post her consists of a few things

1)bitching
2)n00ds

[tambam]

post her consists of a few things

1)bitching
2)n00ds

Hahaha. No joke.

[Harold Wood]

Hahaha. No joke.

and I have only seen one take place

[tambam]

and I have only seen one take place

Me too. And also hilariously mean responses to 'iz it sluti if i hav teh sex wit my new bf of 2 dayz? plz help ppl k thnx bye' boards made by thirteen year-old girls. That and bitching. I'd be lying if I said that I didn't enjoy the former.

[Harold Wood]

Me too. And also hilariously mean responses to 'iz it sluti if i hav teh sex wit my new bf of 2 dayz? plz help ppl k thnx bye' boards made by thirteen year-old girls. That and bitching. I'd be lying if I said that I didn't enjoy the former.

hahaha yeah

I enjoy it....... I do my share of it I suppose

[tambam]

hahaha yeah

I enjoy it....... I do my share of it I suppose

Yeah, I don't. I need to get out of the whole, 'I'm a girl, therefore I should be nice and polite' thing. ;-)

[Harold Wood]

Yeah, I don't. I need to get out of the whole, 'I'm a girl, therefore I should be nice and polite' thing. ;-)

yeah screw that crap man

[tambam]

yeah screw that crap man

:-D

[Harold Wood]

:-D

I am never on here at night

it's a lonely night and I am on AP

I should sleep

[tambam]

I am never on here at night

it's a lonely night and I am on AP

I should sleep

Same here. I'm on here almost every night. I've only been here for a little more than a month and I'm addicted. It's worse than myspace.

I should sleep, too. I woke up early only to realize that it was a snow day and now I'm beginning to yawn and blink at the computer screen.

[Harold Wood]

Same here. I'm on here almost every night. I've only been here for a little more than a month and I'm addicted. It's worse than myspace.

I should sleep, too. I woke up early only to realize that it was a snow day and now I'm beginning to yawn and blink at the computer screen.

I usually only get on at work

[tambam]

I usually only get on at work

Well, don't you have a life. :-p
I, sadly, don't.

[Harold Wood]

Well, don't you have a life. :-p
I, sadly, don't.


I guess, if I really did would I be here?????

[punklet2101]

I'm an atheist. I believed in god when I was a kid, and even last year I had this huge thing about god really existing. But I am absolutely convinced that god does not exist. People need to believe in another all-powerful being to stay sane- to believe that the universe is not fake, or made up if your mind. There has to be one ultimate force that controls everything else.
When it really comes down to it- if there really were a supernatural, all-knowing being, why would it really care about our downfalls and frustrations? Would it really care if you got that promotion or if you got fired instead? Humans are egotistical, and they need to believe that there is something out there that is out of anybody else's control, and of course, this being wants to cause you absolute happiness.
I interpret the world as, "what you see is what you get". I really doubt there is any kind of magic in the world.
I've tried to disprove myself of this, I've read about christianity and catholism- I've looked up their beliefs and everything, and I still cannot bring myself to say that I believe in god.
My father went to a seminary throughout his education. He is now forty, and he does not believe in god. If there really were to be a being that cared about humans' well-being, why would he create us in such a way that we kill each other, and cause each other harm?
I have so much more to write about on this topic, but I can't think of it right now. I hope I did not offend anyone, and if I did, I apologize. And if these thoughts are put together all weird.. I was rushing as I wrote this.

You must not have researched a great deal.. if you wanted to know those answers from a Christian perspective, they're in the bible.. and the first book Genesis covers a lot of what you've just said.



"If there really were to be a being that cared about humans' well-being, why would he create us in such a way that we kill each other, and cause each other harm?"

I'll just come at this from a Christian perspective... He didn't create us that way, we made ourselves that way when sin came into the world.. He made everything perfect in the beginning, and we wrecked it. But that's where free will comes in. You didn't even need to go further than Genesis for that.


"When it really comes down to it- if there really were a supernatural, all-knowing being, why would it really care about our downfalls and frustrations?

The bible tells us that God so loves the world and that His plans were made for everyone's life before they were in the womb.. I think that constitutes for caring. He created people for companionship



Would it really care if you got that promotion or if you got fired instead?
Jer 29:11 (overused scripture, but i'm just doing this off the top of my head)


You don't have to believe it, just at least know what you're talking about a little more

[HeyCoffeeEyes]

Has anyone read Tbe Brothers Karamazov? Basically I agree with Ivan's arguments from "Rebellion" and "The Grand Inquisitor". If God is all powerful, and all loving, and all knowing, why do innocent children suffer in the world? Why do people have to go to hell for what they believe or don't believe, when it was God who burdened them with free will to begin with? If God is truly omniscient, then he must've known when he gave freewill to humankind that some people would choose to make the innocent suffer and some would choose not to live righteously. Maybe there will be a "Judgment Day" when everything is made right, but right now innocent people suffer in the world and that can never be undone. If God does exist, he is either too weak to save mankind or a tyrant who has chosen not to. In any case, he cannot be the God of the Bible, and he is not fit to be worshipped.

[Alex Djaferis]

i hate quoting songs. but one lyric that always made sense to me was:

"if i have no soul to touch, no heart to love, no evil to rise up above, no angels and no ghosts, no real victories to toast...if you believe this is true then I must ask. To what end do you proceed?" (yea yea, thrice)

i was raised a christian. and i have conciously strayed from that path into a more 'spiritual' outlook. only because there was so much that was unexplained to me in church and ther were so many things that i just couldnt agree with. im testing the water in other areas to see what makes more sense and what feels better for myself to grow as a person. I felt to confined within the church.

[cantnokdahustle]

i hate quoting songs. but one lyric that always made sense to me was:

"if i have no soul to touch, no heart to love, no evil to rise up above, no angels and no ghosts, no real victories to toast...if you believe this is true then I must ask. To what end do you proceed?" (yea yea, thrice).

They would stop loving because infinity does not love them?

If you want to go ahead and presuppose that humans have some sort of teleological duty go ahead. But you need not presume a soul, angels, or ghosts to answer such a question. This was, in fact the question to which philosophy has ever reached any sort of consensus (as well as can be had). Whether you are an asshole egoist (ala Ayn Rand), or more utilitarian (via Mill) or a spiritualist like Plato (to which you all owe your Christian identity) the human aim has been happiness. Now, make sure that you know that 'happiness' is not characterized by amusement or satisfaction. You certainly don't have to but you can pretty much take that as the only synthetic axiom to exist.

Also, evil and victory, love and honor, and happiness do not cease to exist if there is not some sort of "greater force" than that which is carried by these individual virtues (they pack quite the punch themselves). love, happiness, honor and evil are in no way diminished if we can not obtain immortality, they mean everything to almost all living sentient beings. Fuck, look back to the "first" epic, or oldest to have survived, that of Gilgamesh, that is the entire point of the work. Make merry, because one day you are going to die and that comes to us all, save for Utnapishtim.

[cantnokdahustle]

Has anyone read Tbe Brothers Karamazov? Basically I agree with Ivan's arguments from "Rebellion" and "The Grand Inquisitor". If God is all powerful, and all loving, and all knowing, why do innocent children suffer in the world? Why do people have to go to hell for what they believe or don't believe, when it was God who burdened them with free will to begin with? If God is truly omniscient, then he must've known when he gave freewill to humankind that some people would choose to make the innocent suffer and some would choose not to live righteously. Maybe there will be a "Judgment Day" when everything is made right, but right now innocent people suffer in the world and that can never be undone. If God does exist, he is either too weak to save mankind or a tyrant who has chosen not to. In any case, he cannot be the God of the Bible, and he is not fit to be worshipped.

greatest single philosophical work man has ever seen. Dostoevsky is the greatest Christian ever to live.

And yes, that is how most atheists, as children and young adults come to the conclusion at first. I reiterate from a previous post, no one who has ever seen the suffering of a child with a disease such as Tay-Sachs could ever find anything of value in it. As my devout Catholic philosophy professor once said, "I don't ever want to meet the person who can look at that and see any creation of god... even the devil."

Subsequent to the rebellion argument, further looks at the logical structure of nature of god then fail, and then you look at the history of the development of the idea of god and its pretty much done. Unless you are a Deist, you have absolutely zero argument which does not egregiously beg the question.

[Harold Wood]

I would have thought jesus would have been the best christian that ever lived


huh


it sounds like you are copying and pasting this from a website there bud

[suddenxsilence]

I believe strongly in God. I know that there is a God and that he loves all even those who don't believe in him or do and don't love him. I believe that God has no real gender or race. He is one and all. I also believe that God answers or doesn't answer prayers for a reason. He can see the whole forest not just the single of here and now that we can see.

For those who want proof of God actually give the bible a chance. Try reading the book of Revelation. It is easy to find for those of you who may not know the bible. It is the very last book. If you read this book and also the book of Zacharia(sp?) they make specific references to things that are happening here and now. How could a book written thousands of years ago do this?? Easy... if you know about the bible you know that God told those who wrote the bible what to say. Like I said, he sees the whole forest. He knew what was going to happen already when the bible was written.

In these named books of the bible you can see references to the war in the holy land(Isreal). Sound familiar **cough lebanon conflict cough**. So take a look around you and at the references and the word of God. It is irefutable(sp?). There is no way to denounce the truth.

[CIABATTA]

i live in the south, also known as the bible belt, and i hate it everytime i meet someone new they ask me, "what church do you do to?" so arrogantly and when i tell them i dont they get offended and tell me to come to theirs. i have been to church, though i was raised with no religion in my life, and i have decided on my own that i cannot believe what they teach. in my opinion, most of the church is filled with hypocrites. "thou shall not kill" and yet they raise crusades a "holy war" what is holy about slaying another human being? they teach acceptance and open mindedness when they refuse to accept other religions (ex: one of my friends held a bible study that brought in a lady from her church and she flat out told us that the muslims died for a lie, well its not a lie to them) also, religion has turned into another fad "its cool to be christian" atleast in my high school. i know is i cant be apart of a church thats filled with constant hypocrisy, but i dont know if i believe in a god or not, somedays i believe it is a mere human structure designed to help the weak to believe they are important and will always be safe, but other days(a noticably fewer amount) i wonder if there is a possibility that there is a god. if religion is right for me i will find it on my own time and until that happens (or if it never does) i will stick atheism/agostic (i dont really know which i would be considered but i dont really care)

[punklet2101]

I believe strongly in God. I know that there is a God and that he loves all even those who don't believe in him or do and don't love him. I believe that God has no real gender or race. He is one and all. I also believe that God answers or doesn't answer prayers for a reason. He can see the whole forest not just the single of here and now that we can see.

For those who want proof of God actually give the bible a chance. Try reading the book of Revelation. It is easy to find for those of you who may not know the bible. It is the very last book. If you read this book and also the book of Zacharia(sp?) they make specific references to things that are happening here and now. How could a book written thousands of years ago do this?? Easy... if you know about the bible you know that God told those who wrote the bible what to say. Like I said, he sees the whole forest. He knew what was going to happen already when the bible was written.

In these named books of the bible you can see references to the war in the holy land(Isreal). Sound familiar **cough lebanon conflict cough**. So take a look around you and at the references and the word of God. It is irefutable(sp?). There is no way to denounce the truth.

Zechariah.

Yeah, or the fact that in Isaiah it talks about Jesus in detail thousands of years before He was born.

[Lueda Alia]

I believe strongly in God. I know that there is a God and that he loves all even those who don't believe in him or do and don't love him. I believe that God has no real gender or race. He is one and all. I also believe that God answers or doesn't answer prayers for a reason. He can see the whole forest not just the single of here and now that we can see.
If that's true, why do you refer to him as a "he"?

[s.t.e.v.e.n.]

i live in the south, also known as the bible belt, and i hate it everytime i meet someone new they ask me, "what church do you do to?" so arrogantly and when i tell them i dont they get offended and tell me to come to theirs. i have been to church, though i was raised with no religion in my life, and i have decided on my own that i cannot believe what they teach. in my opinion, most of the church is filled with hypocrites. "thou shall not kill" and yet they raise crusades a "holy war" what is holy about slaying another human being? they teach acceptance and open mindedness when they refuse to accept other religions (ex: one of my friends held a bible study that brought in a lady from her church and she flat out told us that the muslims died for a lie, well its not a lie to them) also, religion has turned into another fad "its cool to be christian" atleast in my high school. i know is i cant be apart of a church thats filled with constant hypocrisy, but i dont know if i believe in a god or not, somedays i believe it is a mere human structure designed to help the weak to believe they are important and will always be safe, but other days(a noticably fewer amount) i wonder if there is a possibility that there is a god. if religion is right for me i will find it on my own time and until that happens (or if it never does) i will stick atheism/agostic (i dont really know which i would be considered but i dont really care)

I hope you don't form your opinion of God based on humans.
Humans are flawed, and will always be hypocritical.
That fact doesn't make God any more True or False.
He is either there, or he isn't, but it isn't because of human actions.

[Harold Wood]

I hope you don't form your opinion of God based on humans.
Humans are flawed, and will always be hypocritical.
That fact doesn't make God any more True or False.
He is either there, or he isn't, but it isn't because of human actions.

God is based on one human

jesus

[s.t.e.v.e.n.]

God is based on one human

jesus

i think you may have missed my point

[Harold Wood]

i think you may have missed my point

no I got it

I liked it

I was just adding to your point I suppose

[s.t.e.v.e.n.]

no I got it

I liked it

I was just adding to your point I suppose


i got ya

good stuff

[cantnokdahustle]

I would have thought jesus would have been the best christian that ever lived

give me one contemporaneous source that would corroborate a claim that such a person ever existed. You fucking can't, the gospels are dated to 2nd and 3rd centuries. The mythological character is an amalgamation of osiris, horus, prometheus, and many other of the ancient near eastern savior gods.



it sounds like you are copying and pasting this from a website there bud

then check it asshole, highlight the fucking post and check it and run it through a search, Or would that mean you'd have to actually back up a claim. Don't ever accuse people of plagiarism unless you have some fucking proof.

[punklet2101]

give me one contemporaneous source that would corroborate a claim that such a person ever existed. You fucking can't, the gospels are dated to 2nd and 3rd centuries. The mythological character is an amalgamation of osiris, horus, prometheus, and many other of the ancient near eastern savior gods.

Christ is a historical figure. That's like saying Shakespeare never existed. You know it was documented over and over apart from scripture right?

['hawk110G]

I believe strongly in God. I know that there is a God and that he loves all even those who don't believe in him or do and don't love him. I believe that God has no real gender or race. He is one and all. I also believe that God answers or doesn't answer prayers for a reason. He can see the whole forest not just the single of here and now that we can see.

For those who want proof of God actually give the bible a chance. Try reading the book of Revelation. It is easy to find for those of you who may not know the bible. It is the very last book. If you read this book and also the book of Zacharia(sp?) they make specific references to things that are happening here and now. How could a book written thousands of years ago do this?? Easy... if you know about the bible you know that God told those who wrote the bible what to say. Like I said, he sees the whole forest. He knew what was going to happen already when the bible was written.

In these named books of the bible you can see references to the war in the holy land(Isreal). Sound familiar **cough lebanon conflict cough**. So take a look around you and at the references and the word of God. It is irefutable(sp?). There is no way to denounce the truth.

There may be no way to denounce your form of the truth, but there can be a way to over power (I couldn't think of a better word to use sorry) your truth with a different form. I am a strong non-believer, atheist, anti-christian, whatever your fancy of words may be. But they all mean the same. I was at one point a christian, a very strong one at that. I know of the book of Revelation, and of Zecharaia (sp?), and the references of the conflicts in the 'holy' land of Israel. But I also know that the Bible could just be a whole bunch of stories put together over time that has grown to be one of the largest published books in the world. In my opinion, humanity has blown up this little story book into this whole religious ideal, of which I think as incorrect.

Another thing, in the very first book of the Bible, Genesis, it describes the creation of the earth, stars, planets, universe, etc., as something God created with some form of supernatural power. However, scientists have theories forming today..especially the Big Bang Theory. How does the Bible justify that? It has been proven that the universe was at one point millions of billions of years ago all compiled into one small, particle sized combustion. Then, something didn't click right within the object and it caused a catastrophic event, with the universe exploding and expanding at a super high rate. This expansion has slowed down a good bit, but it hasn't ceased, and isn't even close. In my opinion, the universe will expand untill it reaches its farthest most point, then begin retracting into that small particle and the cycle will repeat itself. Bu thats how I view the world, not yours, just thought I'd put my two cents in.

[Harold Wood]

hahaha way to be an asshole.

It's all based on faith, I said that before.

and I didn't claim you did anything it just sounds like it.

you sound like you can't think for yourself you sound like you just regurgitate everything you read.

I was just making an observation

[tambam]

There may be no way to denounce your form of the truth, but there can be a way to over power (I couldn't think of a better word to use sorry) your truth with a different form. I am a strong non-believer, atheist, anti-christian, whatever your fancy of words may be. But they all mean the same. I was at one point a christian, a very strong one at that. I know of the book of Revelation, and of Zecharaia (sp?), and the references of the conflicts in the 'holy' land of Israel. But I also know that the Bible could just be a whole bunch of stories put together over time that has grown to be one of the largest published books in the world. In my opinion, humanity has blown up this little story book into this whole religious ideal, of which I think as incorrect.

Another thing, in the very first book of the Bible, Genesis, it describes the creation of the earth, stars, planets, universe, etc., as something God created with some form of supernatural power. However, scientists have theories forming today..especially the Big Bang Theory. How does the Bible justify that? It has been proven that the universe was at one point millions of billions of years ago all compiled into one small, particle sized combustion. Then, something didn't click right within the object and it caused a catastrophic event, with the universe exploding and expanding at a super high rate. This expansion has slowed down a good bit, but it hasn't ceased, and isn't even close. In my opinion, the universe will expand untill it reaches its farthest most point, then begin retracting into that small particle and the cycle will repeat itself. Bu thats how I view the world, not yours, just thought I'd put my two cents in.

Exactly. I completely agree. In my mind, science will always have more truth in it than a book that was written thousands of years ago by who-knows-who. Who's to say that it wasn't written by three ordinary guys who wanted to change the world but really weren't inspired by anything unwordly? As time progresses, scientific evidence has come to light that explains things that the Bible attempted to. But this time, it's comes from facts rather than the Bible, which isn't a credible source in my mind whatsoever. Every religion has it's own explanations, it's own prespective. I don't like how some Christians think their way is the only way, all the while ignoring the hundreds of other religions in the world and their written text. That's precisely why I don't follow a religion, because for one to be completely right, the rest have to be wrong in one way or another. Not to mention religion is an entirely man-made thing.

[Harold Wood]

Exactly. I completely agree. In my mind, science will always have more truth in it than a book that was written thousands of years ago by who-knows-who. Who's to say that it wasn't written by three ordinary guys who wanted to change the world but really weren't inspired by anything unwordly? As time progresses, scientific evidence has come to light that explains things that the Bible attempted to. But this time, it's comes from facts rather than the Bible, which isn't a credible source in my mind whatsoever. Every religion has it's own explanations, it's own prespective. I don't like how some Christians think their way is the only way, all the while ignoring the hundreds of other religions in the world and their written text. That's precisely why I don't follow a religion, because for one to be completely right, the rest have to be wrong in one way or another. Not to mention religion is an entirely man-made thing.

I agree

I wish I was not at work and I could actually make a statement about it but I agree.

[cantnokdahustle]

Christ is a historical figure. That's like saying Shakespeare never existed. You know it was documented over and over apart from scripture right?


No its not like saying Shakespeare never existed, we have sources from authors and governmental records of such a person, who in fact left his own writings and was written about at the same time he was alive by many different writers. None of this can be said of jesus.

Now, Jesus may be a historical figure, but there is absolutely no evidence outside of the gospels and perhaps vague references to this figure by later historians (all of which born after the time of said figure). Again, the gospels, the oldest of which dates back to the late part of the 1st century, while the rest date between the 2nd and 3rd centuries. jesus left no writings himself (at least Muhammad was literate) and no contemporaneous official Roman record exists of this figure, and they kept immaculate records of those they were afraid of.

If i want nothing else to be taken from this: I am an agnostic as to whether there was ever a historical jesus. But to compare the evidence between a historical jesus and a historical Shakespeare is absolutely ludicrous.

[Harold Wood]

No its not like saying Shakespeare never existed, we have sources from authors and governmental records of such a person, who in fact left his own writings and was written about at the same time he was alive by many different writers. None of this can be said of jesus.

Now, Jesus may be a historical figure, but there is absolutely no evidence outside of the gospels and perhaps vague references to this figure by later historians (all of which born after the time of said figure). Again, the gospels, the oldest of which dates back to the late part of the 1st century, while the rest date between the 2nd and 3rd centuries. jesus left no writings himself (at least Muhammad was literate) and no contemporaneous official Roman record exists of this figure, and they kept immaculate records of those they were afraid of.

If i want nothing else to be taken from this: I am an agnostic as to whether there was ever a historical jesus. But to compare the evidence between a historical jesus and a historical Shakespeare is absolutely ludicrous.

As a christian my believing that Jesus was a human is based on faith. That is the whole basis of christianity so you can make the same point every agnostic has made for centuries and honestly it won't matter won't bit.

[buysoap]

No its not like saying Shakespeare never existed, we have sources from authors and governmental records of such a person, who in fact left his own writings and was written about at the same time he was alive by many different writers. None of this can be said of jesus.

Now, Jesus may be a historical figure, but there is absolutely no evidence outside of the gospels and perhaps vague references to this figure by later historians (all of which born after the time of said figure). Again, the gospels, the oldest of which dates back to the late part of the 1st century, while the rest date between the 2nd and 3rd centuries. jesus left no writings himself (at least Muhammad was literate) and no contemporaneous official Roman record exists of this figure, and they kept immaculate records of those they were afraid of.

If i want nothing else to be taken from this: I am an agnostic as to whether there was ever a historical jesus. But to compare the evidence between a historical jesus and a historical Shakespeare is absolutely ludicrous.

YOU ARE A FUCKING RETARD I HOPE YOU DIE KILL YOURSELF

[Alex Djaferis]

They would stop loving because infinity does not love them?

If you want to go ahead and presuppose that humans have some sort of teleological duty go ahead. But you need not presume a soul, angels, or ghosts to answer such a question. This was, in fact the question to which philosophy has ever reached any sort of consensus (as well as can be had). Whether you are an asshole egoist (ala Ayn Rand), or more utilitarian (via Mill) or a spiritualist like Plato (to which you all owe your Christian identity) the human aim has been happiness. Now, make sure that you know that 'happiness' is not characterized by amusement or satisfaction. You certainly don't have to but you can pretty much take that as the only synthetic axiom to exist.

Also, evil and victory, love and honor, and happiness do not cease to exist if there is not some sort of "greater force" than that which is carried by these individual virtues (they pack quite the punch themselves). love, happiness, honor and evil are in no way diminished if we can not obtain immortality, they mean everything to almost all living sentient beings. Fuck, look back to the "first" epic, or oldest to have survived, that of Gilgamesh, that is the entire point of the work. Make merry, because one day you are going to die and that comes to us all, save for Utnapishtim.


fair enough dude. totally. but when you actually SEE ghosts and FEEL spirits. come talking to me again k?

[cantnokdahustle]

As a christian my believing that Jesus was a human is based on faith.

Fantastic, the post was directed at the person who stated that jesus, without a doubt is a historical figure, and then made a rather absurd analogy.

[punklet2101]

No its not like saying Shakespeare never existed, we have sources from authors and governmental records of such a person, who in fact left his own writings and was written about at the same time he was alive by many different writers. None of this can be said of jesus.

Now, Jesus may be a historical figure, but there is absolutely no evidence outside of the gospels and perhaps vague references to this figure by later historians (all of which born after the time of said figure). Again, the gospels, the oldest of which dates back to the late part of the 1st century, while the rest date between the 2nd and 3rd centuries. jesus left no writings himself (at least Muhammad was literate) and no contemporaneous official Roman record exists of this figure, and they kept immaculate records of those they were afraid of.

If i want nothing else to be taken from this: I am an agnostic as to whether there was ever a historical jesus. But to compare the evidence between a historical jesus and a historical Shakespeare is absolutely ludicrous.

Calm down I didn't mean it so literally.

My point is, there have been many documents. There are always questions of authenticity, though. But it's my belief was Jesus was absolutely a historical figure.

This covers a lot of stuff: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Historicity_of_Jesus

[cantnokdahustle]

your grammar was a bit off, wee bit of a run on you had going there.
YOU ARE A FUCKING RETARD. I HOPE YOU DIE. KILL YOURSELF.


also, perhaps you would like to offer an intelligible response, no?

[TranscendTrends]

i live in the south, also known as the bible belt, and i hate it everytime i meet someone new they ask me, "what church do you do to?" so arrogantly and when i tell them i dont they get offended and tell me to come to theirs. i have been to church, though i was raised with no religion in my life, and i have decided on my own that i cannot believe what they teach. in my opinion, most of the church is filled with hypocrites. "thou shall not kill" and yet they raise crusades a "holy war" what is holy about slaying another human being? they teach acceptance and open mindedness when they refuse to accept other religions (ex: one of my friends held a bible study that brought in a lady from her church and she flat out told us that the muslims died for a lie, well its not a lie to them) also, religion has turned into another fad "its cool to be christian" atleast in my high school. i know is i cant be apart of a church thats filled with constant hypocrisy, but i dont know if i believe in a god or not, somedays i believe it is a mere human structure designed to help the weak to believe they are important and will always be safe, but other days(a noticably fewer amount) i wonder if there is a possibility that there is a god. if religion is right for me i will find it on my own time and until that happens (or if it never does) i will stick atheism/agostic (i dont really know which i would be considered but i dont really care)

haha, yeah, being from the midwest, I've had similar encounters with religious zealots. They are products of their environment, unable to think for themselves. I agree with most of what you've said.

Voltaire once wrote: "If god did not exist, it would be necessary to invent him."
I think that most people feel that innate desire to hope that someone is watching over and protecting them. For me, this is not enough to constitute belief.

To quote Dostoevsky's story about the Grand Inquisitor, "People want miracle, mystery, and authority. The church gives them this." And to summarize some of the works of John Stewart Mill, it is the duty of all mankind to seek the truth and to never impose beliefs upon others, unless you've thought about the opposite opinion and have considered what it would be like if you were wrong. Test your belief as if it were false, otherwise your belief is merely dogmatic prejudice.

Basically, if your claim is that God exists, consider if it was false. What difference would it make, both to you and to the world? If you don't consider this, then your belief doesn't mean a thing.

It is the hardest thing in the world for a rational, intelligent person to truly believe in something. I commend those on here who have such spiritual faith. My quarrels lie with most forms of organized religion and those 'believers' who are ignorant and close-minded to other people's beliefs and ideals. don't hate on others who have different beliefs.

[Harold Wood]

Fantastic, the post was directed at the person who stated that jesus, without a doubt is a historical figure, and then made a rather absurd analogy.

I don't think you can have an actual conversation; not everything is an argument or an attack at what you say.

[s.t.e.v.e.n.]

the bible is more reliable as a historical source than many documents that are readily accepted.

http://www.digisys.net/users/ddalton/the_bible_vs__other_ancient_books.h tm

there are many other sources for information like this, so before you go saying that its some christian conspiracy, the point is, some simple research will show that the bible is not as unreliable as some here are claiming, therefore the existence of jesus isn't "only based on faith". much of christianity is, but there are also plenty of solid facts to back it up.

[cantnokdahustle]

I don't think you can have an actual conversation; not everything is an argument or an attack at what you say.


I rather thought things were quite amicable until you accused me of plagiarism.

[cfear]

Now, Jesus may be a historical figure, but there is absolutely no evidence outside of the gospels and perhaps vague references to this figure by later historians (all of which born after the time of said figure). Again, the gospels, the oldest of which dates back to the late part of the 1st century, while the rest date between the 2nd and 3rd centuries. jesus left no writings himself (at least Muhammad was literate) and no contemporaneous official Roman record exists of this figure, and they kept immaculate records of those they were afraid of.

Ok. You try and make a valid point, but you lose credibility when you say that you doubt the existence of Jesus. He did exist historically. Though, the things he did are highly doubtful. The Gospels dictate the things Jesus did in the last four years of his life, and not the things he did before that. You are right to question the validity of the Gospels in determining Jesus' existence, but it isn't for the reason you stated. The time lapse is irrelevant. Jesus was written about by non-/anti-Christian scholars in the second and third centuries, so mention of him are not confined to Gospels. If you remember Greek history then you will recall that the most accurate, in-depth, and accepted histories of the Persian Wars come from a man who wrote about them a century or so later from things he had heard. (Actually, I think he wrote about them 50-60 years later now that I think about it.) Also, historians today write about things they weren't around for. First hand experience isn't necessary to know that a person did in fact exist. If that were the case then Peter might not have existed, and he did exist.

[cantnokdahustle]

Ok. You try and make a valid point, but you lose credibility when you say that you doubt the existence of Jesus. He did exist historically. Though, the things he did are highly doubtful. The Gospels dictate the things Jesus did in the last four years of his life, and not the things he did before that. You are right to question the validity of the Gospels in determining Jesus' existence, but it isn't for the reason you stated. The time lapse is irrelevant. Jesus was written about by non-/anti-Christian scholars in the second and third centuries, so mention of him are not confined to Gospels. If you remember Greek history then you will recall that the most accurate, in-depth, and accepted histories of the Persian Wars come from a man who wrote about them a century or so later from things he had heard. (Actually, I think he wrote about them 50-60 years later now that I think about it.) Also, historians today write about things they weren't around for. First hand experience isn't necessary to know that a person did in fact exist. If that were the case then Peter might not have existed, and he did exist.


I will assume that you are speaking of Herodotus (who's writings I have already briefly addressed in the thread). I will also assume that you have not read much Herodotus, for you characterize his writings about the Persian wars as "the most accurate, in-depth, and accepted." While I do not have much of a quibble with this statement, for you did use the qualifier "most," I hope you are not asserting that Herodotus was as confident about his reporting as it seems you are taking him to have been.

If you had read Herodotus you would find a rather humble reporter who often displays his skepticism of what he is reporting. Subsequently there are many debates about the historical accuracy of Herodotus' Persian war accounts, and the only reason we take a chunk at a time to be accurate is when it is corroborated by archaeological evidence (much has in fact been corroborated, no where near all) Otherwise, those spots we cannot yet affirm are taken with a grain of salt.

Now, I rather like Herodotus, and I am in the camp that he did the best he could with the time he was in and the resources he had. There is as much mythology in The Histories as there is in the Bible, and more corroborated history in The Histories than in Te Biblia.


"I am obliged to record the things I am told, but I am certainly not required to believe them." - Herodotus' The Histories
^this is the most responsible approach to second hand historical reporting that one can take.

[Harold Wood]

the bible is more reliable as a historical source than many documents that are readily accepted.

http://www.digisys.net/users/ddalton/the_bible_vs__other_ancient_books.h tm

there are many other sources for information like this, so before you go saying that its some christian conspiracy, the point is, some simple research will show that the bible is not as unreliable as some here are claiming, therefore the existence of jesus isn't "only based on faith". much of christianity is, but there are also plenty of solid facts to back it up.

My point is christians rely on their faith and that is all they need. I don't need historical references to back up the fact that Jesus was real.

[Harold Wood]

I rather thought things were quite amicable until you accused me of plagiarism.

I didn't accuse, I made an opinion about the way you present your point. You don't sound very personal about the message you are trying to convey.

['hawk110G]

Alright dudes come on now seriousley. This isn't some accusational, lets-see-who-can-insult-who-better-contest ok? Come on, this a debate forum. If your gunna go kill each other, do it on AIM, not here. No one else here cares.

[Harold Wood]

we are debating.....

[TranscendTrends]

Well, I hope that I'm not diverging too much from the topic at hand, but I've got a question:

For those of you who are believers of Christ, do you think that if you were born in a different part of the world, would you also practice the beliefs that were customary in that society? If you were born in Tibet, would you be a Buddhist? ---(In my opinion, it is the coolest religion). If you were born in India, would you be a practicing Hindu? If you were born in Egypt, would you be a devout Muslim?

I guess my point would be, does this belief stem from being raised in your specific environment?

[Love As Arson]

No its not like saying Shakespeare never existed, we have sources from authors and governmental records of such a person, who in fact left his own writings and was written about at the same time he was alive by many different writers. None of this can be said of jesus.
You must trust those that present you with evidence of Shakespeare's existence, as you were not alive during Shakespeare's time to observe him being written about. You only have evidence provided you after the fact, which claim to be contemporary accounts of the man.

[cfear]

I will assume that you are speaking of Herodotus (who's writings I have already briefly addressed in the thread). I will also assume that you have not read much Herodotus, for you characterize his writings about the Persian wars as "the most accurate, in-depth, and accepted." While I do not have much of a quibble with this statement, for you did use the qualifier "most," I hope you are not asserting that Herodotus was as confident about his reporting as it seems you are taking him to have been.

If you had read Herodotus you would find a rather humble reporter who often displays his skepticism of what he is reporting. Subsequently there are many debates about the historical accuracy of Herodotus' Persian war accounts, and the only reason we take a chunk at a time to be accurate is when it is corroborated by archaeological evidence (much has in fact been corroborated, no where near all) Otherwise, those spots we cannot yet affirm are taken with a grain of salt.

Now, I rather like Herodotus, and I am in the camp that he did the best he could with the time he was in and the resources he had. There is as much mythology in The Histories as there is in the Bible, and more corroborated history in The Histories than in Te Biblia.


"I am obliged to record the things I am told, but I am certainly not required to believe them." - Herodotus' The Histories
^this is the most responsible approach to second hand historical reporting that one can take.

I do agree with you. Herodotus was flawed, but he is the most accurate (if only because he is one of a very few people to chronicle The Persian Wars). Maybe I take too much of what I learn/read in history, but my professor is just one of those guys who loves Herodotus (he made us read a lot when we covered the Persian Wars).

[cfear]

Well, I hope that I'm not diverging too much from the topic at hand, but I've got a question:

For those of you who are believers of Christ, do you think that if you were born in a different part of the world, would you also practice the beliefs that were customary in that society? If you were born in Tibet, would you be a Buddhist? ---(In my opinion, it is the coolest religion). If you were born in India, would you be a practicing Hindu? If you were born in Egypt, would you be a devout Muslim?

I guess my point would be, does this belief stem from being raised in your specific environment?

To me this is a no-brainer. Everyone is, generally, shaped by their surroundings. I think there is enough anthropological evidence to prove that.

[tambam]

Well, I hope that I'm not diverging too much from the topic at hand, but I've got a question:

For those of you who are believers of Christ, do you think that if you were born in a different part of the world, would you also practice the beliefs that were customary in that society? If you were born in Tibet, would you be a Buddhist? ---(In my opinion, it is the coolest religion). If you were born in India, would you be a practicing Hindu? If you were born in Egypt, would you be a devout Muslim?

I guess my point would be, does this belief stem from being raised in your specific environment?

Good point. And I agree on Buddhism being the coolest religion, too. ;-)

[Love As Arson]

Well, I hope that I'm not diverging too much from the topic at hand, but I've got a question:

For those of you who are believers of Christ, do you think that if you were born in a different part of the world, would you also practice the beliefs that were customary in that society? If you were born in Tibet, would you be a Buddhist? ---(In my opinion, it is the coolest religion). If you were born in India, would you be a practicing Hindu? If you were born in Egypt, would you be a devout Muslim?

I guess my point would be, does this belief stem from being raised in your specific environment?
What if you believe the different religions are not representative of different gods, but merely different cultural interpretations of god?

[TranscendTrends]

Good point. And I agree on Buddhism being the coolest religion, too. ;-)

hahaha. thanks. yeah, I guess what I'm trying to get at is that it's okay to question your society's customs and belief systems. I would hope that Christians don't immediately reject other religions simply because they were raised Christian, and that "all other religions are thereby false." I remember hearing a lot of talk like that when I lived in the midwest, and it just ticked me off.

[TranscendTrends]

What if you believe the different religions are not representative of different gods, but merely different cultural interpretations of god?

I would applaud your ability to look past all the stigmas that most people get caught in. I would generally agree with you.

[tambam]

hahaha. thanks. yeah, I guess what I'm trying to get at is that it's okay to question your society's customs and belief systems. I would hope that Christians don't immediately reject other religions simply because they were raised Christian, and that "all other religions are thereby false." I remember hearing a lot of talk like that when I lived in the midwest, and it just ticked me off.

Exactly. They need to realize that their religion isn't superior by default just because they believe in it.

[Harold Wood]

What if you believe the different religions are not representative of different gods, but merely different cultural interpretations of god?

I always love the points you make and I love this one.

[Love As Arson]

I would applaud your ability to look past all the stigmas that most people get caught in. I would generally agree with you.
I ask that question because I see an underlying fundemental truth in many religions that are practiced,which connects them more than segregates them. One also finds many similar concepts in the theological beliefs. For example, nirvana is quite similar to theosis as described by St. Athanasius.

[TranscendTrends]

I ask that question because I see an underlying fundemental truth in many religions that are practiced,which connects them more than segregates them. One also finds many similar concepts in the theological beliefs. For example, nirvana is quite similar to theosis as described by St. Athanasius.

you speak the truth, brotha. if only more people in organized religions could notice these connected underlying beliefs, as opposed to bickering about the things that seperate them. maybe then, we'd have a bit more peace on earth.

[Harold Wood]

I ask that question because I see an underlying fundemental truth in many religions that are practiced,which connects them more than segregates them. One also finds many similar concepts in the theological beliefs. For example, nirvana is quite similar to theosis as described by St. Athanasius.

I agree with you here as well. C.S. Lewis does a good job of discussing this in mere christianity.

[Harold Wood]

you speak the truth, brotha. if only more people in organized religions could notice these connected underlying beliefs, as opposed to bickering about the things that seperate them. maybe then, we'd have a bit more peace on earth.

Organized religions genreally believe they have an agenda of their own and not of the God or diety they follow; that is the may issue. Take the crusades for example.

[Love As Arson]

I do not think religion is the actual cause of these conflicts. The material conditions of the people determines how they interact with other societies. It is not a coincidence that the same societies that were subject to imperialism, then left with inequality and misery, are reacting virulently to first world nations. Religion is merely a justification for the way they respond. They would be acting in the same manner if their conditions were the same and religion was absent.

[Harold Wood]

I do not think religion is the actual cause of these conflicts. The material conditions of the people determines how they interact with other societies. It is not a coincidence that the same societies that were subject to imperialism, then left with inequality and misery, are reacting virulently to first world nations. Religion is merely a justification for the way they respond. They would be acting in the same manner if their conditions were the same and religion was absent.

So you are saying they use religion as a means to end to fulfill other agendas???

[s.t.e.v.e.n.]

christians believe that there religion is the way because Jesus said "I am the way, the truth, and the life, no one comes to the father but through me".

Knowing that, it would not make much sense to then also say that every other religion is right too. If you think that Jesus was wrong in saying that then thats a different issue. But it makes sense for a follower of christ to believe what christ said.

[Love As Arson]

So you are saying they use religion as a means to end to fulfill other agendas???
I am saying that, in conditions of such hopelessness, you will have people using traditional paradigms, like religion, to justify the only action they feel they can take: Armed resistance.

christians believe that there religion is the way because Jesus said "I am the way, the truth, and the life, no one comes to the father but through me".

Knowing that, it would not make much sense to then also say that every other religion is right too. If you think that Jesus was wrong in saying that then thats a different issue. But it makes sense for a follower of christ to believe what christ said.
If one believes that all religions are representative of one eternal being, then, in belief, are they not following his way?

[s.t.e.v.e.n.]

If one believes that all religions are representative of one eternal being, then, in belief, are they not following his way?


Well I'd say it comes down to whether or not you believe in absolute truth or not.

If you believe that truth is determined by ones belief then anyone could really believe anything.
If you believe that there is one truth whether one believes it or not then not every religion can be right.

That being said, the question you pose is a tough one. Personally, i try to seek the truth every day and every time i honestly seek the truth, i find God and Jesus Christ. God is not afraid of us looking for the truth. It goes back to what i said before about absolute truth, If God is true (which i believe him to be absolutely) then he knows what you will find if you honestly seek the truth. Him.

It doesn't mean that people of all beliefs shouldn't be respected.

[Harold Wood]

I am saying that, in conditions of such hopelessness, you will have people using traditional paradigms, like religion, to justify the only action they feel they can take: Armed resistance.


It's happening all around us.

[Love As Arson]

It's happening all around us.
Religious fundementalism in first world countries is decidedly different from countries that have been the victims of imperialism. It is that, not the Koran or bible, which breeds terrorism.

Well I'd say it comes down to whether or not you believe in absolute truth or not.

If you believe that truth is determined by ones belief then anyone could really believe anything.
If you believe that there is one truth whether one believes it or not then not every religion can be right.

That being said, the question you pose is a tough one. Personally, i try to seek the truth every day and every time i honestly seek the truth, i find God and Jesus Christ. God is not afraid of us looking for the truth. It goes back to what i said before about absolute truth, If God is true (which i believe him to be absolutely) then he knows what you will find if you honestly seek the truth. Him.

It doesn't mean that people of all beliefs shouldn't be respected.
I am arguing for an absolute truth. The difference, however, is that culture affects how one presents that truth. So, for example, Buddhism has a different belief system, yet the concept of love and comradery that is found in Christianity is found in that religion as well. Furthermore, if god is true, then it provides a different path for each individual to reach him, as it is shown that god meets people where they are.

[Harold Wood]

Religious fundementalism in first world countries is decidedly different from countries that have been the victims of imperialism. It is that, not the Koran or bible, which breeds terrorism.


Thanks for the insight. I completely agree with you.

[punklet2101]

Well, I hope that I'm not diverging too much from the topic at hand, but I've got a question:

For those of you who are believers of Christ, do you think that if you were born in a different part of the world, would you also practice the beliefs that were customary in that society? If you were born in Tibet, would you be a Buddhist? ---(In my opinion, it is the coolest religion). If you were born in India, would you be a practicing Hindu? If you were born in Egypt, would you be a devout Muslim?

I guess my point would be, does this belief stem from being raised in your specific environment?

No not at all. I wasn't raised a Christian, in Christian surroundings, or in a Christian family yet I became a Christian in my teens.

[A picasso blue]

The fact of the matter is that you cannot prove that your God exists and say, Zeus and Athena do not. Youre basically an atheist except for when it comes to your religion

[punklet2101]

The fact of the matter is that you cannot prove that your God exists and say, Zeus and Athena do not. Youre basically an atheist except for when it comes to your religion

Another fact: I don't need to prove that my God exists and Zeus and Athena do not. It's something that I know for myself, like I know my God exists as much if not more than I know i'm typing at a keyboard.

We can all say "prove this, prove that" but really it's going to be one word/belief against another.

[punklet2101]

This isn't directly related but I wanted to post it somewhere for those who were interested, if you're a believer and haven't heard this sermon (http://www.sermonaudio.com/sermoninfo.asp?sermonID=52906154239 ) you should hear it

[Harold Wood]

Another fact: I don't need to prove that my God exists and Zeus and Athena do not. It's something that I know for myself, like I know my God exists as much if not more than I know i'm typing at a keyboard.

We can all say "prove this, prove that" but really it's going to be one word/belief against another.

:-)

[petey536]

What if you believe the different religions are not representative of different gods, but merely different cultural interpretations of god?
very well said, that is exactly how i feel, but i couldnt have written it out better than that

[petey536]

This isn't directly related but I wanted to post it somewhere for those who were interested, if you're a believer and haven't heard this sermon (http://www.sermonaudio.com/sermoninfo.asp?sermonID=52906154239 )you should hear it
im going to check this out, thanks

[petey536]

This isn't directly related but I wanted to post it somewhere for those who were interested, if you're a believer and haven't heard this sermon (http://www.sermonaudio.com/sermoninfo.asp?sermonID=52906154239 )you should hear it
im only half way through and this is strenthening my faith

[we are cured]

Another fact: I don't need to prove that my God exists and Zeus and Athena do not. It's something that I know for myself, like I know my God exists as much if not more than I know i'm typing at a keyboard.

We can all say "prove this, prove that" but really it's going to be one word/belief against another.

No of course not - you don't need to prove anything.

However, some of us do. Some of us believe that everything existant in the universe was created at one time by something we cannot comprehend - and we would like to find out what that is. We may never find out who or what created the Universe and the Earth, humans and our trivial problems, but we're sure as hell not going to give up and believe in an almighty character historically used to sustain low-class servitude.

That being said, your beliefs are certainly valid, but so are ours.

[Harold Wood]

No of course not - you don't need to prove anything.

However, some of us do. Some of us believe that everything existant in the universe was created at one time by something we cannot comprehend - and we would like to find out what that is. We may never find out who or what created the Universe and the Earth, humans and our trivial problems, but we're sure as hell not going to give up and believe in an almighty character historically used to sustain low-class servitude.

That being said, your beliefs are certainly valid, but so are ours.

I don't think anyone in this thread has said your beliefs are not valid

[cantnokdahustle]

I am arguing for an absolute truth. The difference, however, is that culture affects how one presents that truth. So, for example, Buddhism has a different belief system, yet the concept of love and comradery that is found in Christianity is found in that religion as well. Furthermore, if god is true, then it provides a different path for each individual to reach him, as it is shown that god meets people where they are.

I would very much be interested in reading your argument for why it is an omniscient god, foreseeing the trouble to be caused by a culturally semi-relativistic revealing of itself, would proceed in doing this.

would you then conclude that culture preceeds god and thus god felt compelled to conform to the cultures he revealed itself to? or is it just an easier way for us to have understood? If so, why have waited so long?

Also, would you thus take such protocanonical books such as Deuteronomy to be in complete error? I ask because that book, especially, spends much of its time condemning the Canaanites and Babylonian gods and the worship of those gods, of which their existence is never denied by YHWH.

I certainly would not argue that there are certain themes that pervade most of the world's religions, but are these not the same themes that have been present in most of literature as well (secular and religious)? I am trying to understand if you are saying that god is necessary for these human themes to have appeared.

[we are cured]

I don't think anyone in this thread has said your beliefs are not valid

I wasn't defending them. I was merely trying to shed light on the fact that proof plays a big role in some people's lives.

[Harold Wood]

I wasn't defending them. I was merely trying to shed light on the fact that proof plays a big role in some people's lives.

I understand that =)

[punklet2101]

No of course not - you don't need to prove anything.

However, some of us do. Some of us believe that everything existant in the universe was created at one time by something we cannot comprehend - and we would like to find out what that is. We may never find out who or what created the Universe and the Earth, humans and our trivial problems, but we're sure as hell not going to give up and believe in an almighty character historically used to sustain low-class servitude.

That being said, your beliefs are certainly valid, but so are ours.

Of course. I'd never tell someone their beliefs weren't valid. But it sure as hell feels like people do that to me all the time. But I guess that's ok?

[we are cured]

Of course. I'd never tell someone their beliefs weren't valid. But it sure as hell feels like people do that to me all the time. But I guess that's ok?

Nah, those people suck, don't listen to them.

[Love As Arson]

I would very much be interested in reading your argument for why it is an omniscient god, foreseeing the trouble to be caused by a culturally semi-relativistic revealing of itself, would proceed in doing this.
Humanity caused the conflict, not the differing way in which god revealed itself. One tends to find that religious conflicts are not actually the result of religious differences, but other underlying social conflicts.



would you then conclude that culture preceeds god and thus god felt compelled to conform to the cultures he revealed itself to? or is it just an easier way for us to have understood? If so, why have waited so long?
It did not preceed god, but god did not necessarily create it. And yes, it is easier for humanity to have interpreted god along cultural lines.


Also, would you thus take such protocanonical books such as Deuteronomy to be in complete error? I ask because that book, especially, spends much of its time condemning the Canaanites and Babylonian gods and the worship of those gods, of which their existence is never denied by YHWH.
The Israelites were like any other nation at that point in time; that is, vying for cultural dominance and supression in the process. The religious text flows from this. I should notify you that I am not one that believes in the complete inerrancy of biblical scripture.


I certainly would not argue that there are certain themes that pervade most of the world's religions, but are these not the same themes that have been present in most of literature as well (secular and religious)? I am trying to understand if you are saying that god is necessary for these human themes to have appeared.
I would argue that the similarities in moral themes is representative of a pervasive fundemental truth.

[NickBender]

well, that statement your friend made is a bit sketch. the word comes from the combination of the greek words a-(meaning without) and gnosis-(meaning knowledge). to assume that this translates to idiot, is a bit, well, idiotic. It means unknowable, as in it is impossible to be certain whether or not god exists, since as far as we know with current knowledge, god is not a tangible 'thing' that you can see or otherwise feel.
this friend of yours is seriously a religious studies major? maybe he should think a bit for himself instead of just spouting off what his professor told him.

that what i figured, it sounded flimsy. but hoped that someone a little more educated could better explain it.

he did seem to have the attitude that he just got back from college and now he knows so much more than these kids that are still in high school. this was a while ago.

[Bad Luck Prince]

I believe in God. Seriously. There are so many things I could say that truly amaze me and that make perfect since. My grandma was in the hospital and he had cancer. He was told he would die in two months and then the cancer went away. The tumor was gone and the doctors couldn't explain it. They were baffled. What happened was my whole church went to pray for her and that's what saved her. Our pleas to God had caused some kind of occurance from him. I can't even give us credit, because it wasn't us that did anything. We just asked. It was God.

I don't believe in the whole "God didn't answer my prayer so I don't believe" theory. It's a bunch of bull. God doesn't answer to man. He is a free thinking entity and he has the right to deny your request. If he would have done that to my grandma I would have still believed. In fact, he decided to take my brother, so I still can't use that excuse, even though I am eligiable for it. God's more than just belief. It's a life. You can believe, but it won't get you anywhere.

If you were wondering. I am a Baptist.

[cantnokdahustle]

Humanity caused the conflict, not the differing way in which god revealed itself. One tends to find that religious conflicts are not actually the result of religious differences, but other underlying social conflicts.

I agree that humanity caused the conflict, obviously. Perhaps I was unclear. Given that one of the perennial/principle attributes that is given to god is omniscience, knowing his differing revealings would cause problems (understatement), why would god have gone about it this way. If god were omniscient then its logical choices are infinity. couple this with omnibenevolence and I fail to see how this was the best way for god to have revealed itself. If, in fact, god does possess these attributes then it is responsible for the conflict, because it could have done otherwise and minimized suffering.


It did not preceed god, but god did not necessarily create it. And yes, it is easier for humanity to have interpreted god along cultural lines.

I am sorry, I meant did culture precede god's revealing of itself? If so, why didn't god reveal itself beforehand to ease the inevitable tensions that would follow?


The Israelites were like any other nation at that point in time; that is, vying for cultural dominance and supression in the process. The religious text flows from this. I should notify you that I am not one that believes in the complete inerrancy of biblical scripture.
I am happy to hear that, but then what good is the bible?



I would argue that the similarities in moral themes is representative of a pervasive fundemental truth.

with or without god, or does it matter?

[Love As Arson]

I agree that humanity caused the conflict, obviously. Perhaps I was unclear. Given that one of the perennial/principle attributes that is given to god is omniscience, knowing his differing revealings would cause problems (understatement), why would god have gone about it this way. If god were omniscient then its logical choices are infinity. couple this with omnibenevolence and I fail to see how this was the best way for god to have revealed itself. If, in fact, god does possess these attributes then it is responsible for the conflict, because it could have done otherwise and minimized suffering.
It is not the differing revelations, which cause conflict, as I said, it has to do with other social conflicts, desires and conditions. Religion is merely a means to justify an act that would take place regardless, therefore the blame should not be placed upon god, but the individual/group and conditions that bore the conflict.


I am sorry, I meant did culture precede god's revealing of itself?
Yes. Though, I imagine it was necessary, as revealing itself to bacteria would not seem conducive for much further interaction.


I am happy to hear that, but then what good is the bible?
The bible serves a specific purpose, which is one of service to faith, not science or anything else. As such, I use reason, not scripture, when dealing with things having to do with science, history, etc.


with or without god, or does it matter?
Yes, I am saying god is the source of those themes.

[cantnokdahustle]

It is not the differing revelations, which cause conflict, as I said, it has to do with other social conflicts, desires and conditions. Religion is merely a means to justify an act that would take place regardless, therefore the blame should not be placed upon god, but the individual/group and conditions that bore the conflict.

In part I disagree. Given all of the attributes of god it could be the only responsible entity for these conflicts. Now, seeing as how I don't believe in such a being, I do think in actuality that humans are ultimately responsible for the conflict. I also think you underestimate the power of the religion to an utterly irresponsible extent. I am sorry to be so blunt but your claim is absolutely false. There is no way the crusades or the inquisition would have taken place without the existence of the religions.

Now, it is not my position that religion is fully responsible for these events, but it plays a necessary role. Meaning, without the religious aspect the events in no way resemble the events that have actually taken place. It takes social conflict (economic) and religious conflict for the events to escalate in the manner that they do.


Yes. Though, I imagine it was necessary, as revealing itself to bacteria would not seem conducive for much further interaction.

very clever, perhaps I should have stated early human culture.

The bible serves a specific purpose, which is one of service to faith, not science or anything else. As such, I use reason, not scripture, when dealing with things having to do with science, history, etc.

If you can use reason in one situation and not in the other and are able to make that demarcation, more power to you. I on the other hand cannot.

If god is as defined, be it generally, then the inaccuracy of the bible is a very strong case against the xtian god. Now, if you are a deist, then I have no quibble, for they have managed to be sufficiently vague.


Yes, I am saying god is the source of those themes.

And, there is very little in argument that can be said against this, except that it is immune to verification.

[Love As Arson]

In part I disagree. Given all of the attributes of god it could be the only responsible entity for these conflicts. Now, seeing as how I don't believe in such a being, I do think in actuality that humans are ultimately responsible for the conflict. I also think you underestimate the power of the religion to an utterly irresponsible extent. I am sorry to be so blunt but your claim is absolutely false. There is no way the crusades or the inquisition would have taken place without the existence of the religions.
The Spanish Inquisition occurred because Isabella and Ferdinand wanted to cosolidate power. Religious uniformity was to play a role in the consolidation of power. The first crusades were the result of the expanding Muslim army and its capture of territories that belonged to the Byzantine Empire. The following Crusades occurred for economic and imperialistic reasons, not for the glory of god. Certainly the given ideologies were an excellent justification, as it appeals to emotion, but the responses would have been the same given the same situations with secular ideologies in place.



Now, it is not my position that religion is fully responsible for these events, but it plays a necessary role. Meaning, without the religious aspect the events in no way resemble the events that have actually taken place. It takes social conflict (economic) and religious conflict for the events to escalate in the manner that they do.
The economic conflict elicits the escalation. The role religion plays is merely one of providing something to wrap brutality in, which can be done with a number of available ideologies. Currently, we are encouraging brutality under the guise of freedom. This does not mean that freedom is at the heart of the problem, rather the economic desires of the United States is driving the violence, with freedom as the ideal that obfuscates reality.


If you can use reason in one situation and not in the other and are able to make that demarcation, more power to you. I on the other hand cannot.
So, one should read a children's book in the same manner that they read a history book, though they serve very different purposes?

If god is as defined, be it generally, then the inaccuracy of the bible is a very strong case against the xtian god. Now, if you are a deist, then I have no quibble, for they have managed to be sufficiently vague.
Which inaccuracies are you referring to? That's a rather general accusation. I will assume you are referring to scientific inconsistencies, which are irrelevant, as the bible's intent is to speak on matters of faith, not provide one with a geologly, biology, archaelogy, etc. lesson.


And, there is very little in argument that can be said against this, except that it is immune to verification.
Hence, faith.

[cantnokdahustle]

The Spanish Inquisition occurred because Isabella and Ferdinand wanted to cosolidate power. Religious uniformity was to play a role in the consolidation of power. The first crusades were the result of the expanding Muslim army and its capture of territories that belonged to the Byzantine Empire. The following Crusades occurred for economic and imperialistic reasons, not for the glory of god. Certainly the given ideologies were an excellent justification, as it appeals to emotion, but the responses would have been the same given the same situations with secular ideologies in place.

So the catholic church was used as a tool, by Ferdinand and Isabella, and thus what? Auto de fe's would still have occurred how?

If justification is a tool to get some to act, then they would not have done so without the appeal.



So, one should read a children's book in the same manner that they read a history book, though they serve very different purposes?

Your analogy is ludicrous, because, yes, if one would like the children's book to be taken as something other than imaginatory fantasy, then yes. Fortunately, children's books do not claim to be a document either from god, or inspired by one, and they are taken as pleasurable and sometimes escapist, and again, not as a dictate by god as to the best way to live.

In short. the difference in purpose is taken as an underlying agreement that one is dealing in reality and the other is not.


Which inaccuracies are you referring to? That's a rather general accusation. I will assume you are referring to scientific inconsistencies, which are irrelevant, as the bible's intent is to speak on matters of faith, not provide one with a geologly, biology, archaelogy, etc. lesson.

here is where I have obviously made myself unclear. If you choose to define god as having the attributes that it is said to have, and then you find problems with the books that is supposed to have in some way come bestowed upon humanity, then how do you reconcile that. You cannot say that god is omniscient, and that it doesn't appear to know anything about evolution, geology, archaeology, according to the holy books. If you ascribe that to some sort of human error, then you are claiming that god's message was distorted from the get go. why would god allow the most important and only message it has for mankind to be tampered with?

This is why fundamentalists at least make some sort of sense, they are if nothing else consistent. Where as liberal theists can only rationalize their experience with that of ideas of god with appeal to the even more ludicrous.

[Love As Arson]

So the catholic church was used as a tool, by Ferdinand and Isabella, and thus what? Auto de fe's would still have occurred how?

If justification is a tool to get some to act, then they would not have done so without the appeal.
The justification provides one with cover to act upon previously decided ideas.


Your analogy is ludicrous, because, yes, if one would like the children's book to be taken as something other than imaginatory fantasy, then yes. Fortunately, children's books do not claim to be a document either from god, or inspired by one, and they are taken as pleasurable and sometimes escapist, and again, not as a dictate by god as to the best way to live.
In short. the difference in purpose is taken as an underlying agreement that one is dealing in reality and the other is not.
The analogy is applicable, as the expectation is quite different. I do not read a children's book about Thanksgiving and expect for it to provide me with the answers to historical questions about the genocide of Native Americans, whereas the history book deals with that. Similarly, the bible is meant to address faith and morality, and has very little to do with matters of science.


If you choose to define god as having the attributes that it is said to have, and then you find problems with the books that is supposed to have in some way come bestowed upon humanity, then how do you reconcile that.
How I define god is irrelevant. The role of the imperfect human being, with imperfect understanding is my concern.


You cannot say that god is omniscient, and that it doesn't appear to know anything about evolution, geology, archaeology, according to the holy books. If you ascribe that to some sort of human error, then you are claiming that god's message was distorted from the get go. why would god allow the most important and only message it has for mankind to be tampered with?
That is not the position I am advocating that position. Instead, imagine a deity explaining to an ancient people the ins and outs of evolutionary science and physics. It would likely be impossible, as the science, nor the mental progress has been reached. As such, the creation message, for example, is not one of error, but one of symbolism that corresponds with man's state at that particular point in time.

[HplessRomntic]

all this talk about a non fictional charecter makes me wana read the cat in the hat. :overhead:

[vompy]

If god existed or didn't it wouldn't matter to me. I would never choose to follow his ways. I grew up my whole life with people trying to change who I was, under the name of god. I've have many hateful things said to me that someone so young shouldn't have to go through.. and why? Because god told them too...what a great excuse.

[DestroyOhBoy]

Jesus died for his own sins

[thejetstolehome]

Jesus died for his own sins

well that ought to re-start this debate.

:popcorn:

[s.t.e.v.e.n.]

all this talk about a non fictional charecter makes me wana read the cat in the hat. :overhead:

your posts give me a headache

[s.t.e.v.e.n.]

i agree... if God does exist and i stand before him in judgement... i will bitch him out... i don't care if i go to hell for it... because i know i could do a much better job being God...

so you, an individual with a limited point of view and human nature would do a better job than an omniscient and holy being at being God. hmmm.

[HeyCoffeeEyes]

so you, an individual with a limited point of view and human nature would do a better job than an omniscient and holy being at being God. hmmm.

Yeah, this is not an uncommon argument. Read "Rebellion" and "The Grand Inquisitor" from The Brothers Karamazov. Even though Dostoevsky was a Christian who believed in the power of faith, he still wrote a compelling argument that describes God as on par with a torturer or tyrant. And it is worth noting that even Dostoevsky, perhaps the most brilliant Chrisitan ever to live, could not think of any logical refutation for the argument, instead urging his readers to eschew doubt and embrace faith anyway.

[thatwasamoment]

so you, an individual with a limited point of view and human nature would do a better job than an omniscient and holy being at being God. hmmm.thats if there's even a god.

[s.t.e.v.e.n.]

Yeah, this is not an uncommon argument. Read "Rebellion" and "The Grand Inquisitor" from The Brothers Karamazov. Even though Dostoevsky was a Christian who believed in the power of faith, he still wrote a compelling argument that describes God as on par with a torturer or tyrant. And it is worth noting that even Dostoevsky, perhaps the most brilliant Chrisitan ever to live, could not think of any logical refutation for the argument, instead urging his readers to eschew doubt and embrace faith anyway.


i agree, i dont believe for a moment that God wants us to be blindly faithful either. He says multiple times in the Bible to seek him and to seek the truth. If God is real, which I believe whole heartedly that he is and that Jesus Christ is who he said he was, then he is certainly not afraid of us seeking the truth. He knows what we will find.

[s.t.e.v.e.n.]

of course... i am not a sadistic being like God... want proof that God is sadistic???

you believe God created the universe, plants, animals, and human beings...

of course you do.

you believe that God loves each of these things

of course you do.

have you ever observed nature...

of course you have.

nature (which god created) runs on the predator and prey complex... man kills bear for food... bear kills fish for food... fish kill other fish for food...

observation of nature proves that a loving God does not exist... God must truly enjoy watching his animals maim and destroy each other... how beautiful is that!

Now, if i were God... i would have created an earth in which all creatures are vegetarian... i would never want to observe my creations destroying one another! would you? if not, then you would do a much better job being God as well!

i have to say that i think that is a very shallow evaluation of a very deep topic

[preppyak]

Now, if i were God... i would have created an earth in which all creatures are vegetarian... i would never want to observe my creations destroying one another! would you? if not, then you would do a much better job being God as well!
i have to say that i think that is a very shallow evaluation of a very deep topic
Haha...seriously.

If I am correct, God did create plants in that sense too, why would he want them to be destroyed as food for others...seeing as many more creatures are now eating them too. It would lead to an ever further destruction of plant life, and in turn, a lessening of the beauty of his world.

Besides, wasn't the first problem of man not a "vicious killing" of an animal, but a case of a person eating a plant? Perhaps a lesson was learned there

Either way...you are mixing two completely seperate aspects that will probably never mesh...those being scientific explanation and religious doctrine.

[preppyak]

plants dont have brains nor are as complex as animals... do they feel pain? i think not... i know not...

Then how can a tree be capable of the knowledge of good and evil...

Trust me, I see your point, but I'm telling you it is stupid because you are mixing religion and science, and they don't mesh well for an argument like that.

You are arguing from a scientific standpoint on God's intentions...which is fool hearty at best

[s.t.e.v.e.n.]

humans acting as if they comprehend God is no way to have a discussion

[HplessRomntic]

of course... i am not a sadistic being like God... want proof that God is sadistic???

you believe God created the universe, plants, animals, and human beings...

of course you do.

you believe that God loves each of these things

of course you do.

have you ever observed nature...

of course you have.

nature (which god created) runs on the predator and prey complex... man kills bear for food... bear kills fish for food... fish kill other fish for food...

observation of nature proves that a loving God does not exist... God must truly enjoy watching his animals maim and destroy each other... how beautiful is that!

Now, if i were God... i would have created an earth in which all creatures are vegetarian... i would never want to observe my creations destroying one another! would you? if not, then you would do a much better job being God as well!


id rather stick to eating meat :/
but reading your other post i do understand what your trying to say.

[YourMusicSucks]

if you'd like to read well written essays on the topic click here :

http://saysmom.com/maia/content.asp?Writing=137

http://saysmom.com/maia/content.asp?Writing=146

http://saysmom.com/maia/content.asp?Writing=65

So far these essays are pretty terrible and fail to prove their points.

[thejetstolehome]

all essays are terrible for the illiterate!

and ad hominem attacks are for people whose points have been de-bunked.

[thejetstolehome]

the point i have made has not been de-bunked... i am right and you are wrong... i am holding up the mirror for you to see the truth... but you only WANT to see what YOU believe!

i don't really believe in god all that much so i don't know what you mean by seeing what i believe.

[s.t.e.v.e.n.]

the point i have made has not been de-bunked... i am right and you are wrong... i am holding up the mirror for you to see the truth... but you only WANT to see what YOU believe!

an incredible point

[HeyCoffeeEyes]

i agree, i dont believe for a moment that God wants us to be blindly faithful either. He says multiple times in the Bible to seek him and to seek the truth. If God is real, which I believe whole heartedly that he is and that Jesus Christ is who he said he was, then he is certainly not afraid of us seeking the truth. He knows what we will find.

Why did you say I agree? I don't agree with what you just said at all

[cal1082]

the point i have made has not been de-bunked... i am right and you are wrong... i am holding up the mirror for you to see the truth... but you only WANT to see what YOU believe!

wouldnt the mirror your holding up be symbolic of him seeing himself and what he says as truth.........

[s.t.e.v.e.n.]

Why did you say I agree? I don't agree with what you just said at all

i didnt mean to imply that you did
my agreement with your statement, and the statement i made were supposed to be seperate

[s.t.e.v.e.n.]

Yeah, this is not an uncommon argument. Read "Rebellion" and "The Grand Inquisitor" from The Brothers Karamazov. Even though Dostoevsky was a Christian who believed in the power of faith, he still wrote a compelling argument that describes God as on par with a torturer or tyrant. And it is worth noting that even Dostoevsky, perhaps the most brilliant Chrisitan ever to live, could not think of any logical refutation for the argument, instead urging his readers to eschew doubt and embrace faith anyway.

after re-reading your post i think i may have misread it the first time.
sorry for the contradiction, the statement i made after that is what i think basically
my bad

[punklet2101]

Now, if i were God... i would have created an earth in which all creatures are vegetarian... i would never want to observe my creations destroying one another! would you? if not, then you would do a much better job being God as well!

If you read Genesis, you'll learn that eating meat and hunting for food didn't come in until after Adam and Eve had sinned against God.

[cal1082]

no, not at all... there is nothing symbolic about the mirror... i meant it literally... all you religious mumbo jumbos are all too willing to state how beautiful the world is and how lucky we are... i hold up the mirror and reveal the truth... that this world is gross ... and that mankind is disgusting!

so you actually were holding a mirror up.......

[HplessRomntic]

don't even bother trying to talk about another point of view. when it comes to trying to explain things in terms that aren't religious or holy they just wont understand it. They were raised with fairy tale book readings every Sunday. Yet never bothered to question there own faith.

the world isnt as beautiful as that fictional book you guys read makes it seem.



as open minded that Christians pretend to be, there the most narrow minded people I have ever met.

[dw1003]

don't even bother trying to talk about another point of view. when it comes to trying to explain things in terms that aren't religious or holy they just wont understand it. They were raised with fairy tale book readings every Sunday. Yet never bothered to question there own faith.

the world isnt as beautiful as that fictional book you guys read makes it seem.



as open minded that Christians pretend to be, there the most narrow minded people I have ever met.

just so you know... because I wouldn't want you to look like a complete fool...
the Bible actually paints a very sad, heartbreaking, horrific view of the world...

but you're right, you're not closed minded... you're just uneducated.

[s.t.e.v.e.n.]

just so you know... because I wouldn't want you to look like a complete fool...
the Bible actually paints a very sad, heartbreaking, horrific view of the world...

but you're right, you're not closed minded... you're just uneducated.

i was just gonna say the same thing

[indexfor...]

sorry to join in late on this thread but...

i guess i would call myself an agnostic, i was an all out atheist for awhile, but then i read a Brief History of Time and Steven Hawkings himself said that at the exact moment of the big bang they have no explanation as to why the universe came out the way it did...so what he says is that for the explanation of the exact settings of the universe a "God" or "higher being" is not a bad theory for the universe.

if this "God" is caring or whatever is highly doubtful since we are merely a small speck in the universe.

[indexfor...]

If you read Genesis, you'll learn that eating meat and hunting for food didn't come in until after Adam and Eve had sinned against God.
so you take a literal stance on the bible, you believe the creation story? you believe that in the grand scheme of things this "God" decided to spend a little time on some mudball of a planet making human beings who would sin against him anyway.

and your arguement will be that there is a devil or a "negative force" if "God" is all-powerful why does he allow this negative-force?

[Scott Weber]

don't even bother trying to talk about another point of view. when it comes to trying to explain things in terms that aren't religious or holy they just wont understand it. They were raised with fairy tale book readings every Sunday. Yet never bothered to question there own faith.

the world isnt as beautiful as that fictional book you guys read makes it seem.



as open minded that Christians pretend to be, there the most narrow minded people I have ever met.
you are seriously uneducated and misinformed about Christianity.

[dai the flu]

and your arguement will be that there is a devil or a "negative force" if "God" is all-powerful why does he allow this negative-force?

i can answer that fairly logically.
say hypothetically that there is an 'evil negative force; devil'. the bible calls him satan.
if this satan had challenged god and claimed that man didnt need god to be successful...
...then what would have been proven if god simply destroyed satan?
nothing.
so there you go. by god not destroying satan, and letting the world go on without his help, it has proven that satan was wrong.

[HplessRomntic]

just so you know... because I wouldn't want you to look like a complete fool...
the Bible actually paints a very sad, heartbreaking, horrific view of the world...

but you're right, you're not closed minded... you're just uneducated.

your right. once again you know me more then I do. seeing as how I was raised in a religious home.

I am close minded I mean, I don't accept that other people believe in other gods. I think that gay people should go to hell. yea I am close minded. your right:thumbup:

[Scott Weber]

your right. once again you know me more then I do. seeing as how I was raised in a religious home.

I am close minded I mean, I don't accept that other people believe in other gods. I think that gay people should go to hell. yea I am close minded. your right:thumbup:
Just because you were raised in a religious home doesn't mean you're well educated - in fact, if often means that you're more naive because you're raised with what's comfortable as opposed to looking critically at your faith and others around you. Not all Christians damn homosexuals to hell, and not all Christians believe that the world was created in 7 literal days.

[thejetstolehome]

Just because you were raised in a religious home doesn't mean you're well educated - in fact, if often means that you're more naive because you're raised with what's comfortable as opposed to looking critically at your faith and others around you. Not all Christians damn homosexuals to hell, and not all Christians believe that the world was created in 7 literal days.

scott, don't bother trying to reason with him. it won't work.

[HplessRomntic]

actually it did work. makes much more sense then hearing everybody else cry about me not believing in god. or me not spelling correctly. but yea I do see what your trying to say. not everybody that practices that religion is judgmental.

[thejetstolehome]

wow--you actually said something intelligent. good job.

[HplessRomntic]

why is it intelligent? just cause I agreed with someone's opinion? hum yea ok

[FondestMemory]

wow--you actually said something intelligent. good job.

i thought the same thing. then i read the last post in the 'gays' thread and any hope i had in him quickly went away.

[thejetstolehome]

why is it intelligent? just cause I agreed with someone's opinion? hum yea ok

it's actually the most intelligent, coherent thing i've seen you say on this site. you actually showed some semblence of reason, rational thought, and intelligence. so, yes, it was intelligent.

[Scott Weber]

actually it did work. makes much more sense then hearing everybody else cry about me not believing in god. or me not spelling correctly. but yea I do see what your trying to say. not everybody that practices that religion is judgmental.
why don't you type in the regular font?

[cal1082]

and your arguement will be that there is a devil or a "negative force" if "God" is all-powerful why does he allow this negative-force?

In life there are the good and the bad. It's easy to be thankful for the good in your life and often times we take this good for granted. Experiencing the bad allows us to grow closer to God by growing stronger, resisting temptation, and allow us to be more thankful for the good.

You might never realize how grateful you should be to simply be able to walk until one morning you can't.

[thejetstolehome]

In life there are the good and the bad. It's easy to be thankful for the good in your life and often times we take this good for granted. Experiencing the bad allows us to grow closer to God by growing stronger, resisting temptation, and allow us to be more thankful for the good.

You might never realize how grateful you should be to simply be able to walk until one morning you can't.

while i understand that point completely (and i think i know which part of the bible this is from--the story of Job, right? please correct me if i'm wrong) isn't it possible to appreciate the good and while experiencing, and handling well, the bad without needing a relationship to God if it exists?

[indexfor...]

i can answer that fairly logically.
say hypothetically that there is an 'evil negative force; devil'. the bible calls him satan.
if this satan had challenged god and claimed that man didnt need god to be successful...
...then what would have been proven if god simply destroyed satan?
nothing.
so there you go. by god not destroying satan, and letting the world go on without his help, it has proven that satan was wrong.
this is all based upon the assumption that this god is involved in our daily lives, if he is, then why does he allow all these differant religions and moral codes if there is only one which he agrees upon?

Take for instance a tribe in the amazon that practices cannabalism, now according to alot of differant religions thats some bad shit, so now why would god allow these people to practice it for so long without providing them the moral codes he approved of?

[cal1082]

while i understand that point completely (and i think i know which part of the bible this is from--the story of Job, right? please correct me if i'm wrong) isn't it possible to appreciate the good and while experiencing, and handling well, the bad without needing a relationship to God if it exists?

Yeah it's Job.

I guess it could be. Makes sense that if you had no beliefs at all in a higher being that you can be thankful for the good and grow to be more thankful from bad experiences. I'm just saying as a Christian you would be able to grow closer to God through these experiences.

Many people who have no relationship with God simply look at bad things in life and want to blame God, or question God's existance as a result of the bad. I just think they are looking at it from the wrong perspective.

[thejetstolehome]

Yeah it's Job.

I guess it could be. Makes sense that if you had no beliefs at all in a higher being that you can be thankful for the good and grow to be more thankful from bad experiences. I'm just saying as a Christian you would be able to grow closer to God through these experiences.

Many people who have no relationship with God simply look at bad things in life and want to blame God, or question God's existance as a result of the bad. I just think they are looking at it from the wrong perspective.

1) okay that's what i was getting at. thanks for clarifying the last part.
2) i definitely see where you're coming from with that but i think that a lot of people look at the world and say "if there is a benevolent God, how could It let things like this happen?" i know a good number of people who were, like myself, raised Catholic and became disillusioned because they lost faith that God could let such bad things happen. that isn't why i stopped attending mass but i know that's the case for some people.

[cal1082]

1) okay that's what i was getting at. thanks for clarifying the last part.
2) i definitely see where you're coming from with that but i think that a lot of people look at the world and say "if there is a benevolent God, how could It let things like this happen?" i know a good number of people who were, like myself, raised Catholic and became disillusioned because they lost faith that God could let such bad things happen. that isn't why i stopped attending mass but i know that's the case for some people.

And I think the question that should be asked is how can we as humans, that were given so much by God, defy a simple request by God that allowed sin into our lives.

Just two different perspectives

[thejetstolehome]

And I think the question that should be asked is how can we as humans, that were given so much by God, defy a simple request by God that allowed sin into our lives.

Just two different perspectives

right.

with or without the existance of God, we've fucked this planet up REALLY badly.

[cantnokdahustle]

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

[thejetstolehome]

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

that's some bad shit.

[HeyCoffeeEyes]

And I think the question that should be asked is how can we as humans, that were given so much by God, defy a simple request by God that allowed sin into our lives.

Just two different perspectives

What the hell does "we as humans" mean? I didn't eat an apple in some mythological garden (in fact, it is doubtful that anyone did since there is ZERO anthropological evidence to corroborate the creation story). Nor did the millions of children who starve, suffer from inherited illness, or die in fires, beneath machete blades, or under falling bombs. Any human being that would allow such barbarity to be inflicted on the innocent for the crimes of another would be considered a tyrant. If God did exist, I would only call him the same.

But such a perspective is truly non-sensical. God is defined in the Bible as all-powerful, all-loving, and all-knowing. This simply cannot be true. If God loathes evil, and God knows evil, and God has the power to stop evil... then how does evil exist? This is, like the God who is immutable but all-knowing and personal, or infinitely just and infinitely merciful, a contradictory set of descriptors that makes the existence of such a being logically impossible.

[cantnokdahustle]

that's some bad shit.

somehow, I think that fails at accurately articulating a description.

[cal1082]

What the hell does "we as humans" mean? I didn't eat an apple in some mythological garden (in fact, it is doubtful that anyone did since there is ZERO anthropological evidence to corroborate the creation story). Nor did the millions of children who starve, suffer from inherited illness, or die in fires, beneath machete blades, or under falling bombs. Any human being that would allow such barbarity to be inflicted on the innocent for the crimes of another would be considered a tyrant. If God did exist, I would only call him the same.

But such a perspective is truly non-sensical. God is defined in the Bible as all-powerful, all-loving, and all-knowing. This simply cannot be true. If God loathes evil, and God knows evil, and God has the power to stop evil... then how does evil exist? This is, like the God who is immutable but all-knowing and personal, or infinitely just and infinitely merciful, a contradictory set of descriptors that makes the existence of such a being logically impossible.

Why do you seek some sort of answer as to why does God allow Satan to work in our world when.....with any explanation that would be offered (no matter how logical) you would not possibly accept or give thought to it because you have already convienced yourself that there is no way God exists? How much sense does this make?

The explanation given as to why we have evil in our world is very logical. You don't have to accept it if you are not a Christian (wouldnt excpect you too). You portray the kind of person I was referring to. You don't believe in God......yet you want to look at all the bad things in the world and argue if their is a God these bad deads are his fault. The bases of what I'm saying comes down to this........Why is it so illogical that humans are to blame for our downfall and day in and day out we prove what disobeying God can leave you? The questions you ask are found in Job.