jesus and this board.

Why, though? What's the immaculate conception got to do with what you feel? Virgin birth? Physical resurrection? This is hardcore. Half of Christian theologians don't buy that stuff. Why take the word of some medievalists over others? Why not the other way round? Why at all? Seriously, I'm interested.

The God of Science

Science is a systematic knowledge of the physical or material universe gained by observable facts. The sacred writings of all world religions basically contain a system of faith. Yet each do make statements within the province of science that provides a uniquely valid test to prove their authenticity. If their scientific observations are in reality superstitions reflective of the culture in which they were written, these so called sacred books are disqualified as the inspired Scripture of God. If, indeed, the scientific observations of any of these purported Holy Scripture agree with the facts of science today, then that Bible is the inspired Word of a true and living God. Why? The Creator and God of the universe is the God of science — the author of the scientific laws that govern His universe. Only the God of science could cause scientific facts to be recorded in a book —the Bible — hundreds or thousands of years before scientists discover them.

Only the Judeo-Christian Bible contains scientific facts that anticipated scientific discovery by hundreds and in some cases several thousand years. The following are examples of remarkable scientific observations found in the Judeo-Christian Bible.

What Holds the Earth Up?

Three thousand years ago the Hindu scriptures recorded the earth was resting on the backs of several huge elephants. The elephants were resting on the back of a very large turtle that was swimming in a sea. Greek mythology claims that the god Atlas was holding the earth on his shoulders. But our Bible says in Job 26:7 — "[God] hangeth the earth on nothing." What a remarkable statement of fact. The earth is suspended in space. Nothing is holding it up. Job wrote about the same time the Hindu Scripture was written. How did Job know this scientific fact? Only God could have revealed this to Job. The Old Testament prophets wrote as they were moved by the holy Spirit (2 Peter 1:21). The Judeo-Christian Bible is the inspired Word of God.

Flat Versus Round Earth

For thousands of years people believed the earth was flat. If one went too far, he would fall over the edge. This was taught in both Hindu and Buddhist scripture. In the 1500s, the first ship sailed around the world. This proved the earth was round. But the round earth was recorded in the Judeo-Christian Bible long before man discovered it in the 1500s.

The prophet Isaiah (40:22) spoke of the "circle of the earth." Solomon wrote, "He [God] set a compass [circle] upon the face of the deep." Proverbs 8:27. In our century, Arabs spoke of infidels being pushed over the edge into space. About 3,000 years ago, our Bible said the earth was round. This was not discovered until 500 years ago. Indeed, the Judeo-Christian Bible is the inspired Word of God.

Sun, Moon and Stars — Who? What?

Ancient people were afraid of the sun, moon and stars. They thought they were alive — that they were gods. But over 5,000 years ago, the Judeo-Christian Bible in the first chapter of Genesis pointed out that the sun, moon and stars were created by God. Remember, our God states that He is the one and only God. This proves the sun, moon and stars that He created are not gods.

Eclipses are an example of what people feared. An eclipse happens when the sun’s light is blocked by the earth or moon. The moon is bright because it reflects the sun’s light. But when the earth blocks that light, the moon looks like it is disappearing. Also, when the moon comes between the earth and the sun, it looks like the sun is disappearing.

This was frightening to people long ago. Some thought eclipses happened when the moon was mad at the earth and turned its face away. The Chinese believed that an eclipse was caused by a demon or some huge animal that ate the sun and then would give them up again. God told Jeremiah (10:2 KJ): "Thus saith the Lord, Learn not the way of the heathen, and be not dismayed at the signs of heaven; for the heathen are dismayed at them." God went on to reassure Jeremiah that the universe is under God’s control.

Later scientists learned that heavenly bodies were not alive and that man need not fear them. Thousands of years before scientists discovered that the planetary bodies were inanimate, the Judeo-Christian Bible contained this scientific fact.

The Bottom of the Ocean

Until modern times people thought the ocean floor was sandy like the desert and saucer shaped—deepest in the middle. This was even true of the pre-1900 geologists. But in the 1900s oceanographers found the sea had many deep valleys or canyons. The deepest canyons were called trenches. The Marianas Trench in the Pacific is so deep that if Mt. Everest (29,000 feet high) was dropped into it, the peak would still be a mile below the water’s surface. There are also underwater mountains. The Atlantic Ocean contains an undersea range of mountains 10,000 miles long.

In addition, 3,000 years ago the Judeo-Christian Bible spoke of the valleys and mountains of the sea. In Psalm 18:15 (NIV) David wrote of God being the creator of "the valleys of the sea." God asked Job (38:16 NIV): "Have you walked in the recesses [valleys] of the sea?" The prophet Jonah was thrown off a ship and spoke of falling to the bottom of the mountains in the sea (Jonah 2:6).

The Judeo-Christian Bible spoke of the valleys and mountains of the sea thousands of years before scientists discovered them. Indeed our Bible is the inspired Word of God.

The Paths of the Sea

In the 1800s, Matthew Maury, an officer in the United States Navy believed his Bible. As a Christian he loved to read the Bible. One day Maury was reading about the dominion man was given over the animals in Psalm 8. He was amazed that verse 8 spoke of the fish and all creatures that swim in the "paths of the sea." "Paths of the sea"— how could this be? He never knew there was such a thing. He was determined to find them. Maury discovered that the oceans have many paths or currents, which were like rivers flowing through the sea. Maury wrote the first book on oceanography and became known as "the pathfinder of the seas"— "The father of modern navigation."

Maury received his idea about ocean currents from reading Psalm 8:8 which was written about 3,000 years ago by King David. David wrote as he was moved by the Spirit of God and probably never actually saw an ocean.

Incidentally, Psalm 8:8 also spoke of fish in the "paths of the seas." All fishing boats make a good catch in the currents or paths of the sea. They have learned this is where the fish swim.

Lightning, Thunder and Rain

In ancient times, most religious scripture taught that lightning bolts were missiles thrown in anger by their gods.9 In China, Taoist scripture regarded the rainbow as a deadly rain dragon.10 In Confucius scripture, the goddess of lightning, Tien Mu, flashed light on intended victims to enable Lei Kung, the god of thunder to launch his deadly bolts accurately.11

Since rain is so necessary to life, ancient people pondered what caused it. Some tried to stab holes in the clouds with spears. The Vedas (Hindu scripture) advised to tie a frog with its mouth open to the right tree and say the right words and rain would fall.

Our Bible also talks about rain, lightning and storms. But it contains none of these superstitious ideas found in the other so- called scriptures. The Judeo-Christian Bible taught that earth’s weather followed rules and cycles. Genesis 8:22. "While the earth remaineth, seed time and harvest, and cold and heat, and summer and winter, and day and night shall not cease."

Job stated (28:26): "God made decrees [rules] for the rain. And He set a way for the lightning of the thunder:" Centuries later, scientists began to discern the "rules for the rain" that Job talked about. Rainfall is part of a process called the water cycle. Here’s how the cycle works. The sun evaporates water from the ocean. That water vapor rises and becomes clouds. This water in the clouds falls back to earth as rain, collects in streams and rivers and makes its way back to the ocean. That process repeats itself again and again.

About 300 years ago, Galileo discovered this cycle. But amazingly the Scriptures described this cycle centuries before. The prophet Amos (9:6) wrote that God "calls for the water of the sea. He pours them out on the land." How did Amos know this? He wrote as he was moved by the Spirit of God.

Actually, scientists are just beginning to fully understand God’s "decrees or rules for the rain." Since 68 BC it was thought that somehow thunder triggered the rainfall. Now scientists are beginning to realize that as stated in Job 28:26, it is lightning that triggers the rain to fall. Job knew this 3,000 years ago. Certainly his writings were inspired of God (2 Peter 1:21).

Pleiades, Orion and Arcturus

Remember the story of Job? Job was extremely wealthy — enjoying a wonderful family. Then tragedy struck. He lost his wealth. His children were killed and his wife deserted him. Then Job lay in excruciating pain, covered with sores from head to toe. All this was too much for Job. He accused the Lord of being unjust. God didn’t answer Job’s accusation directly. He merely raised questions concerning the wonders of His creation. Three of these questions found in Job 38:31, 32, illustrate the dynamic logic conveyed in God’s questions.

Canst thou bind the sweet influences of Pleiades, or loose the bands of Orion? Canst thou guide Arcturus with his sons?

ORION

"Canst thou . . . loose the bands of Orion?" Garrett P. Serviss, the noted astronomer, wrote about the bands of Orion12 in his book CURIOSITIES OF THE SKY.

At the present time this band consists of an almost perfect straight line, a row of second-magnitude stars about equally spaced and of the most striking beauty. In the course of time, however, the two right-hand stars, Mintaka and Alnilam, will approach each other and form a naked-eye double; but the third, Alnitak, will drift away eastward so that the band will no longer exist.

In other words, one star is traveling in a certain direction at a certain speed, a second one is traveling in a different direction at a second speed, and the third one is going in a third direction and at a still different speed. Actually every star in Orion is traveling its own course, independent of all the others. Thus, these stars that we see forming one of the bands of Orion are like three ships out on the high seas that happen to be in line at the present moment, but in the future will be separated by thousands of miles of ocean. In fact, all these stars that at the present time constitute the constellation of Orion are bound for different ports, and all are journeying to different corners of the universe, so that the bands are being dissolved.

THE PLEIADES

"Canst thou bind the sweet influence of the Pleiades . . . ?" Notice the amazing astronomical contrast with the Pleiades. The seven stars of the Pleiades are in reality a grouping of 250 suns. Photographs now reveal that 250 blazing suns in this group are all traveling together in one common direction. Concerning this cluster, Isabel Lewis of the United States Naval Observatory tells us: 13

Astronomers have identified 250 stars as actual members of this group, all sharing in a common motion and drifting through space in the same direction.

Elsewhere Lewis speaks of them as "journeying onward together through the immensity of space."

From Lick Observatory came this statement of Dr. Robert J. Trumpler:14

Over 25,000 individual measures of the Pleiades stars are now available, and their study led to the important discovery that the whole cluster is moving in a southeasterly direction. The Pleiades stars may thus be compared to a swarm of birds, flying together to a distant goal. This leaves no doubt that the Pleiades are not a temporary or accidental agglomeration of stars, but a system in which the stars are bound together by a close kinship.

Dr. Trumpler said that all this led to an important discovery. Without any reference whatsoever to the Book of Job, he announced to the world that these discoveries prove that the stars in the Pleiades are all bound together and are flying together like a flock of birds as they journey to their distant goal. That is exactly what God said. "Canst thou bind the sweet influences of Pleiades?" In other words, Canst thou keep them bound together so that they remain as a family of suns?

INCREDIBLE! God's laws of cosmology are loosing or dissolving the constellation Orion. Sometime in the far distant future, Orion will be no more. Conversely, wonder of wonders — every last one of the 250 blazing suns in the Pleiades are ordained of God to orbit together in their symmetrical beauty throughout eternity.

ARCTURUS

"Canst thou guide Arcturus with his sons?" Garrett P. Serviss wrote:15

Arcturus, one of the greatest suns in the universe, is a runaway whose speed of flight is 257 miles per second. Arcturus, we have every reason to believe, possesses thousands of times the mass of our sun. Think of it! Our sun is traveling only 12 ½ miles a second, but Arcturus is traveling 257 miles a second. Think then of the prodigious momentum this motion implies.

A further observation of Arcturus by Serviss reveals: 16

It could be turned into a new course by a close approach to a great sun, but it could only be stopped by collision head on with a body of enormous mass. Barring such accidents, it must, as far as we can see, keep on until it has traversed our stellar system, whence it may escape and pass out into space beyond to join perhaps one of those other island universes of which we have spoken.

Charles Burckhalter, of the Chabot Observatory, added an interesting note regarding this great sun: 17

This high velocity places Arcturus in that very small class of stars that apparently are a law unto themselves. He is an outsider, a visitor, a stranger within the gates; to speak plainly, Arcturus is a runaway. Newton gives the velocity of a star under control as not more than 25 miles a second, and Arcturus is going 257 miles a second. Therefore, combined attraction of all the stars we know cannot stop him or even turn him in his path.

When Mr. Burckhalter had his attention called to this text in the book of Job, he studied it in the light of modern discovery and made a statement that has attracted worldwide attention:18

The study of the Book of Job and its comparison with the latest scientific discoveries has brought me to the matured conviction that the Bible is an inspired book and was written by the One who made the stars.

The wonders of God’s universe never cease to amaze us. Arcturus and his sons are individual runaway suns that seem to be out of orbit in our galaxy. Traveling at such incredible speeds, why don’t they crash with other suns or planets? Where are they headed? Only God knows. Indeed they are not runaways. They will not crash. Why? God is guiding them.

The Lesson of The Pleiades, Orion, and Arcturus

Few have suffered the multiple tragedies of Job. How could God reach through the enormity of Job’s self-pity? (Job thought God just didn’t care.) In these three questions (Job 38:31, 32) God is in reality saying:

Job, you think I am not concerned about your suffering. Well, let Me ask you these questions. Can you loose the bands of Orion? No, you cannot. But My Divine power will. Some day Orion will no longer exist. Job, can you bind the 250 stars of the Pleiades together in their symmetry of beauty and not have a single one drift off? Only I have this power and wisdom. Can you prevent the runaways — Arcturus and his sons — from colliding as they go dashing out of the Milky Way? No, only My Divine power and wisdom can.

Job, if I am caring for the details of the universe, do you doubt that I not only care for the details of your life, but I have the ability to solve your problems? Trust that there is a good reason I am permitting these tragedies. Remember, Job, I work from the perspective of your eternal welfare.

What an awesome way God chose to tell Job that He was in full control of human affairs, including Job's life!

The Lesson of Job for Us

Some write off the history of Job as Old Testament folklore. Whoever heard of God talking to a man! These are hand-me-down tales! However, the account of Job cannot be gainsaid. Whatever the method of communication used by God, the astonishing facts cannot be refuted. These scientific facts recorded in the book of Job concerning the Pleiades, Orion and Arcturus anticipated scientific discovery by nearly 3,000 years. Scientists only discovered these startling facts in the Twentieth Century, yet they were recorded in the book of Job nearly 3000 years ago. What an awesome confirmation of the Bible! Who can doubt the Bible is the inspired word of God? Yes, the book of Job has a powerful, exclusive lesson for modern man. Twentieth Century science has proven God’s Word, the Bible, is true.

Other Sacred Books and the Physical Sciences

The Hindu scriptures, the Vedas and Uparushads, consider that "all the objects and phenomena of nature which man is surrounded, are animate and divine."19 This includes the sun, moon, earth, clouds, rain, rivers, seas and rocks as being alive. Writers of the Buddhist canon also ascribe life to numerous non-living objects— sun, moon, lightning, rainbows, mountains, etc. The Taoist and Confucian writings of China contain similar errors.

The Koran, the scripture of Islam, written 1,500 years after the Hindu scripture, does not contain many of the ancient superstitions. Yet its observations of the universe are seriously flawed. The Koran speaks of seven literal heavens which are solid.20 These heavens contain lamps or stars whose main purpose is to be "darted at the devils."21 Mohammed wrote that "the sun sets in a sea of black mud."22

Which Bible is Inspired by a Living God?

The Judeo-Christian Scripture made scientific observations that were confirmed centuries later by modern science, while the sacred scripture of other world religions merely reflected the scientific superstitions of their culture. How could the Judeo-Christian Scripture anticipate scientific discovery by 3,000 years? The Judeo-Christian Bible was written by men who were inspired by the Creator and God of the Universe — the God of science. Only the Judeo-Christian Bible is the Divine Revelation provided by our infinite Creator to direct us in the path to eternity.

10 Douglas, CONFUCIANISM AND TAOISM, pp. 260-271.
11 Williams C.A.S., OUTHLINES OF CHINESE SYMBOLISM AND ART MOTIVES, (Dover Publications Inc.).
12 Garrett P. Serviss, CURIOSITIES OF THE SKY.
13 Phillip L. Knox, WONDER WORLDS (Washington, DC: Review and Herald Publishing Assoc., 1964) p.61
14 Ibid.
15 Serviss.
16 Ibid.
17 Knox, p. 60.
18 Ibid.
19 MacDonell, A. A., VEDIC MYTHOLOGY, (Delhi: Motilal Banarsidass, 1974) p. 2.
20 THE KORAN, Trans. George Sale (London: Frederick Warne, 1909) pp. 5, 541.
21 Ibid., p. 567.
22 Ibid., p. 294.

from here

ALSO:

NEWS RELEASE 



Release: No. 99-HC/6



Date Mailed: June 17, 1999

For Release June 17, 1999



Contact: Jackie Lindenbach - 208/265-2575; 800/336-9266



Ancient Healing Codes Revealed in Bible

DNA Repair Frequency Intrigues Scientists and Religious Scholars Alike 



Clark Fork, ID - An extremely unique series of new Bible codes, reportedly
related to ancient music and the physics of creation, have been discovered
by a physician from Clark Fork, Idaho. The new revelation, found in the
Book of Numbers, includes a mathematical electromagnetic frequency code
for "miracles" that experts say has already been shown to help repair damaged
DNA - the genetic blueprint of life. 





According to the documentation and analyses provided in "Healing
Codes for the Biological Apocalypse" (Tetrahedron, LLC Press, 1999;
$26.95)--a new book certain to spark debate among religious scholars, physicists,
geneticists, and musicians alike--principal investigator Dr. Joseph Barber
was intuitively guided to find the pattern of six repeating codes in the
Book of Numbers, Chapter 7, verses 12 through 83. When deciphered using
the ancient Pythagorean method of reducing the verse numbers to their single
digit integers, the codes revealed a series of six electromagnetic
sound frequencies that correspond to the six missing tones of the ancient
Solfeggio scale. These original sound frequencies were apparently used in
the great hymn to St. John the Baptist that, along with many Gregorian chants,
were lost centuries ago according to church officials. The chants and their
special tones were believed to impart special spiritual blessings when sung
in harmony during religious masses.





Dr. Barber, a naturopathic physician and minister of the gospel, and lead
author, Dr. Leonard Horowitz-- a Harvard graduate and public health authority--spent
three years researching the six tones that physicists and musicians alike recognize
as "an extremely unique interrelated series of mathematical and electromagnetic
sound frequencies that include harmonic sequences similar to those found
in the 'wedding march.'" Additionally, the entire series appears to relate
to the "144,000" predicted in the Book of Revelation to be gathered by God
to sing a special song heralding the Messianic age. 





The first note, "UTquent laxis," is defined in Webster's Dictionary
as "the Gamut of dramatic emotion from grief to joy," and "the whole series
of recognized musical notes." It has a frequency of 396 cycles per second,
and is also associated with a "magnetic field strength equal to 105 power
gauss," or 100,000. The second tone, "RE" - short for "resonare
fibris" or resonance - also correlates mathematically to 144,000. The third
note, frequency 528, relates to the note "MI" on the scale and derives from
the phrase "MIra gestorum" in Latin meaning "miracle." Stunningly,
this is the exact frequency used by genetic biochemists to repair damaged
DNA - the genetic blueprint upon which life is based. 





The authors speculate these six tones may have been played by the ancient
priests during the miraculous shattering of Jericho' s great wall in six
days before falling on the seventh, and the creation of the universe in
six days after which God is believed to have rested on the seventh. Bible
scholars believe both events occurred as a result of sounds being spoken
or played.





"I was spiritually guided to move to northern Idaho to meet and work with
Dr. Barber," Dr. Horowitz said. "I had prayed for a breakthrough on the
level that Dr. Barber was blessed to find. I simply became the communicator
for Joey to reveal some of God's most special secrets." Likewise, Dr.
Barber explained, "I specifically prayed to meet Dr. Horowitz after I viewed
his lecture video. I needed someone who could write and communicate this
knowledge. About a month later, Dr. Horowitz showed up at my door." 

from here

--------------
Keep in mind, I can't vouch for any of that, as I'm no expert on any of the above. Sorry if any of the formatting got messed up.

Anthony, I have no problem with your views just as I assume you have no problem with mine. You are a very openminded, intelligent person and manage to come off as one quite well. I can't imagine someone knowing you are a xtian and still being able to maintain that xtains are a simpleminded lot.

i am curious tho -- anthony how the fuck do you reconcile the nastier and more anti-gay and etc. parts of the bible w/ your beliefs?

If the passages are actually there, especially the bit about the different stars, I'm not sure what's so nonsensical about that first part. The second part I'm much more skeptical of and not really sure why I bothered to tag it on at the end... other than the fact that I found them at the same time (posted by an Xtain "prover of things" sort of guy).

"But who prays for Satan? Who in eighteen centuries,
has had the common humanity to pray for the one
sinner that needed it most, our one fellow and
brother who most needed a friend yet had not a
single one, the one sinner among us all who had the
highest and clearest right to every Christian's daily
and nightly prayers, for the plain and unassailable
reason that his was the first and greatest need, he
being among sinners the supremest?" - Mark Twain

Also, if you allow me to preach a little, I know transhumanists who are very spiritual (who have better material to propose than what scaredy cat offered just there. sorry sc!) so if you are interested I could ask for more info.

I'm glad you belive in the seperation of church and state but in the real world such a separation doesn't really exist.
for an example, the bush administration use religious standards to make scientific prohibitions on stem cell research.

I don't follow this topic closely enough but i thought what "superman" star Christopher Reeve had to said about this was very interesting :

"Reeve faulted Bush for having "no consistent moral view" of stem cell research, and expressed his frustration with the president's 2001 bioethics panel, which he said was "stacked" with theologians at the expense of scientists. He added that there was "not one patient advocate" included on the panel.

"Religion," Reeve said, "must stay out of the question. Science has its own set of ethics . . . Let science police itself through its own regulatory bodies." ".

...but the state want to get the religious vote.
I could say "who cares, I'll just have to follow the brain drain of scientists to China." but then what if the state, backed by religious folks, decide to include China in the axis of evil because they are doing things that are against God and decide to bomb them?
Right now everytime I read the word God used in a nice way i am slightly afraid for my life. I wouldn't mind talking theology with you in a million years Anthony (not before), chewing the fat on whether or not God exists... it's just that right now my ticket for eternity is not (scientifically)assured. it generates stress. You said God talks to you so you are not allowd to laugh at me for saying this :-)

Unfortunately there is a lot of work to do to inform people at large that religiosity the most regressive force now operating in society, in the sense that it can make them forget the simple things in life like Nicols de Chamfort said best: "Jouir et faire jouir, sans faire de mal ni à toi ni à personne, voilà toute morale "

(my taduction:"experience joy/sense and make experience joy/sense, without hurting yourself or anyone else, this is all moral")

I think most Christians theologians do believe in Virgin birth and physical resurrection. I don't see anyway they couldn't.

You'd be surprised.

that aside, what does any of it have to do with what anthony was talking about? anthony spelled out some of his beliefs to exactly the people he says sneer at him for them sometimes, THAT's risky

Well, I assume the religious standard you mean is ("thou shall not kill") which also the law against murder is based on too.
Sciene has no way to incorperate morals, which are more important than sciene, so I think it's wise of Bush to have more morally aware people than scientificly aware people.

"is not (scientifically)assured" again Scienes is not the most important or accurate way to decide things especially about eternity (something sciene cannot define)

"experience joy/sense and make experience joy/sense, without hurting yourself or anyone else, this is all moral"

This is a fairly Christian statement. But a Christian (as opposed to a worldly person) would do this, experience joy, by getting to know God.

i have doubted, and i am not yr ordinary christian, i am not stupid,blind superstious, guliable or easily lead.

i wanted to say this, although you all must know it, b/c of the tone of some of the people on this board, who grieve me by viewing christianty as simple thoughts for simple people, and view themselves better then any theist.

So, I was responding to the "doubt" he's felt and the idea that religion is simple thoughts for simple people. If modern science is just catching up with ideas presented in the bible, I figured it's not all that simple.

But, then again, I don't know what to make of anything I posted, so I guess it was a waste of space. Probably nobody bothered to read it and skimming it would give one enough of an impression that it's just a bunch of hooey.

It seemed like a risky post because those who aren't willing to even read it or understand that I wasn't actually posting my beliefs would trounce me for it. I guess that hasn't actually happened yet, but I can feel it coming... not that I mind, really.

As far as being a gay Christian, well I just have no advice on that subject at all, but I just found this.

My own reply to this question is: Because of the first part of Timothy 3:16
"All scripture is God-breathed"

and also Peter 1:20,21
"above all, you must understand that no prophecy of Scripture came about by the prophet's own interpretation. For prophecy never had its origin in the will of man, but men spoke from Gad as they carried along by the Holy Spirit"

And also from reading various parts of the Bible that were written at many different times and seeing a consistancy of prophecies being fulfilled.

um, isn't lightning and thunder the same thing? i've barely skimmed the rest of that post but it seems to amount to: 'selected tracts from the bible don't conflict with current scientific understanding of nature', which really isn't all that exciting!

ok at will!

• stem-cell research will save thousands of lives
  
• but morals are more important than science!
  

where's the contradiction here? oh yeah, between GW Bush's morals and mine!

Would this be like the suburban culture? because I've read and heard plenty of times that a middle class suburban culture is much more dangerous for a Christian than a drug/violence filled neighborhood, North Korea (where Christians are imprisoned), or other similar places.

Bear in mind that the source-criticism approach to the Gospels -- the result of which is frequently to discard the birth narratives as mythical, borrowed from other traditions -- and modern Gospel studies as a whole, began with Johann Jakob Griesbach, a German theologian (and hardly a radical one, by today's standards).

I'm not taking issue with Anthony's beliefs, but in those instances they're certainly not intrinsic to Christian theologians.

The part I thought was interesting was about the different stars, which seems to imply much more than just "religion doesn't disagree with science". I'm not saying you have to agree with me, but you might want to read it if you've already wasted valuable time skimming it.

Why unnecessary?

Resurrection. Don't we all wish. Jesus body was more likely thrown in a pit on the outskirts of the city and eaten by dogs and vultures.

"experience joy/sense and make experience joy/sense, without hurting yourself or anyone else, this is all moral"

This is a fairly Christian statement.

no christ was involved in this quote = you sir are a troll.

re: stars, i don't know anything about astronomy and don't particularly trust this text as my sole informant.

light·ning
1.
a. An abrupt, discontinuous natural electric discharge in the atmosphere.
b. The visible flash of light accompanying such a discharge.

thun·der

1. The crashing or booming sound produced by rapidly expanding air along the path of the electrical discharge of lightning.

But, anyway, doesn't matter. It made me think, yes, but I have no beliefs, so the thoughts are ultimately about nothing. Was just chatting, but it is taking away from the man's thread. Sorry anthony. I wish this forum had an edit/delete feature for users.

I mistrust organised religion. Organised relgion has been malign political force throughout human existence. It has provided the authority for, war, murder, repression, restriction on progress, restriction on art, on human ingenuity. Religion has always been about control about playing on the capacity of human kind for faith, for belief in change in this world or the next. Stalinism, Fascism, Maoism and many other political forces have all played on these same human instincts.

I do not believe in the divinity of Jesus, the direct line from Mohammed, Moses, Zarathusa or any of the other prophets to God. I believe these people were great teachers and law makers and there is much to learn from their lives, but then Aristotle, Plato, Da Vinci, Newtonm, Marx have as much to teach us.

Faith is a different matter. when faith arises out of self exploration, from learning from teachers, from exploring the nature of humanity then it can be a force for good, a path through life. If the the sacrament and the mystery of a church help you on this quest then that is your way.

Blind obedience to the words of a priest, preacher, rabbi, imam or book crushes the natural human nature, the natural human inquisitiveness and restricts the humanity of those constrained by that obedience.

Faith and belief are matters of choice and of conscience.

(Specifically relating to Anthony:

I have immense respect for you, for your faith and for how you arrived at that faith and for how you have managed to make that faith one with the nature of your being. You are avery rare and special individual. I am somewhat in awe of you.)

This argument annoys me somewhat whenever it's trotted out. Not because it isn't true, but because if religion of any kind had never existed, people would easily have found another justification for all of the above.

Isn't religion, as a collective expression of faith, always 'organised' to some extent? Is 'unorganised religion' an oxymoron?

I don't believe it is an irrelavent argument. Bush's current actions. His belief in that the WAR against iraq would be a 'just war' stems from his religious conviction and his religious education under Billy Graham.

Whoops, better do some work now.

i am my own master.

-- Matt DC (runmd...), March 12th, 2003.

Maosim, Fascism, etcetera (just about any creed of extremism) do show that we find ways external to religion to justify violence, but my biggest problem with mass/organised religion isn't so much the violence, but rather the repression thing; ie; the idea that this life is just preparation for the next life (or 'eternity' or 'infinity' or whatever you choose to call it), and therefore people should spend the entirety of this life in modest stillness and humility and prayer and so on and so forth, denying themselves basic pleasures of the breadth and colour of humanity and in doing so, just possibly, harbouring great resentment and dissatisfaction within themselves. I personally don't believe in God or an afterlife or even in anything that might be termed a soul, I've taken a long time to come to that stance and I'm more than happy with it. How pissed off would you be if you were a monk and spent your life quietly praying and being modest and shunning worldly temptation and pleasure in order to secure your passage to heaven, only to die and there be absolutely fuck-all afterwards? Just a cessation of existence? Isn't that a tragic, almost rude, waste of a life?

its just if you guys were making fag jokes

while perhaps an accurate description of your experience ("I feel hurt/angry when you attack Jesus/Xity, and I feel hurt/angry when people make fag jokes") is total bullshit otherwise. Christians have the whole fucking world on lockdown. They have wrecked culture after culture after culture, destroying whole civilizations and giving them only the vampire God in return. To say "oh, well, those weren't Christians then, they weren't acting in a Christian manner" is disingeuous: the whole history of the Church (broadly taken: not the Mother Church i.e. Rome but the whole broad history of Christianity) is, with a few bright spots such as your good self, a history of rape, plunder, dishonesty, and more shameful practices than I can number. This shameful institution has a figurehead: Christ, I mean: so when those of us who wonder what kind of nice world we might have been able to pursue without the crushing millstone of Christianity dragging us constantly down find ourselves needing a target, Jesus is not only the convenient one, but the appropriate one.

sorry for the rant, but Christianity as practiced really has f*cked up the world something proper

From my earliest experiences being given religious instruction (reading the Bible in confirmation, ELCA, age 12) I've always thought Paul was full of shit.

You can substitute "Christianity" with pretty much any human organization religious or otherwise and still have a true statement, J0hn.

The problem is not with religion, the problem is with humanity.

Well on the one hand you're right of course -- "From the crooked timber of humanity no straight thing can ever be made" (Kant) -- but on the other hand, there is no human organization that's got quite the stunning track record Christianity's got -- is there?

Oh, sorry I wrote all this stuff fairly fast, while my roomate was trying to get to sleep. Let me try and clarify some of my statements. As an engineer I often mistrust sciene. Things that work in theory rarely work in practice. This especially occurs at boundry conditions. Enternity is the infintity of time, time is still currently moving on, and there is no scientific way to predict the future. Just because time has consistantly moved along in the past doesn't mean it will continue to do so. In issues that sciene does not always work for, other tactics work better. (such as theology, or artistry, etc.)

""experience joy/sense and make experience joy/sense, without hurting yourself or anyone else, this is all moral"
This is a fairly Christian statement.
no christ was involved in this quote = you sir are a troll. "

What I meant by this was that this statement represents something similar to what a Christian would believe (I did not mean that Christ was involved in this quote at all. I don't think he spoke much French anyway.)
The reason I say this is because "experience joy" = "experience joy in th Lord always" and "without hurting yourself or anyone else" = the golden rule (Do unto others as you would have them do to you.)

(Sorry, again this was written fairly fast and as always for me correct/expressive spelling/grammar/vocabulary are probably not there, but i hope you can see my points and reply)

Some would say advanced capitalism. I think the issue is less with Christianity as a religion itself here but more that Christianity has in most cases been the religion of choice for white imperialists throughout the centuries. Christianity provided a very handy justification...

Well, this is expected because man is sinful. Of course people who are Christians would have many shameful practices. Christianity is not about acting in nonshameful ways. It's about realizing that oneself is very shameful.

PROPONENT: I prayed to my Lord Jesus Christ for guidance and He tells me that this is the moral thing to do. (Chops off cute child's head.)

DETRACTOR: Did you see that? Christianity has warped that guy into chopping up our cute children! Man, if we got rid of religion, everything would be solved!

ME: Doesn't anyone notice that this man is crazy? Religion has nothing to do with it.

PROPONENT/DETRACTOR: STONE THE INFIDEL!

It's a fair question ;)

Dan I don't doubt that humans would do plenty of awful things without Christianity -- I'm arguing against the position that there's a "real" Christianity that can somehow be separated from its direct use as a weapon against people over the centuries

Aye, you can, but no other religion is as widespread as Christianity, simply. And if we took away all the cotnrasting and confusing urges and rules imposed and frustrated by religion then maybe less people woul be mad and chopping off kids' heads.

This may be true of some religions or sects, but not of the Christianity i know. As far as I know the best way to experience basic pleasures and the breath and colour of humanity is through Christ. What basic pleasures can a Christian not experience, and with following Christ's instructions these basic pleasures are magnified immensely. Christianity is so much more an adventure than it is remaining in modest stillness.

How do you feel about government, J0hn? Do you think there's a difference between Communism as described by Marx and government the sprung up in the USSR? ("Yes Dan, because the government in the USSR was more socialist than communist, you dolt." "*sob*") Do you think the feudal system is inherently evil? Is there a distinction between theory and practice? Is it even worth discussing the difference between theory and practice? Is an idea that has been badly implemented automatically a bad idea?

Nick: Maybe. And maybe more people would be chopping off kids' heads because might makes right/Hammurabi's Code would rise to the top of the social interaction food chain.

"How long can life survive in the universe? Can it evolve forever, or will the third law of Thermodynamics lead to universal heat death? Apparently there might be some ways around this fate, if intelligent life is sufficiently clever and tenacious. " Anders Sandberg

Would you like to think about the possibility that 'eternity' may = 'infinity' as defined by mathematics/physics and then come back?

Would you like to think about the possibility of infinite survival in the universe and then come back? Here are some links to get you started

Time Without End: Physics and Biology in an Open Universe by Freeman J. Dyson. About the possibility of infinite survival in the universe

Possible Implications of the Quantum Theory of Gravity, An Introduction to the Meduso-Anthropic Principle by Louis Crane. Nontechnical paper about how the activities of technological civilizations could influence the evolution of baby universes.

These 2 links and many other can be found at Anders transhuman ressources right here

Also, slightly more correct/expressive spelling/grammar/vocabulary might help your argument.

you are right on this (!) but the same could be said about, like, the first post in this thread.

-- Dan Perry (djperr...), March 12th, 2003.

This is why we should all be holistic existentialist buddhist followers of tao.

Plus there's the whole meat-eating question.

Sorry, I see my confusion, I agree that ethically minded people make good advisors as opposed to predefined agendae.
I'm not sure which people Bush has as advisors.

Certain issues do have some ethical contradictions for example: should they save fully alive people with diseases by sacrificing potentially yet-to-be-born people or should they save yet-to-be-born people and potentially sacrifice fully alive people with diseases? both sides could be seen as ethically correct. Those advisors have a hard job.

Crusading is a somewhat loaded word, though.

Weather survival of the fittest for cultures should hold? The trend seems to be towards cultural homogenity weather you like it or not.

Is it imprecise? I'll gladly substitute it with "campaigning" (and I agree that female circumcision should be stopped).

I wish Nabisco was here to restate his argument about liberal western culture's desire to preserve indigenous cultures coming across to many in the indigenous culture as the rich and advantaged kids trying to keep others out of their flashy hi-tech sandbox.

Why is cultural homogenity inherently bad?

for that time it was the ultimate institution of knowledge and power and naturally was used as justification / actual administration of conquests

but sometimes as no more than, say, the fig-leaf that the UN is being used now by the miltary/economic force of the United States (Koffi Anand is our nu-God ha)

and people took that sense of destiny the Church gave them and turned it lots of difft ways - some to dominion, others to small-scale barley farming

the greed for wealth, which has grown into organized capitalism, and the exploitation demanded by its competitive efficiencies, have created institutions i consider at least as brutal as "The Christian Church" ever was, but without those little things like meditating on justice and love

i am totally into "weather survival of the fittest"; it would be like Fear Factor except with kids from Connecticut trying to sew their own parkas

Is it inherently good, then?

Next someone will be asking if biodiversity is a good thing.

No. That's my point.

Next someone will be asking if biodiversity is a good thing.

Are biodiversity and cultural diversity directly analogous?

The thing is Dan that you're being disingenuous. One could stop all manner of bad practices without resorting to "and you should stop this because My God Said So, and you should worhip Him, too." Reason would be the tool.

What makes you think reason is impervious to the same corruption that beset religion?

nope. I was just trying to make a dumb point. I'm gonna jump off this thread before my head explodes.

Anyway, There are tons of examples in the Bible where things appear to not be good or come out of people who are not good, that are good (because they are part of God's good plan)

Apologies for the christians, but my own personal opinion is that if your god exists, he's obviously not all good (he can't be if there is unnecessary evil), probably doesn't care about his "sons" on earth (see: Job), and is all around a complete dick (having already decided who's going to heaven, creating the guise of free will, and then damning those who did what God always intended to do for all eternity). I get around this by, of course, believing fully that he isn't there.

-
Alan

if your spirituality makes you happy, that's great, i am not discounting that. but spirituality has no external reality.

Well, you can use statistics and facts to disort the truth; that's certainly true. But basic logic is essentially infalible; if you disagree with it, then the basic rules of nature (up and down, 1+1=2) can be thrown out the window.

For instance; Jehovah/YHWH supposedly has this "plan" that everyone on earth follows because its been in effect for all time. Predestination. *BUT*, you see, we have free will too. The two can't be reconciled though; obviously, if everything is planned out, we only have the guise of free will. You can try and claim that its a "divine mystery" (as the Roman Catholic Church loves to do), but ultimately its a huge gaffe. And there are a *lot* of these huge missteps in logic all over the Bible in all its forms. So sure, you can attck logic, but then you're ultimately questioning the entire process as being inherently errant (which it isn't).

-
Alan

Because then we'd have to question everything, and I don't see that as being very realistic. I know for a fact that if I step in front of a train, that I'll die. Or that if you drop a bowling ball off a building, it will plummet. In fact, using the scientific method, I can tell you how fast the bowling ball will fall by figuring in air/wind resistance, its shape, so on, so forth. There is nothing "errant" about that, as those are the laws of nature, and frankly, I've never seen any reason to believe that they are somehow wrong or nonexistant. When you start to do so, you begin to enter the realm of solipsism, and that's pretty much devoid of any foundation (and I think rather unnecessary to delve into here).

-
Alan

Furthermore, why can't logic and religion coexist?

Because god isn't like dropping a bowling ball off a building. Its not something that we should all automatically just "assume" is there and work around it as such. If you're claiming that there is an omnipotent/omnipresent man in the sky who created the world and universe and the stars and everything on them and has a distinct plan made for each and every single one of them, then I want proof. And that "proof", like all data, is up for scientific enquiry. Someone can say "bowling balls, when taken to the top of a buiding and dropped, will fall to the earth" and you/I/anyone can question it. And we can test this theory by ascending a building and dropping a bowling ball. So why isn't the "proof" of the religious up for inquiry? Why is the religious off the hook by saying its a "mystery" whereas the scientist has to replicate his experiment many times over to prove his claims (extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence)?

>>Furthermore, why can't logic and religion coexist?<<

In theory, they could. I personally know of no theistic religion that survives basic scruitiny and haven't studied enough about the atheistic religions (Buddhism, Confucianism, Taoism, etc) to make a call on all of them.

-
Alan

inquiry...=P

-Alan

-
Alan

Good question. I'm not entirely sure. I tend to think its been in a constant infinite state of flux (contraction and expansion), but I couldn't tell you for sure. Frankly, I find "I don't know" to be a much better answer than just going "gawd did it".

return question: if God created the universe, who/what created God? And why does god not need a creator, whereas universe does (quantum physics and the existance of dark matter made the old 2nd law of Thermodynamics argument rather passe, if that's what your planning on going with)?

-
Alan

If God is a part of the universe, then explaining where the universe came from explains where God came from and the entire schism between faith and logic is based upon different mindsets interpreting the same phenomena in different ways.

The question isn't "how did God came into existance?", its "why does God need to exist for the universe to exist"? And God doesn't need to exist for the universe to exist, Dan. That's what I'm getting at. The universe doesn't need a creator. There's no reason it couldn't have been here forever, just as God would have.

>>If God is part of the universe, He must have come into existence in the same manner as the rest of it.<<

Right, but then you're not only leaving Judeo-Christianity, you're not explaining what made God and the universe come into existance. This is almost pantheistic.

>>If God is outside of the universe, He could have created the universe and not be subject to its laws, but that implies that He exists in a seperate plane of existence.<<

Then what control does he have here? Are we on a different plane of consciousness than animals and plants and rocks? Hell, is there even really a god? Is it supposed to be some sort of interconnected cosmic conscious (I've heard that one way too many times)?

>>If God is a part of the universe, then explaining where the universe came from explains where God came from and the entire schism between faith and logic is based upon different mindsets interpreting the same phenomena in different ways. <<

No, no it doesn't. You haven't told me how God came into existance, why the universe came into existance, etc, etc. You're also not telling me why I should bother to worship your supposed god. In fact, why even bother with a god concept when going in this direction? Why not just delve full into Buddhism?

-
Alan

That's my entire point, too. There's no distinction between God and the universe. Just as there isn't any compelling reason to worship him, there isn't any compelling reason not to worship him. It's two sides of the same coin.

in re: reason being enlisted in the service of the same sort that awfulness as Yahweh/Jesus is often called in to justify, sure, I suppose it could happen. In the matter of vivisection, I think it does happen, and I think it's awful. But again, it's a question of scale, and of potential vs. actual historical track record.

Above and beyond which, I've been thinking about this thread a lot on the drive down here. (You spend 16 hours driving, you get a lot of thinking done.) Another answer to Anthony's question -- why is it OK to bust out the abusive language on Jesus, and not, say, on gay folks -- it's because Jesus, or His people throughout history acting on behalf, is such a massive bully. We haven't been living under the yoke of gay culture for two thousand years, and there's no blood on the gay community's hands with respect to African colonization, Native Americans, etc etc etc. I think the rule is "it's always OK to pick on the bully." Witness America, always a convenient target for "Jesus those Americans are fat/loud/obnoxious/self-righteous" etc: and rightly a target! The guy who holds all the cards doesn't get to complain when people want to vent their frustrations about His inescapability.

All hail?

wait that's more or less exactly what I said in my first post, nevah mind ;)

You crazy man! (I still wonder about the conflation of Christianity with political/social structures in your example, though.)

consult Althusser on this one I think -- blast it, can't call the title to mind -- more in a few days, after I've turned around and driven ALL THE WAY BACK FROM TEXAS

So then I assume you're a pantheist?

(this isn't me trying to mark you as something negative, I'm just going with the definition as ascribed by most of its own followers)

-Alan

Like I implied in another thread, this is a fallacy: piety/religious conviction is not the same thing as certainty. This is a fairly recent conflation. It's just that the people you're talking about are very visible and very vocal, but assuming that makes them "more religious" or a better example of "religious people" is like calling a diagnosed nymphomaniac "more heterosexual."

It should go without saying that not all religious people, Jewish, Christian, or otherwise, think of God as "an omnipresent/omniscient man in the sky," but I'm assuming Alan was being deliberately hyperbolic there.

I would also like to point out that Alan is SO SURE that there's no such thing as a god of any type despite there not being in concrete proof.

I find this sad.

re:Alan...two wrongs don't make a right

You'd have to admit though...you're gonna have your hands full to try and fit judeo-christian beliefs into the naturalist/pantheist position. The idea that God has created a plan and the universe and all this, but that you're also really god doesn't work at all well.

-
Alan

It's your right to be condescending and judgemental.

I do not believe in God because I see all the evidence that points to hs existance to be lacking or incredibly flawed, and until someone can show me some legitimately solid evidence that he/she/it/whatever exists, why should I believe?

-
Alan

-Alan

It's that they aren't certain by nature -- you weren't very specific about what you thought they were sure of :) Certain that God exists? Sure (assuming people of a religion that has a God, etc. ... just assume I'm talking about Judeo-Christian faiths, cause it's all I know much about.) Certain of the details, certain of what God is like, whether God can be thought of as an entity with a personality or is just a name attached to "the force responsible for the world existing," certain of the interpretation of scriptures and even which scriptures have anything valid to offer ... those are all certainties that vary by individual (and by sect, although I guess that's redundant).

I'm not even sure I'd say that "a relationship with God" is inherent in Judeo-Christian faith. Most flavors of Christianity, maybe. And I don't know a great deal about modern Judaism as it's practiced -- but many of the early midrashim, for example, emphasize following the codes of behavior in Leviticus, etc., for reasons that amount to enlightened self-interest, rather than bringing in one's relationship with God and any supernatural consequences that would result.

I am believe there is a force in the world that will raise up the weak and cast down the greedy. I just have one little problem: plenty of weak people die unloved, unappreciated, and unredeemed, and plenty of greedy fatheads die in pampered and sycophantic tranquility. This is what the early Christians saw, too: the Romans covered their bodies in oil, stuck them on pikes and lit their roads with their burning flesh, subjected them to every possible humiliation and torture, and led the high life with no comeuppance. The only thing for it was to factor in an afterlife, like an over-time period, where the underdog would come out on top, which has led to all sort of superstitious crap and a perhaps unsurprising laxity in calling people to account in THIS life. Anyway I like this little belief of mine. It happens to be one of the central tenets of Christianity and many of Jesus's stand-up routines give solid examples for how to achieve it. Of course I may have stumbled upon this bedrock belief by following the Red Sox, too. I just doubt it would live in me so powerfully. It all may be delusional, I freely admit that. But a life without delusions is the life of an ant. What any of this has to do with alternate dimensions and wormholes and stuff is frankly beyond me.

But I'm not trying to do that -- those aren't the only options, not at all. A Judeo-Christian God does not have to be anthropomorphic. He does not have to have gender (I keep using he, when I need a pronoun, cause it's just easier). He does not have to be omniscient. He does not have to be omnipresent. He does not have to have a plan, particularly not one that is tailored to each individual.

NONE of those things are inherent in the whole of Judeo-Christian theology. None of them are things which fairly represent the variety of belief over the past few millennia of those faiths. They are common aspects of Judeo-Christianity as it's perceived, both by casual adherents (often in the context of "well, but I don't go so far as to believe this) and people outside the faiths. But there are, and have always been, people -- both in the laity and the clergy -- who believe otherwise, and not just disenfranchised minorities.

maybe not inherent, but they are beyond prevalent. One of the things that undermines the validity of religions is how people pick and choose the parts of a religion that fits their thinking, discard those that don't, and then still call themselves Xian, Jewish,etc

Alan: The entire point of a religion like Christianity or Islam is that you believe in it without proof. Your statement is akin to saying that if you're going to play soccer, they have to rewrite the rules so that you can carry the ball around. There's nothing wrong with choosing not to play, but I disagree that you should be making fun of the people who are (just like I disagree that the players should constantly run into the sidelines and drag new players kicking and screaming onto the field).

One of the things that undermines the validity of political parties is how people pick and choose the parts of a party line that fits their thinking, discard those that don't, and then still call themselves Republican, Democrat,etc

IOW "Welcome to human nature!"

This is very peculiar because I don't understand how it's any use at all. If you think something like that, well, what do you do?

The entire point of a religion like Christianity or Islam is that you believe in it without proof.

but how do you DO that?

I threw up my hands and became agnostic. :-)

See, I don't even tease religious people.

No, I'm atheist. I don't believe in god. I'm asking people why we should assume he exists in the first place...that question does not automatically get answered with "then we should assume he does not". Rather, people who believe in god in whatever form he takes should give the reasons why they believe such a being exists and those claims, like any other, are up for analysis. Analyzing many of them. I've yet to see anything that would be evidence of God's existance. In fact, in many cases (Judeo-Christianity being a prime example) I see plenty of logic in outright saying their god does not exist.

>>But I'm not trying to do that -- those aren't the only options, not at all. A Judeo-Christian God does not have to be anthropomorphic. He does not have to have gender (I keep using he, when I need a pronoun, cause it's just easier). He does not have to be omniscient. He does not have to be omnipresent. He does not have to have a plan, particularly not one that is tailored to each individual.<<

I've really only seen an attempt to unify these two ideals in the Unitarian Universalist Church, and frankly I wasn't too impressed. To this day, I don't see how you can reconcile the books of Job, Exodus, Genesis, and pretty much the entire Christian gospel (Mark, Peter, Matthew, Luke) with the view. God handing down tablets containing the 10 Commandments from the sky isn't in line with a pantheistic god who makes up everyone/everything. Same goes for demons, Satan, free will, heaven/hell, all that stuff.

-
Alan

Ditto

Why?

Many assume that he might exist, not necessarily that he does. That seems reasonable to me.

But that's stupid. Why not demand that people worship the dragon in my Kenmore then? Because I say so?

>>Your statement is akin to saying that if you're going to play soccer, they have to rewrite the rules so that you can carry the ball around. <<

Why? Because I want to have it explained to me why god A is better than worshipping god B? My question is, "why believe in god(s)?" and to this point here or elsewhere, I've never been given a good answer. And I don't believe I ever will.

>>There's nothing wrong with choosing not to play, but I disagree that you should be making fun of the people who are (just like I disagree that the players should constantly run into the sidelines and drag new players kicking and screaming onto the field).<<

If that was what I was here to do, then I'd have some long, drawn out history trolling christian NGs. Rather, I keep the humor to myself or friends who equally enjoy it (and who are agnostics/atheists themselves). My interest in coming here was not to randomly flame people, but to get in a philisophical discussion about logic over blind faith (which we've done). We're on to other topics, and thus I'll continue. I don't see how having a discussion on the legitimacy of Judeo-Christianity is anymore "offensive" to having one about, say, the legitimacy of capitalism (some free market folks might be out there!) or about how one car manufacturer is better than another (people love their Saturns, you know).

>>Why?<<

::sigh::...to validate his reasons why he believes so. If I came on here and said "FUCK EVERYONE CAT POWER IS LAME AND I HATE GAYS AND JEWS AND BUDWEISER IS THE BEST BEER EVER," I'd have to explain why in order to attempt to validate my viewpoints, no?

-
Alan

The Judeo-Christian god YHWH/Jehovah does not exist, and yes, I'm sure of this. If there is a god, he is nothing like the one those religions typically ascribe to worshipping. I also believe that such a god is probably not worth my worship.

-
Alan

(My mentor in college was [or termed herself] a gnostic. "Atheists I suppose I can understand. But I have no patience for agnostics.")

-
Alan

If that was what I was here to do, then I'd have some long, drawn out history trolling black NGs. Rather, I keep the humor to myself or friends who equally enjoy it (and who are white/mostly-white themselves). My interest in coming here was not to randomly flame people, but to get in a philisophical discussion about whiteness over blackness (which we've done).

The entirety of your arguing style is prejudicial, not objective.

heh I'm an agnostic I guess, but something about it seems like bullshit to me.

I had a family friend once tell me that agnostics were cowards who wer afraid to make a commitment. My girlfriend (who had just met him) nodded and agreed, this being an argument we had had many times over. He then went on to underscore the importance of making a choice about religion by quoting Star Trek III. My girlfriend tried to backpedal away from the alliance, but it was too late. I smiled inside.

But Dan, people are Christians and Muslims and all sorts of other theistic and atheistic faiths FOR A REASON. They don't just say, "oh, well, this Jesus fellow sounds nice. I'll pattern my life after what he says." You're saying, "well, they're doing it even though they have no proof." But then why did St. Thomas Aquinas write up the "proofs"? Obviously, people have to have SOME basis for their beliefs in a god (s), and they're just as open for skepticism/dissection as a racist or a idealist or a communist or a libertarian.

-
Alan

I didn't just start having these beliefs yesterday, you know... =)

-
Alan

"agnostic" = "doesn't know" or "CAN'T know." I can't get behind that. Also "aversion to uncertainty" is a good thing on the whole, I think.

Why?

"on what basis?"

"i can't really put it into words, Alan" *cringes*

It's not a matter of picking and choosing, and I don't think they're as prevalent as you seem to -- just very visible. I'm not just talking about what people call themselves. Again, I'm talking about traditions that go back thousands of years -- pre-Christian midrashim that discard the "man in the sky" notion of God, traditions as old as any other still-thriving J-C conceptions of God, Scripture, etc.

The "God has a plan for everyone, a distinct plan tailored to every individual" view of Judeo-Christianity, or even Christianity, is not a default one, nor the original one, nor one which has held significantly greater sway with theologians or the clergy (except among specific Protestant denominations). It's simply a well-known one.

But does the fact that they're a Southern Baptist (example) because their parents were make them immune from undergoing critical thinking when it comes to their beliefs? It might "offend" them? I don't see people running around damning The Sex Pistols for offending Queen Elizabeth here. Because its dealing with religion, we can't touch that or make them question their beliefs? You better tell a lot of philosophy teachers in colleges across America and the secular world as a whole (I remember one at UCONN who immediately got up and began a lesson with "There is no god").

The same thing can also be said about racism (passed down from generation to generation, result of bad experience, etc). Plenty of people are vocal and emotive about their feelings when it comes to racial issues too. But yet, no one would dare say questioning people with such beliefs as to why they have them and as to whether or not they're logical to have should be shunned because its potentially offensive. That's not to say that religion is inherently "bad" and divisive like racism is, but it certainly has the capability to be (Crusades, Inquisition, extermination of Native American Peoples, etc).

I also don't claim to know everything either, for those insinuating that I might be. Revisit my answer to "who created the universe?" for that issue.

-
Alan

-
Alan

Okay...I thought you were saying lots of Christians held naturalistic/pantheistic views. I see now that you're referring more to Mysticism/Eastern Religion/etc. that about a third of the world follows. Clears that up. Thanks.

-
Alan

No, I'm saying that believing something which doesn't fit in with the common conception of Christianity, particularly the conception common among casual adherents and non-believers, doesn't constitute "picking and choosing," the same way that -- admittedly, I'm grinding my own axe with this example -- literalist Christians pick and choose by saying "we believe every word of the Bible is true and should be literally followed ... uh, except the bit about koshering our meat and not crossing running water if we're menstruating" (granted, there are literalists who do go that far; but they're clearly the minority.)

What I was getting from you, I thought, was that people who discarded the things I was saying aren't inherent to J-C faiths were essentially moving away from the "real" or "default" versions of those faiths and adapting them to their own purposes, and I'd argue that the first part of that isn't the case.

Do people have a tailor-made version of God ... do you mean does everyone have their own personal conception of God? I suppose so, although in my experience most people don't put as much of their thought into that aspect of religion as they do others (ymmv, and then again, I'm not telepathic. I could be projecting.)

Maybe -- at least, yeah, mysticism within Judeo-Christianity generally grows out of those views, and there are similarities between them and those of many Eastern religions. I'm always resistant to plopping Eastern religion and Christianity or Judaism together, but only because there's been so much bad scholarship in the past few decades in that area, to cash in on the popularity of Buddhism among Catholics.

Yay! We agree

-
Alan

Not wishing to be "uncertain" in one's beliefs could lead to someone latching onto whatever/whoever embraces them most (hence, cults and religions) or could push them towards an interest in becoming certain (research, scientific process, etc). I guess you're right that its a two sided coin.

-just gonna ditch typing my name after the lines and go with the auto sig-

-
Alan

I've never understood what the 'choice about religion' involves. The first choice seems to be 'there is a god' (i.e. a creator and master and observer of the universe) vs. there is no such god.

So you divide yourself into category (a) or (b).

(a) is: You assume there's no god, or that we can never know if there is a god, and you're fine. End of the matter. It makes no difference to the way you live.

(b) is: You assume that there probably is a god (the 'there's more to life than this' option). That's fine, too. I understand that feeling. You think there's a good chance that some mysteries will be revealed to you when you die. Before then, it makes little difference to the way you live.

The problem is, many people in category (b) decide to elaborate on their beliefs. There are thousands of gods imagined by primitive peoples. The (b) people tend to choose one of them. They reject all other gods imagined by primitive peoples. They reject the infinite number of potential gods that might have been created by the cultures of primitive peoples. They reject the crazy number of potential gods quite beyond any human's imagination. From all the unknowable mysteries of the universe, and beyond, they choose to believe very specific narratives.

The thread starter said: "i belive in the incarnation, the immaculate conception, the virigin birth". He believes "that the host becomes the flesh and body of christ at mass".

If there is a god who involves itself in tawdry shit like virgin births, and primitive sacrifice for all the sin in the world, and original sin, and the whole cheesy conjurer's nonsense of the mass, then I reject that god. I reject that god because it lacks imagination. That god is a fuckwit.

There is no such god. I don't discount the possibility that there is some kind of god. There is no evidence for any god, and I know this because any being worth the name would not offer the tatty evidence presented so far.

I despise the beliefs of all religious people because they are reductive, unromantic and fucking dull. Their literalism kills me.

Religion opens up so much more of a complex, exciting, and romantic life. All you have as a non-religious person is only what you perceive. That is dull compared to the religous person who gets things that can't even be percieved.

Darn it, EK, I'm gonna poke you with a stick. I just made like eleven posts talking about how not all Jews and Christians are literalists -- historically, they haven't even been the majority!

No hard feelings, bro. At least not until you knock Electric Wizard. =)

How can you expect Science to be able to proove something like that? Science cannot do that. You have to look at History to see the proof.

Says who? The dragon in my dryer is taking me to CANDY LAND

http://www.hasbropreschool.com/common/images/products/4700_imageMain200.jpg

-had to do it, sorry-

-Alan

(WE SHOULD BE SO LUCKY to get a Heaven that is Candyland!)

Did you mean me?

fantasy/ imagination is very much a taste/sample of what heaven would be.

Bullshit.

You see, if you wanna argue this point, you'd better have a paragraph of prose ready that is gonna make cum in my dungarees.

And at the end of the non-relgious person's life, you just die, cease to exist. The religious person gets the most amazing, romantic adventure, so much less dull than any life anyone could live.

Do you? Is that a fact? Again, please provide me with desciptions. If you're so sure, your response should better, for "amazing, romantic adventure", any human writer who has ever lived. Elsewise, you're bluffing.

I'm much more uncertain of what God does, than what happens in this world.

It's impossible for me to see everything, but I can see how this world is.

Cool! What's going on in Bangladesh right now? Where's that lighter I misplaced?

Okay....questions...

A) Apart from "divine revelation", how do you know heaven exists?

B) Are you really sure honoring the Sabbath does any more for one's life, than say, honoring the fire (zing!)?

C) Can you please show me that historical proof of God's existance again? I seemed to have missed it the first time.

-
Alan

http://www.achewood.com/i/03052003.gif

A method of making a design by placing a piece of paper on top of an object and then rubbing over it, as with a pencil or charcoal.
A design so made.

C) the Bible is the historical proof. It's prophecy.
2 Peter 1:20,21
"above all, you must understand that no prophecy of Scripture came about by the prophet's own interpretation. For prophecy never had its origin in the will of man, but men spoke from God as they were carried along by the Holy Spirit"

B) From personal experience, yes. And an ideal Christian would have the experience of joy and hope even in suffering. For this ideal Christain following the rules are pure joy. Even if they may feel pain, get bored, angry, sad, for the ideal Christian there is still joy. This cannot be said for the non-religious. Pain is painful, etc.

A) Because "divine revelation," is the obvious answer, this is difficult to answer. I cannot proove any "divine revelation."
If the differences better non-religous and religious people are simplified to one thing it would be that one believes devine revelation is real the other does not. I'll think of a better explination to post in a bit.

I don't look down or pity non-believers. I like to argue with them.

that's a disturbing concept.
(a large crowd of boy scouts all running around bumping into each other...)

B) I'm not even sure this is worth answering. Suffering is really good when you're christian? Okaaaaaay...I'll just post news:alt.atheism so that people can just go there and relive this argument hundreds of times over.

C) What about all the prophecies that didn't come out right? Jesus was supposed to return "soon"...its been 2000 years. Heck, here's a list of false prophecies found in the King James' Bible:

http://www.skepticsannotatedbible.com/prophecy.html

You know, Nostrodamus had a pretty good hit ratio on his prophecies. So have many other groups/individuals over the year. Were they divinely inspiried?

If I'm an atheist/agnostic/whatever, isn't that what was in God's plan the whole time? Why argue? Is God's plan to have me fooled into logic and then send me to hell when I die? That's not very nice of him.

Yea, you're right. I'm just marvelling as to how you get to the point where you believe that there is a god, he's all good, he's all powerful, he has a plan, you can go to heaven, etc. etc. I guess where I'd like to start is what we were talking about earlier...why does A Narin believe that such a god exists?

I think I'm basically a strong agnostic with some sort of humanist gloss. By "humanist" I mean this: I think religions are essentially narratives, narratives that order the existence of humans on Earth. They tell us stories about what’s happening: where we came from, what we should be trying to accomplish, what we should value, how we should interpret and react to our experience of the world. And, just as with the stories in art, they’re interpretable stories—stories we can choose to read as literal commands or to look deeply into, searching for animating spirits and meaningful subtexts.

It’s worth noting that major religions have historically opposed the telling of other stories, in fiction and in art in general. Religion has encouraged artists to retell the central stories of religion, but has traditionally discouraged them from creating stories that might compete to frame the world for us. “This is God’s story,” they say, “it’s the only one that matters.”

I think that when people separate the “spirit” or “core” of a religion from its rules, its history, or its practice—for instance, when Anthony says he’s Catholic and queer and need not reconcile them—what they’re saying is that no matter what happens in the physical world, and no matter what problems the religion’s narrative may have, they maintain their belief that the story is fundamentally a good, useful, and compelling one. They mean that using that particular story to organize their time on Earth has brought them consolation or insight or a sense of order. If these stories have led people to do horrible things, they say, then these people are not reading the story in the same way that I am reading it.

There’s been a lot of discussion of proof and faith here. I would have a lot of things to say about it, but so long as I’m on this narrative topic let me put it this way: “faith,” from where I stand, seems to mean being so compelled by the ordering story a religion tells that you’re willing to accept the whole package as truth. And it’s not just the story: the entire culture of a religion, the way the “story” seems to be leading people in practice, and the people who tell it to us, usually our families—all of these things only make the stories more compelling to us. This is how conversion works: you find a person who seems truly in need of something that can give them purpose, hope, or order, and you show them how adopting a given religious story as their framework can give them those things. And if they need those things badly enough, they’ll agree with you.

I’ve not found any religious story that compels me like this—not enough to believe on anything more than a literary level. Christianity is the religion I know the most about, and I often think it has a kick-ass narrative. Its central story is short and simple and, unlike any other religion, features a God who is human and dies. This is pretty compelling. But not compelling enough for me to put faith in the whole thing. When I was a young Christian I’m not sure how much I “believed” these things, but I did believe they were useful. Now I’m more interested in people: I’m interested in what stories we can tell one another that offer up our own interpretations of what we’re doing here. I’m interested in art and life and academia and all of the things humans do to construct, for themselves, useful ways of thinking about and looking at the fact that they exist. And that’s where humanism comes into it.

Sorry for the long post. Actually I think it was just helpful for me, personally, to try and explain that once.

A) "How do you disprove what the Mormons or Muslims believe as being the word of God? Or is every interpretation correct? "

No, i think that the Bible alone is the word of God. This is partly from experience in that people I look up to believe this, and from not being convinced of the opposite. I start with the assumption that it is true and then try really hard to disproove it, and I cannot. Other texts have faults (because they are not divine revelation). I know that there is much paradox in this idea. And that it has no value at all in convincing a non-Christian that Christianity is real.

B) here's where I got that from:
James 1:2
"Consider it pure joy, my brothers, whenever you face trials of many kinds, because you know that the testing of your faith develops perseverance."
What you may call 'delusion' allows the Christian to feel joy where the non-Chirstian would not feel joy.

C) Again this comes down to the simple differance between the two opposing ideas. No, again I believe that only the bible is divinelt inspired.

A Nairn arrives to provide excellent demonstration of the "compelling useful story" principle.

yes, it could be.

"Why argue?"

God could choose you, and in arguing you may see that.
see G. K. Chesterton as an example of someone who through debating about God came to believe in God.

"Is God's plan to have me fooled into logic and then send me to hell when I die?"

It could be.

"That's not very nice of him."

God is not very nice.

That's the huge issue I have with Christianity; I don't want to sing praise to a capricious higher power more concerned with His plan than my well-being.

Anyway I want Alan to start the "Church of the Kenmore Dragon", I would like to see that, it sounds goofy. It's hard to see it doing that well though, to be honest.

The way I see it is that I am so much less significant than God that his selfishness is appropriate.

also, to see what I myself believe.

As for the argument at hand, its basically gonna go around in circles; I don't consider the bible to be divine word, and A Narin does. We'd just go back and forth on that ad infinitum. So right now I'm gonna go wash some dishes and make something for dinner. Perhaps I'll be back in a few.

Gosh, that's terribly creepy. I could almost see that as a metaphor for why small countries are supposed to fall in line behind whatever America wants them do.

Not offering any of those as my answers; just reporting them secondhand. Don't ask me to defend em.

? On what scale?

http://www.spurgeon.org/sermons/0206.htm

I guess power, economicly, etc.
I should say I'm all for America not imposing on other countries.

Actually this doesn't really answer the question : "Is there any reason to believe a given piece of scripture is divinely inspired"

It's more about reafirming the belief. (which most sermons or scriptures are about) the actually initiation of the belief is unclear.
It may start as "I want to," and through reaffirmation (constantly) become more of a "I know that."

I tend to believe miracululous revelations are very rare or don't exist much at all (especially after the time of the Bible)

And as I posted above I don't think that scientific evidence can prove any religious truths. The two are on different planes.

If only the medievalists understood this when they tried to argue that the risen Jesus was physically (scientifically) resurrected.

>>Gosh, that's terribly creepy. I could almost see that as a metaphor for why small countries are supposed to fall in line behind whatever America wants them do. <<

Exactly Dan. YHWH could be an omnipresent Stalin (his killing of hundreds thousands of people throughout history indicates he would be), which doesn't exactly make for a worthy target of worship. In fact, I'd be glad to fight for the forces of rebellion (Satan) if it could be proved that this god existed. But that's neither here nor there.

So, anyways, in order for people to worship him, God is also "completely good". Of course, there's no way to get to him being "the ultimate good" philisophically apart from when he tells us so, so then we enter the circular argument from hell. And we're back where we started.

eg.

"Are you sure that god doesn't exist -- can you prove it?"
"I can't prove it, so in that sense i can never be absolutely sure."
"Aha you are really an agnostic!"

but

"Are you sure that the sun will rise tomorrow -- can you prove it?"
"Well, one never knows what can happen, maybe a meteorite or maybe a black hole or etc. etc. so in that sense no prediction can ever be absolute."
"Aha you are really agnostic about the sun rising!"

I realize that Dan and I are essentially one and the same and make an excellent standin Holy Trinity Minus One, but still. ;-)

1) Religion as a narrative and tradition of a society. That gives explanations of the nature of being and the world and a moral code to live in that role. might involve 'god' as a creator, law giver, teacher, king.

2) Religion as a political force, or a justification for political force. Divine right of kings, one nation under god, in god we trust, missionaries, imperialism, the white man's burden the crusades, Al'Quaeda,

3) Religion as personal revelation or self discovery, the creation or discovery of a personal 'god' and the colective pooling of this discovery and revalation, Budhists, Quakers, theosophists may be even philosophers.

and we have God

1) God the creator

2) God the authority

3) God the Benefactor

4) God the advisor

5) God the universal force

6) god the Truth

7) god the release from suffering

faith and belief seem to be a grab bag of all or none of these and from that humans build up Religions, faiths and ways of being. Don't begrudge anyone their views or ways of living but a resent when anyone tries to impose their views or ways of being on me which is what most of the worlds organised religions try to do. Most religions are by their nature proselytizing because they claim to hold a monopoly on the truth (although there are several traditions which aren't).

No one has a monopoly on the truth. At the end the truth is only what we as individuals will accept as true. There are no universal truths, even what we as individuals perceive to be the truth may not even if the truth appears to be 'self evident'. To take the bowling ball example: may accept that a bowling ball falls towards the ground, but it also falls away from the top of a building, it is also the case that the earth and the building fall towards each other and the earth falls towards the building. True all of those are interpretation of the same physical law dependent on point of reference, but I don't have to accept that that law holds in even the face of 'incontrovertible' evidence.

I am interested to hear how Christianity is viewed in the States (it being a famously religious country), because in the UK today Christians are pretty much cultural pariahs.

i think that alot of folx have one view of jesus and christians.

http://www.fecalface.com/POTD/upload/2007/06/6-16-07.jpg

jesus must be bored

You've got a new favorite photo, I see.

That guy has freakishly long arms.

PROPONENT: I prayed to my Lord Jesus Christ for guidance and He tells me that this is the moral thing to do. (Chops off cute child's head.)

DETRACTOR: Did you see that? Christianity has warped that guy into chopping up our cute children! Man, if we got rid of religion, everything would be solved!

ME: Doesn't anyone notice that this man is crazy? Religion has nothing to do with it.

PROPONENT/DETRACTOR: STONE THE INFIDEL!

― Dan Perry (Dan Perry)

Plus ca change, etc.