Henry Posted February 25, 2002 Share Posted February 25, 2002 Posted this onthe other thread by mistake. here it is again:<br /><br />I don't know, Die Hard. There are millions upon millions of people on this planet who are just as sure as you that they know what's going on. Who's to say their answers are any less correct than yours? Frankly, your convictions appears just as militant as those of a born-again Christian, and it's been my experience that such close minded-ness is rarely a good thing.<br /><br />I probably fall into the same category as Om. The one thing I'm sure of about God and the cosmos is that I don't know a thing. <br /><br />I will say that there have ocassionally been times, both good and bad, in my life when I felt the circumstances were beyond me, and that 'God' or something more than myself had to be involved. I think that's why SO many athletes talk about God letting them win the race or score the game-winning TD or whatever. Sometimes, such events seem to take on their own life and you feel as though you are just along for the ride. It's not so much that I felt I NEEDED God there, but that he was anyway.<br /><br />Well, whatever. I'm sure I'm not explaining this very well. I'm actually closer to Die Hard's end of the spectrum than Tchershires. (BTW, my inability to prove that God doesn't exist is not proof that he does. The onus is on you, the believer, to prove your contentions. Heck, I could just as easily ask Die hard to prove I am not the messiah, and use his inability to convince me otherwise to validate that belief. ) <br /><br />But I do keep my mind open to the possibility that there is something out there that is greater than us, that we don't yet understand. Until I know for sure, I think I'll just try to follow the rules of Man as best I can and stay out of the way of the zealots. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Henry Posted February 25, 2002 Share Posted February 25, 2002 Oh, and Die Hard, don't get me started on Philosohpy. It can be just as dangerous as religion. Just ask Karl Marx. <img border="0" title="" alt="[smile]" src="smile.gif" /> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Die Hard Posted February 25, 2002 Share Posted February 25, 2002 Frankly, your convictions appears just as militant as those of a born-again Christian, and it's been my experience that such close minded-ness is rarely a good thing.<br /><br />That's hardly fair. Unlike others, I have not encountered enough evidence to warrent dying or killing for my beliefs. And I suggest we're all equal and all suffer the same fate. I don't condemn others to hell for disbelief.<br /><br />I probably fall into the same category as Om. The one thing I'm sure of about God and the cosmos is that I don't know a thing. <br /><br />If you've followed my arguments... you'll find we're in agreeance here. Though to say we 'don't know a thing' isn't necessarily true. There are certain things within the vacuum of life which are known to be true. I don't pretend to understand the intracacies of death. But I'm not about to fabricate ideas either.<br /><br />That's exactly what religion does.<br /><br />I will say that there have ocassionally been times, both good and bad, in my life when I felt the circumstances were beyond me, and that 'God' or something more than myself had to be involved. I think that's why SO many athletes talk about God letting them win the race or score the game-winning TD or whatever. <br /><br />Of course you feel circumstances are beyond your control. They are. Life is bigger than you <img border="0" title="" alt="[smile]" src="smile.gif" /> <br /><br />Whether athletes succeed or fail is ultimately their own responsibility. A fat man at 300lbs is not going to win a 100 metre dash because he prays diligently to God. An athlete has to train vigorously and dedicate him/herself to attaining that goal. There's enough variables to determine the outcomes of things without having resolve to a higher power.<br /><br />Why does God always get the credit and never the blame? Honestly.<br /><br />Sometimes, such events seem to take on their own life and you feel as though you are just along for the ride <br /><br />You are. And there's absolutely nothing wrong with it. To assume you can control all the circumstances of life would be egotistical.<br /><br />But I do keep my mind open to the possibility that there is something out there that is greater than us, that we don't yet understand. <br /><br />We're in agreeance here Henry. There actually may be something out there greater than us. In fact, there's a great probability of it. But trying to qualify it with basic principles (ie. morality, ethics, right and wrong, soul vs no soul, reincarnation, heaven and hell) ) and general expression (ie. worship/religion - praying, eating the host, etc.) and persecuting and condemning others who don't believe in those same principles is counterproductive.<br /><br />Kevin Smith tried to convey this exact same message in a amusing parody "Dogma". I think he did a marvelous job too. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Die Hard Posted February 25, 2002 Share Posted February 25, 2002 Actually Karl Marx espouses a lot of the same principles and ideals entrenched in western religions. However, the problem inherently lies in that our religious beliefs are not consistent with our economic principles. <br /><br />We all 'think' we believe in the equality of man but truly we are a self-serving species. We all denounce the concept of 'sweat shops' and exploiting other humans beings... and yet as comsumers we perpetuate it. Out of convenience no less. Because who the heck wants to pay any more than $.29/cents a pound for bananas anyways? <img border="0" title="" alt="[smile]" src="smile.gif" /> <br /><br />Henry... sometimes the truth hurts <img border="0" title="" alt="[smile]" src="smile.gif" /><br /> <br /> <small>[ February 25, 2002, 05:48 PM: Message edited by: Die Hard ]</small> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mardi gras skin Posted February 25, 2002 Share Posted February 25, 2002 Well, Die Hard, I hadn't presented a side, just an interesting comment on your past life psyche. But at your invitation I will amaze and befudle...tomorrow <img border="0" title="" alt="[smile]" src="smile.gif" /> <br /><br />Tonight, my wife awaits. Truly, a gift from God <img border="0" title="" alt="[Wink]" src="wink.gif" /> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KevinthePRF Posted February 25, 2002 Share Posted February 25, 2002 Die Hard, maybe I'm missing something or am wrong on your vocabulary and meaning, but you seem to be contradicting yourself in some ways. <br /><br />You say your a stout atheist, which I define as someone who believes in no greater power whatsoever and every facet of the universe has a scientific explination. But you left yourself open to the possibility of something greater out there than us beyond our own lives here and now. If you leave yourself open to the possibility of an existence of something, whatever it may be, I don't see the point in you stamping out religon altogether in this thread being the atheist that you are. <br /><br />I'm with you on the most part Die Hard, especially with religon used as a tool to justify our ethics(or lack there of with groups like Al Queada), or existence of places no man or woman can point to or touch, such as heavan or hell. But condeming religon altogether is just as ludicrous and hypocritical as those who condem non-believers of their particular religon. <br /><br />If loyal followers of religon are emotionally weak in someway, I don't see it as a badge of honor from atheists that they as people are anymore emotionally stronger. Or what even emotionally strong is defined as. As far as I know and have experienced from people in all walks of life, we all have the same feelings and potential to live a fulfilling life with or without religon in our lives.<br /><br />To all concerning this thread I'd say definitely check out the movie Contact with Jodie Foster if you haven't seen it already. An awesome view of religon and faith, from both sides of the coin.<br /> <br /> <small>[ February 25, 2002, 09:29 PM: Message edited by: KevinthePRF ]</small> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Die Hard Posted February 25, 2002 Share Posted February 25, 2002 Kevin -<br /><br />When I made references to God, it was for nothing more than for the sake of argument.<br /><br />I'm not exactly contradicting myself. I'm just altering the definition a smidge to more accurate classify myself. I don't like to be pigeon-holed into a strict definition of the word <img border="0" title="" alt="[big Grin]" src="biggrin.gif" /> <br /><br />Atheism's most basic defition is the belief there is no God. And for the most part I adhere to it. I don't believe in the all-omnipotent metaphysical God with all the qualities and virtues that have been described here or in bibles. <br /><br />But I'm leaving the door open - who says I'm not openminded? <img border="0" title="" alt="[smile]" src="smile.gif" /> - for the possibility of the existence of something bigger than 'life'. And it doesn't have to necessarily be God. And certainly not the God mentioned above.<br /> <br /> <small>[ February 25, 2002, 11:06 PM: Message edited by: Die Hard ]</small> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Om Posted February 26, 2002 Share Posted February 26, 2002 Ah ... we're finally getting around to the crux of it. <br /><br />Here we've been having a spirited debate on whether or not there IS a God, and yet, from where I sit, we have not yet even begun to come to a working definition of what that "God" is. <br /><br />Seems to me that somewhere between "I Am That I Am" and "some superior intelligence" there lies mighty big territory. This is why I've hesitated to get into this much. <br /><br />My brother and I, hardly strangers (having been raised in the same home, by the same parents, sharing the same environment and heredity), spent about 10 hours over the course of a very long night a few years ago, just trying to come to a place where we thought we might finally be on the same page as to what we were even talking about. That night, we finally came to understand what the word "God," or at least the possibilities therein, really implied to one another. And once we finally DID get to that point, we were far too exhausted (and the wine was gone) to debate the implications. One of these days we'll hopefully get the chance to pick up where we left off.<br /><br />The point is ... I treasure the chance to hear from my fellow human beings what their definition of God might be. It seems to me a far more interesting -- and potentially educational -- approach than getting too far afield when the participants in a conversation have not established a reasonable common frame of reference from which to operate. <br /><br />I've spent a lifetime refining my vision of the universe (as I happen to feel we all should), so unless my brothers here are willing to go the distance (I'm thinking base line of 10 hours and 2 bottles of Bourdeax) to at least define the parameters of the discussion ... seems to me we're spinning our wheels.<br /><br />Not that I'm not enjoying the debate simply for debate's sake. <img border="0" title="" alt="[smile]" src="smile.gif" /><br /> <br /> <small>[ February 26, 2002, 08:55 AM: Message edited by: Om ]</small> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mardi gras skin Posted February 26, 2002 Share Posted February 26, 2002 Ok, Die Hard I’m ready to go. Sorry I’m late on this one. That’s what I get for linking straight to the Fed-Ex board. Om, thanks for your weekly update...I'd have missed this all together if not for you.<br /><br />There are so many lines of thought here that it gets pretty confusing. In this post I’m going to address my belief in the existence of a God. Later, I’ll look at direct responses to specific lines you guys have written <br /><br />As to the existence of God. I know that there are precious few true atheists, but any discussion about God has to begin with his existence. There are some moody thinkers that I find at least as compelling as Rousseau. Chief among them is Thomas Aquinas, a priest, theologian, and philosopher. His Summa Theologiae ranks as some of the cleanest thought on the existence of God that I’ve ever read. And his quote concerning faith and reason nail it for me: "The truth of the Christian faith...surpasses the capacity of reason, nevertheless that truth that the human reason is naturally endowed to know can not be opposed to the truth of the Christian faith." If faith is at odds with reason and facts, either faith or reason is misplaced. He presented “Five Ways” that argue for the existence of a God. <br /><br />The first Way is the Argument From Motion. Studying the works of the Greek philosopher Aristotle, he concluded that an object that is in motion (e.g. the planets, a rolling stone) is put in motion by some other object or force. From this, Aquinas believes that ultimately there must have been an UNMOVED MOVER (GOD) who first put things in motion. <br /><br />1) Nothing can move itself. <br />2) If every object in motion had a mover, then the first object in motion needed a mover. <br />3) This first mover is the Unmoved Mover, called God. <br /><br />His second Way is the Causation Of Existence. Aquinas concluded that common sense observation tells us that no object creates itself. In other words, some previous object had to create it. Ultimately there must have been an uncaused first cause (God) who began the chain of existence for all things. Follow the argument this way: <br /><br />1) There exists things that are caused (created) by other things. <br />2) Nothing can be the cause of itself (nothing can create itself.) <br />3) There can not be an endless string of objects causing other objects to exist. <br />4) Therefore, there must be an uncaused first cause called God. <br /><br />The third Way is the Contingent and Necessary Objects. This holds that there are two types of objects in the universe: contingent beings and necessary beings. A contingent being is an object that cannot exist without a necessary being causing its existence. Aquinas believed that the existence of contingent beings would ultimately necessitate a being which must exist for all of the contingent beings to exist. This being, called a necessary being, is what we call God. Follow the argument this way: <br /><br />1) Contingent beings are caused. <br />2) Not every being can be contingent. <br />3) There must exist a being which is necessary to cause contingent beings. <br />4) This necessary being is God. <br /><br />The fourth Way is the Argument From Degrees And Perfection This idea is based on the existence of a standard. You may say that, of two marble sculptures one is more beautiful than the other. So for these two objects, one has a greater degree of beauty than the next. This is referred to as degrees or gradation of a quality. From Aquinas concluded that for any given quality (e.g. goodness, beauty, knowledge) there must be an perfect standard by which all such qualities are measured. These perfections are contained in God. <br /><br />The fifth Way is the Argument From Intelligent Design. This has to do with the observable universe and the order of nature. Aquinas states that common sense tells us that the universe works in such a way, that one can conclude that is was designed by an intelligent designer, God. In other words, all physical laws and the order of nature and life were designed and ordered by God, the intelligent designer. The natural state of all things is decay and chaos. Order is something that is designed.<br /><br />Then there is Anselm's Ontological Argument for God's existence <br />Anselm was fond of saying, "I believe in order to understand." Here’s a plot synopsis of his argument.<br /><br />1) God is defined as the being in which none greater is possible. <br />2) It is true that the notion of God exists in the understanding (your mind.) <br />3) And that God may exist in reality (God is a possible being.) <br />4) If God only exists in the mind, and may have existed, then God might have been greater than He is. <br />5) Then, God might have been greater than He is (if He existed in reality.) <br />6) Therefore, God is a being which a greater is possible. <br />7) This is not possible, for God is a being in which a greater is impossible. <br />8) Therefore God exists in reality as well as the mind.<br /><br />I also think Paley's Teleological Argument has merit (could I sound any more arrogant <img border="0" title="" alt="[smile]" src="smile.gif" /> ) There is a basic argument that states that the world exhibits an intelligent purpose based on experience from nature such as its order, unity, coherency, design and complexity. There must be an intelligent designer to account for the observed intelligent purpose and order that we can observe. <br /><br />Paley used the analogy of a watchmaker. Watchmaker is to watch as God is to universe. Just as a watch, with its intelligent design and complex function must have been created by an intelligent maker: a watchmaker, the universe, with all its complexity and greatness, must have been created by an intelligent and powerful creator. Therefore a watchmaker is to watch as God is to universe. <br /><br />1.)Human artifacts are products of intelligent design. <br />2.)The universe resembles human artifacts. <br />3.)Therefore the universe is a product of intelligent design. <br />4.)But the universe is complex and gigantic, in comparison to human artifacts. <br />5.)Therefore, there probably is a powerful and vastly intelligent designer who created the universe.<br /><br />I believe there was a prime mover. Or, if you want, a community of prime movers. But that community or being has to exist outside of the laws that govern our universe. The Christian biblical contention that God “has always been” resonates with me. <br /><br />Fitzman. the contention that god as the sum total of all the laws of nature is lacking. I believe that, as much as we know of the prime mover, he can be found in nature. But limiting the source to the outcome is as thin as defining any person by anything they have produced. While art is the expression of the essence of the artist, his life is not limited to the paint, the canvas or even the sum of his creation. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mardi gras skin Posted February 26, 2002 Share Posted February 26, 2002 I’ve read a lot of the “if there is a God, then how come life sucks” type stuff. <br /><br />The fact that things go wrong and people get hurt rattled my belief that there was a God. How could God screw up so bad? Is my idea of the prime mover as perfect flawed because his creation is imperfect? The thinking goes something like this.<br />1) God is all-powerful. <br />2) God is perfectly good. <br />3) Evil exists. <br />4) If God exists, then there would be no evil. <br />5) There is evil. <br />6) Therefore God does not exist. <br /><br />In response, Augustine, an early Christian priest and philosopher, stated that God created man with free will having the ability to do good or evil. As a result there is no assurance that man will not choose to do evil. There is no contradiction with the existence of both God and evil. It is logically impossible for God to create free creatures and guarantee that they will never do evil. Among the infinite number of possibilities in an infinite number of possible worlds, God could have chosen a less evil, (or less free) world, yet if man is truly free, God can not stop evil. It would be illogical for God, who is an all- powerful, omnipotent being, to have created a world in which he controlled the evilness or freeness, because this would remove the heart of any relationship…the ability to choose to love or to choose not to love. The existence of free will without evil is an illogical impossibility. Even though man has the capacity to commit great evil, he also has the capacity to perform great acts of goodness. <br /><br />For me its even easier. If God is the standard then he is, by definition, perfect. If God created anything other than himself, that creation would be different from perfect. I’m not God and your not God so we screw up. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mardi gras skin Posted February 26, 2002 Share Posted February 26, 2002 And finally...<br />Rather than fitting my faith in a tidy paragraph, I’ll try to explain my belief in God (beyond his existence) in the same way you have…through discussion.<br /><br />inmate running the asylum <br />>>If God is omniscient and exists, he would have made his existence obvious to us all, such as through a Universal Truth such as the force of gravity. The existence and truth of gravity can be proven to anyone, anywhere and at any time in history. One simply needs to drop an object and the invisible force of gravity makes it fall to the ground, proving its existence to everyone in history, regardless of race, age, creed or beliefs.<<<br /><br />Great point. So does that mean that gravity did not exist before it was proven to exist? You have brought up a universal truth that always existed for anyone who wanted to see, yet the truth of gravity was not understood for most of the history of man. I wonder how many universal truths we still do not understand? Maybe God is revealing himself through universal truths, but people just keep missing the obvious proof. That has been the pattern of humans.<br /><br />**Personally I don’t believe in an "invisible" God, and why is it that gods must always be invisible, especially if "man was made in God's image" as the Bible says.**<br /><br />The word for spirit in the bible is pneuma. It is the same word as wind, ie. pneumatic drills. I think that the spirit and essence of God is felt in just the same way as wind is felt. It is just an analogy and it breaks down, but it works far better than a visible cookie cutter image analogy.<br /><br />**When i see babies in Somalia dying of starvation, its obvious if any god exists, he doesn’t care about us personally because he doesn’t care about these babies as individuals. Even if god did exist, if he doesn’t care about us as individuals, his existence is therefore irrelevant.**<br /><br />This made me question God, too. See my post dealing with evil in the world. It may not work for you, but it works for me.<br /><br />**The universe is hardly a place of perfection and harmony but one of chaos and destruction. The earth would be pockmarked like the moon from being bombarded by meteorites, if our atmosphere did not protect us most of the time. Luckily the comets that struck Jupiter a few years ago, did not hit earth, otherwise we would all be toast. Occasionally earth has not been so lucky, as evidenced by Meteor Crater in Arizona. And religionists call this a universe of harmony and perfection? Next time a volcano erupts or an earthquake kills 20,000 innocent people, men, women, and children, as occurred in Turkey in 2001, think about this so-called perfect universe we live in and nature or a creator made.**<br /><br />I’m really not getting this perfect creation thing. Why does everything have to be utopian for God to exist? That is an incongruent thought to me.<br /><br /> Die Hard <br />**My point of contention would be... is Mother Theresa the person she is and does what she does by the fear/will of God in return for the salvation of her soul?**<br /><br />I think she would have said that she does what she does because of her relationship with God, not for the salvation of her soul. The idea that people earn a relationship with God is narrowly held by only a few Christians. It is a gift that is accepted. <br /><br />**Why would life without God be frightening? Do you believe there could be no happiness/fulfillment in life without God? How would you live your life differently if God didn't exist?**<br /><br />If there was no God, no prime mover, life wouldn’t be frightening at all. It would just not be.<br /><br />**OrangeSkins - There is a difference from accepting the possibility of a superior life form--ie. God-like--and religion. Religion is an expression of worship. Worship is a very powerful word. Now I don't know about you but I don't go worshiping things I am so uncertain about.<br />And I certainly wouldn't commit to any one religion without at least fully exploring the beliefs and practices of every one. I mean... isn't your soul worth that kind of investment?**<br /><br />My understanding of worship is the life I live based on my limited understanding of God. I worship God all day in the things I do. I’m either worshipping him poorly or well, but I’m sure it has noting to do with any religion as I understand religion. And I agree. I explored the options and settled in where I felt comfortable. My soul was worth understanding and then applying my faith.<br /><br />**If God gave man 'free will' so he wouldn't be rotting in boredom in his 80-year lifespan... what is HE/SHE/IT going to do about it for ALL ETERNITY. Will everyone have 'free will' in heaven? Come on now.**<br /><br />I have no idea what heaven is like. I suspect that being near God is better than being away from God. I prefer for my essence to be near the source rather than away from him/it. Life may be boring, but I doubt that God is.<br /><br />**And theoretically, if God gave us the miracle life and ability to exert free will... and yet asks man to choose between worshipping him/her/it or eternal damnation... is that truly 'free will'?**<br /><br />Do you have the free will to love your fiancée? Could you choose to reject her love and go it alone? All my choices have consequences, but free will is a vital component of all the relationships I have. Why would that be different with God?<br /><br />**Sure, let's all listen to the words of men from 2000 years ago.**<br /><br />At what point do words and actions become invalid? How many years from now will Rousseau’s thoughts become invalid? I tend to think that something that can last and prove useful to people over time grows in value. <br /><br />**Interesting. So God created imperfection.**<br /><br />The only other choice is to create God. Anything that is different than the standard is imperfect. If God is the standard, than creation is imperfect.<br /><br />**Just wondering... if we accept the potential of the existence of a superior life form to human beings in other galaxies/universes...wouldn't these 'beings' more closely resemble the image of God? Is it implicit that all the most intelligent life forms in all the universes/galaxies look like human beings?**<br /><br />I don’t get the five fingers thing, but the rest of OrangeSkins stuff sounds good. The likeness of God has nothing to do with the way we look, in my opinion.<br /><br />**True. I think people who believe in faith and ignore reason are pretty simple minded.**<br /><br />No question. This holds for everyone. Is it reasonable for God to not exist?<br /><br />**I can stand boldly with confidence that JESUS LIVES on the inside of me.<br />And if you can do that with a straight face... you're a fat liar.**<br /><br />Wow. I don’t think I’ve heard a more intolerant statement. Maybe the semantics of what “Jesus lives on the inside of me” means is different for the two of you, but his experience and logic is as valid as your, Die Hard. You sound like a zealot…exactly the kind of person that scares you.<br /><br />**How many things have you created in your lifetime? Have you spent the rest of your life marveling at it? Or have you moved and on continued to grow? I'm sure an all-knowing being with infinite capacities has better things to do than marvel at his creation for all eternity.<br />To assume God loves all his creations is a bit naive? If God is capable of creating LOVE and HATE, why would you presume that God simply LOVES by default? <br />If God truly held the creation of life among his greatest accomplishments... why would he have created its antithesis in death? **<br /><br />I’ve never created. As an artist, I have taken elements already existing and formed something that I wish. Comparing my creation to God’s creation is a huge stretch. But the closest comparison would be to a couple creating a child. Loving parents do spend their lifetime marveling at their child and interacting with him. I can only imagine how much more intense the prime creator would feel about his creation. As for God loving his flawed creation, that is a weird thing. As weird as the parents of John Walker continuing to love their traitorous son. I don’t get it. I guess it just has something to do with being made in the image of God.<br /><br />**BTW, define 'love'?**<br /><br /> <img border="0" title="" alt="[smile]" src="smile.gif" /> <br />Why would I try to box in love? Defiining love (or hate or any ohter thing) is the work of poets and artists. Trying to give a Webster's version of love is the same stupid thing people try to do with God. Its OK to leave some things undefined. Love for instance. God for another. For a reasonable explanation of the existence of each, see "Contact" or "A Beautiful Mind." <br /><br />**By that logic, whenever you fail, you do so because of Him since you're incapable of living life. What a wonderful gift your God has provided you? The gift of life without the faculties to live it. What a crutch!**<br /><br />You really seem to be into the whole, “faith is weakness” thing. Is it weak to admit limitations, or is it a strength of character? I don’t think I need a crutch. I think I choose to enjoy relationships including my relationship with God. I tend to be miserable when I’m not participating in solid relationships. If you have no preference for quality of relationships in your life, you are a rare bird.<br /><br />**Of course it's easy (to believe in Jesus Christ). It's the herd mentality. Follow the herd without questioning it's principles... and when there's no logical explanations... you're told to ignore your faculties - the same faculity which is universally accepted as the defining characteristic which seperates man from animal - and rely on blind faith.**<br /><br />Just as easy, one could follow the herd that does not believe in anything or any particular thing. I find that most people I talk to don’t care. They are following the enjoy-the-moment, who-cares herd. You, Die Hard, are not in this heard but neither am I, nor most Christians I know, in the herd you described.<br /><br />**To assume a metaphysical being exists 'inside' you assumes that the very same metaphysical form exists inside of everything in some kind of unidentifiable form or manner. Which implies this metaphysical being would be beyond human comprehension and understanding. And while accepting this possibility... I don't pretend to worship things I have absolutely no friggin' clue about.**<br /><br />Actually, I think you have a better clue than most people who call themselves Christians. Doesn’t make them wrong, just under-informed. My wife “lives inside of me.” My parents “live inside of me.” I carry an intense love for them and I know that they love me. Sometimes I do things just because I know they want me too. If I didn’t do those things, they wouldn’t stop loving me. I worship God with actions that I do just because I know he loves me and I love him.<br /><br />**There are certain things within the vacuum of life which are known to be true. I don't pretend to understand the intracacies of death. But I'm not about to fabricate ideas either. That's exactly what religion does.**<br /><br />True. Religion does that. But I love an interview I heard Billy Graham give one time. It was one of those Charlie Rose type interviews that go on for a while. He was asked everything anyone ever asks about Christianity and the bulk of his answers were, “I don’t know. What I do know is that God loves me and my life has been changed” At first, I thought, “come on, say SOMETHING!” But then I heard the response of the interviewer (an agnostic). He said something like, “There are very few Christians who would admit they don’t know so much. It gives you more credibility when you say the things you do know.” That had a lasting impression on me. <br /> <br />I do know that I will die. I know that there is a God. I know that he desires a love relationship with his creation. That is all reasonable. It also seems reasonable to me that the essence of myself that was made in his image is as eternal as he is. Where that essence resides for eternity seems to be contingent on my choice to engage in a relationship with him. Choice, inherent in all relationships, logically finds its place in this relationship with God. <br /><br />**There actually may be something out there greater than us. In fact, there's a great probability of it. But trying to qualify it with basic principles (i.e. morality, ethics, right and wrong, soul vs. no soul, reincarnation, heaven and hell) and general expression (i.e. worship/religion - praying, eating the host, etc.) and persecuting and condemning others who don't believe in those same principles is counterproductive.**<br /><br />If God is not engaged with his creation, you are correct. If God’s relationship to his creation is like that found in parent and child, then you are not correct. Morality, ethics, right and wrong…those are all passed on from parent to child. I don’t have any idea what “eating the host” is, but caring for and talking with someone I love seems natural to me. <br /><br />Condemnation sucks. Christian to atheist, atheist to Jew, Jew to Muslim. <br /><br />Rip away <img border="0" title="" alt="[smile]" src="smile.gif" /><br /> <br /> <small>[ February 26, 2002, 03:26 PM: Message edited by: mardi ]</small> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Art Posted February 26, 2002 Share Posted February 26, 2002 Organized religion is a cult and like a cult, not something to get overly serious about. I'm an agnostic. It is impossible to know whether there is a God. That said, it is impossible to believe there is life in the universe other than our own. Of course, there are more stars than grains of sand on this Daytona Beach and each star has planets circling, so, to me, the odds are pretty good that there is life in the universe outside of this planet.<br /><br />My point here is that while it is impossible to verify or prove the existence of a single God, it is not incorrect to believe in the likely situation in which a being or beings of some great power exist. I believe the universe is evidence of a greater power. Something had to create the first thing that allowed all other things to follow it. The first thing can't have just sprung into existence.<br /><br />But, no book written by man has ever known this being. Religion is a way for people to feel better about life while not really taking responsibility for it. But, here's the way you can scare the religious nut in your family back the way they scare you. My mother, a born again, is a fruitcake and absolute nut about Christ and God and all that. Whenever she goes off a little too much I drop the bomb that, "I was speaking to my Mormon friends and they make a lot of sense." This terrifies her and I feel better <img border="0" title="" alt="[smile]" src="smile.gif" /> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mardi gras skin Posted February 26, 2002 Share Posted February 26, 2002 **It is impossible to know whether there is a God.**<br /><br /> <img border="0" title="" alt="[smile]" src="smile.gif" /> <br /><br />If there is no God, or prime mover, then I don't get anything about the universe. In as much as I can know anything, I know that there is a God. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Henry Posted February 27, 2002 Share Posted February 27, 2002 Art, if your Mom was a TRUE nut about Christ that strategy wouldn't work. My mother-in-law is a born-again Christian and if I tried to pull a stunt like that she'd calmly and quiet explain exactly why the Mormons are full of it. She's the type who INVITES the Jehovah's Witnesses in when they knock on the door so she can tell them why their beliefs are inconsistant with true Christianity. Trust me, they don't come around her house much any more. <img border="0" title="" alt="[smile]" src="smile.gif" /> <br /><br />The thing is, because my wife was brought up in such a strictly Christian household she knows ALL the standard Christian responses to all the standard skeptical questions. I've heard all of Mardi's logic (and then some) attempt to scientifically verify the existence of God. Now, while I do think it has given me a greater understanding of what truly religious people believe (as opposed to those who simply follow the rules for the sake of following the rules) I haven't been convinced. Science vs. religion always boils down to one thing: faith. You either have it or you don't, and no amount of time arguing about facts and reason, and no number of great philosophers and theologans sitting around thinking real hard about God will ever change that.<br /><br />So far the only truths I've discovered on this thread is that Mardi and Tchershire have that faith, Die Hard doesn't, and the rest of us fall somewhere in between. The rest is all just entertaining reading. <img border="0" title="" alt="[smile]" src="smile.gif" /><br /> <br /> <small>[ February 27, 2002, 10:05 AM: Message edited by: Henry ]</small> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mardi gras skin Posted February 27, 2002 Share Posted February 27, 2002 </font><blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">quote:</font><hr /><font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif"> Science vs. religion always boils down to one thing: faith. You either have it or you don't, and no amount of time arguing about facts and reason, and no number of great philosiphers and theologans sitting around thinking real hard about God will ever change that. </font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">I agree completely. This whole thing is great on a purely got-time-on-my-hands sort of way, but its all pretty moot. Reasoning the existence of God has nothing to do with believing in God.<br /><br />The one thing I do bristle against is the notion that people of faith are less...knowledgable? Need a crutch, follow the herd, whatever. That whole line of thinking fits any group as well as any other. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Terry Posted February 27, 2002 Share Posted February 27, 2002 Interesting.<br /><br />My basic feeling has always been that religions are little more than organized superstition; that minds as complex as ours need to know and understand, and when we don't then we theorize and invent; and that our animal fear coupled with our evolving mental processes have manifested themselves as neuroses within the complex organizational, social, ritual, and cultural constructs we call religions.<br /><br />We are the only living entities aware of our own existence and of our own deaths. That's quite a mind fock. We are evolving from primitives who had this awareness, yet only an imperfect, albeit natural understanding of the world around them. To soothe their fears and provide psychological comfort, they invented certain constructs that have evolved over time into what we today call religion.<br /><br />Which is a shame, because serous thought on the subject of existence provides some leeway for something other than the cut and dried 'we live and then we die and then nothing'.<br /><br />But you have to climb around so much religious clutter that it makes the exercise very difficult. And surmounting your own fears, many induced by religious teaching, can also be difficult.<br /><br />But for those that do believe, I don't understand the preference for one deity over another. Why is Yahweh, a jealous, desert god of simple yet aggressive shepperd peoples, possibly of Amorite origins, who settled in Canaan in the 2nd millennium BC, be more worthy of worship than say, Kali, a tree, or Vol???<br /><br />The Hebrew god was warlike, demanded a strict social discipline, and provided the moral authority for stealing the land of others - perfect for a nomadic peoples living on the harsh fringes of a dangerous world. But he was obviously out of date even 2000 years ago, as the need to reinvent him as the loving, forgiving, here's-a-second-chance father figure shows. <br /><br />In the last 2000 years he has inspired St. Francis and Mother Theresa, Puritan iconoclasts, the Spanish Inquisition, and Salem Witch Trials. He has sided with England (Henry V), then with France (Saint Joan De Arc). He sits on both sides of the fence in Northern Ireland, and is the special province of the US Governement and it's people.<br /><br />What is he nowadays? Has he been transfigured to suit modern tastes, or are his more primitive aspects more appealing in these materialistic times?<br /><br />I guess what I'm getting at is that God didn't create man, rather man created (and still creates) God.<br /> <br /> <small>[ February 27, 2002, 07:43 PM: Message edited by: Terry ]</small> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ford Posted February 27, 2002 Share Posted February 27, 2002 To quote one of the greatest minds of all time, Christopher Marlowe <br /><br />"I count religion but a childish toy,<br />And hold there is no sin but ignorance." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OrangeSkin Posted February 27, 2002 Author Share Posted February 27, 2002 Terry - If religion is the based on man's insatiable need for knowledge, then why do massive numbers continue to engage in religious activities? If religion simply was a product of man's insecurity, then that thirst should be quenched by our numerous scientific discoveries.<br /><br />Those that believe in a diety but not organized religion miss out. Religion is about the community and the friendship created within a single congregation, mosque, whatever. Religion is not greedy pigs running around asking for money. This image was created by the early Catholic church, and atheists believe that all religions are like that, protestants and the like.<br /><br />Even if God does not exist (I truly believe he does), then it is an excellent concept to base your life on. God is an unmoving rock which will always be there for you. Without that, what do you have?<br /><br />Believing in God is harder than most believe. I myself went through a grueling period in my teen years. I was agnositc until I was about 15, even though I went to church every Sunday. I simply didn't think about God. Then, by the grace of God, I attended a church camp for a weekend. It changed my life. Even after that, I had huge doubts about the existence of God, but after much deliberation and thought, I believed.<br /><br />Atheism is simply taking what you see and assuming something. Saying that you only believe in what you can touch, see, smell, hear, and taste is easier than proclaiming belief in a God. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Die Hard Posted February 27, 2002 Share Posted February 27, 2002 </font><blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">quote:</font><hr /><font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Originally posted by OrangeSkin:<br /><strong>Atheism is simply taking what you see and assuming something.</strong></font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">We WORLDLY SMART people like to call it reality. And I'm genuinely sorry it frightens you.<br /> <br /> <small>[ February 27, 2002, 09:15 PM: Message edited by: Die Hard ]</small> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OrangeSkin Posted February 27, 2002 Author Share Posted February 27, 2002 Chill Die Hard. I simply was trying to make the point that it's more difficult to believe in God than a lot of people think.<br /><br />I didn't really mean to piss you off that bad...and it kind of pisses me off that you're implying I'm a frightened immature child because of my faith. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Die Hard Posted February 27, 2002 Share Posted February 27, 2002 Orange -<br /><br />Don't put words in my mouth <img border="0" title="" alt="[smile]" src="smile.gif" /> I said you were 'frightened'... I didn't say you were 'immature' or 'childish'. It is certainly possible and understandable for an adult to be 'frightened' - especially given the circumstances - without exhibiting the other behaviors you mentioned.<br /><br />Now if you wish to be treated with a little more dignity... it might wise to speak about the topic a little more intelligently. A good start may be to address the questions I posed to you. You made some very broad statements and I've asked you to be more specific.<br /><br />I'm asking you to enlighten me. The very fact that I've participated in this thread means I'm openminded about things. And just because I may question your judgment... it doesn't mean we can't coexist <img border="0" title="" alt="[smile]" src="smile.gif" /> <br /><br />Art and I have engaged in many a heated argument... then we move and have fun with it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mardi gras skin Posted February 28, 2002 Share Posted February 28, 2002 Terry<br /> </font><blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">quote:</font><hr /><font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif"> The Hebrew god was warlike, demanded a strict social discipline, and provided the moral authority for stealing the land of others - perfect for a nomadic peoples living on the harsh fringes of a dangerous world. But he was obviously out of date even 2000 years ago, as the need to reinvent him as the loving, forgiving, here's-a-second-chance father figure shows. </font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">It seems to me that this description is missing the mark a bit. In the Old Testament, the Hebrew people were instructed to take an eye for an eye. Today, this seems harsh. At the time it was surprisingly liberal and merciful. No poor person had any rights. By the standards of Mesopotamian Civilizations wealthy persons had all the rights and the poor had almost none. It was literally, “You look at me when I don’t want you to, I can put out your eye. If you talk to me when I don’t want you to, I can rip out your teeth”. Your broad generalization of the Hebrew God as harsh misses the sociological context. God’s instructions to his people have always focused on grace.<br /><br />Jesus said he wasn’t about getting rid of the Hebrew idea of God and his laws…he was the living example of a person who fulfilled the instructions of Hebrew law. <br /><br /> </font><blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">quote:</font><hr /><font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif"> I guess what I'm getting at is that God didn't create man, rather man created (and still creates) God. </font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">I miss your connection here. I can see that people all through history have used God to serve their purposes. People have used fear, love, God, atheism, hatred, ignorance, and anything else they could find to serve themselves. What I’m missing is how you get from people defining God to fit their purposes to man creating God. Maybe it is all in the understanding of the word “create.”<br /><br />OrangeSkin<br /> </font><blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">quote:</font><hr /><font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif"> Those that believe in a diety but not organized religion miss out. Religion is about the community and the friendship created within a single congregation, mosque, whatever. Religion is not greedy pigs running around asking for money. This image was created by the early Catholic church, and atheists believe that all religions are like that, protestants and the like. </font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">This was a word game that I chose not to play. I tend to think of words in context of conversation. The word “strike” means one think when you’re at the ballpark and another when you’re back at the factory. Organized religion means something very definite and negative to most people and it really doesn’t bother me. As I’ve seen organized religion used, it usually bothers me too. But your definition of religion—a community of friends sharing a like faith, caring for one another—is great. I’m all about that.<br /><br />Die Hard<br />I’m curious. Do you believe that fear is an epidemic that all Christians (or people of faith) share or just specific people. If you’re just talking about OrangeSkin, I’ll let you guys hash that out. If you are being more general, I’d like you to explain how get from faith to fear.<br /><br />This is good stuff. Talking to people with very different ideas sharpens me and expands my world-view. Love it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
redskinsfan71 Posted February 28, 2002 Share Posted February 28, 2002 when this topic was brought up it was brought up as, (do we believe that GOD exists, or is there even a GOD, what are peoples views).<br /><br />And all I see on here is DIEHARD self proclaiming his views and ideas like he were some type of GOD, but no where in any of his posts has he been able to prove that GOD doesn't exist, the only thing that he has been able to prove to me, and probably many others on here is his (BASHING of Religion), if thats the way he feels then fine, but in many of his posts he has stated how he hates how Christians condemn unbelievers, but yet all I see him doing is condemning anything that someone else states that he doesn't see fit, or he doesn't agree with, (hey DIEHARD life isn't that way buddy, maybe for you it is, but because people don't see your ideas as fact or even believable you don't have the right to condemn them for the way they feel), if your a grown man then act like 1, don't sit behind a computer and pretend to be all knowledge, or the man! the way you do!!!!!!!!! <br /><br />Also looking at some of the rubbish he has posted on here, (DIEHARD if you can't believe the Bible, and the sayings inside of it, then give me proof that anything in our History Books has even happened,things that happened way before any of our time, (who really knows if these things happened?, we just accept them as fact), but answer me this DIEHARD, why is GOD ,the Bible, and Jesus the thing that is most fought over among people and greatly disagreed with? uhh, (I could tell you I'm Darrell Green, or Joe Gibbs, or Charles Mann, and you would probably believe that, but let me tell you anything about GOD, or the Bible, then you couldn't agree with that!).<br /><br />Also, let me ask you this DIEHARD, what are your morals?, your values?, your ways of life?, why live up to the standards of man?, if you believe that there is no GOD, then where did all of the above mention come from then?, also what are you trying to say then, that if there is no way that a GOD exists, then how was man kind made?, the earth?, and all the things we see and touch, and all the abilities we all have, how were they created, explain to me then how we have so much confusion in the world, so much hate, so much trouble, explain that 1 to me there buddy?, also proof to me in all your knowledge and wisdom there buddy that GOD doesn't exist, also give me more then Science also, cause Science has proved that a GOD exists, the reason I believe you don't believe in a GOD is cause you have a probably with facing who you really are, you don't want to face the fact that with all your skill and so called knowledge, that you are just a mere man, just like the rest of us, somewhere along the road of life Religion did you wrong and you take it out on all so called Believers, it didn't fit into your way of life, and instead of facing it head on, you do the complete opposite, you run from it, you are taking the easy way out here buddy, you are covering your own butt, (as you like to say), the easy way out of something we don't understand is taking the road of total disagreement with it, (like you are doing) face the facts buddy, we all have to life this thing called life, your no better then me, and I'm by no ways better then you, so stop judging something cause you don't understand it, just like it wouldn't be right for me to not agree with how they fly man to the moon, just because I don't know how they do it, doesn't ean it doesn't happen.<br /><br />So, in closing I know you like to act like your so knowledgable on the matter of Religion, (by the way, where did you study Religion at?)so go ahead have a field day with my post, mark the things that you so disagree with, but remember this 1 thing buddy, (GOD LOVES YOU WITH A UNCONDITION LOVE, NOTHING YOU DO OR BELIEVE CAN TAKE THAT AWAY) it is the gift of GOD through Jesus!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!<br /><br />AMEN!!!!!!!!!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Terry Posted February 28, 2002 Share Posted February 28, 2002 Orangeskins,<br /><br />Thank you for your considerate response.<br /><br />Beilieve me, I certainly laud the positive moral values associated with the best of religions. I appreciate the sense of community and sharing, the good works, and the message of tolerance and fellowship. And all men being equal in the eyes of their God is a wonderfully levelling message.<br /><br />I just don't see the need to construct those values within any of the historic religious and ritualistic cult practices that have come down to us from the past.<br /><br />The mesage - universal love, fellowship, and resposibility for each other is powerful enough for me without having the need for it to be packaged in transubstantiation, speaking in tongues, praying 5 times a day facing a fixed geographical location, sacrificing an animal, ritual canibalism, laying on of hands, dancing around stones or sacred places under a full moon, or any of the cultic practices that surround most religions.<br /><br />Mardi,<br /><br />Again, thanks for a couteous response.<br /><br />I wasn't attempting to put together a coherent thesis, merely glossing over my feelings on this topic.<br /><br />But I stand by my description of the harsh aspect of Yahweh. And your placing him in his sociological context comfirms my feeling that he was created by the Hebrews to serve their needs - a harsh god for harsh times.<br /><br />Contemporary deities from more settled cutltures - Orisris, Ishtar, Amon, Min, Set, Ba'al, were as appropriate to their cultures as Yahweh was to his. And they likewise underwent transformations as the cultures changed. They were modified to reflect the needs of their societies - the cult practices either changed, or evolved to the point that they so ritualized earlier physical practices, nobody knew what they meant anymore.<br /><br />Yahweh in his earliest form is virtually indistinguishable from Set - both were desert and mountain gods, both had storm and cloud aspects, both were temperamental and connected to disaster, and both had consorts. (In fact, it's a possibility that Yahweh was borrowed from the Egyptians, or more likely Set and Yahweh were borrowed from the natives of the northern Sinai area, and certainly some of his aspects were borrowed from Set. Much of Hebrew religion up to Moses was taken from earlier Cannanite sources.) <br /><br />Anyway, as people settled and urbanized, the need for that type of god changed, and a more 'urbane' deity evolved to serve contemporary needs. Both Set and Yahweh underwent this transformation; Set in response to the cult of Osiris, and Yahweh to the political needs of the 'P' authors of the Bible.<br /><br />Both deities were (are) constructs of the human imagination based on perceived fears and needs at the time they were created. As those peoples became urbanized and mixed into the melting pot of other cultures, those deities were transformed to suit the tastes of the times. Thus child sacrifice becomes taboo, even though it was considered necessary for an earlier age.<br /><br />I know this is rambling, but my point is that we invent the God that suits our purposes, giving him aspects that are appropriate, and deriving suitable forms of worship in order to request divine intercession. As time goes by and the tenor of the age changes, those practices change, and the deity 'evolves'. <br /><br />So I disagree that God remains constant and that our understanding of him changes. God (as we define it) is a totally human construct IMO. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mardi gras skin Posted February 28, 2002 Share Posted February 28, 2002 I know I'd be looking forward to some of that good lovin', 71. <img border="0" alt="[twitch]" title="" src="graemlins/twitch.gif" /><br /> <br /> <small>[ February 28, 2002, 10:28 AM: Message edited by: mardi ]</small> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.