NationStates Jolt Archive

I don't like the idea that when we're born we're doomed, but I don't really have a choice do I? I did not create the world so I cannot change that fact.I recognise that if the bible is indeed correct, then it is not within your power to change the way God does things.. But even though I wouldn't accomplish anything, I would gladly damn myself to eternal torment if I it meant me getting 1 chance to speak or strike out against Mr. Supreme Benevolence. Because if the Biblical god isn't the very incarnation of evil, then I simply cannot fathom what evil is. And if it's really because I cannot comprehend evil, then surely a benevolent entity will forgive me for hating what so obviously looks like the ultimate evil?

Anyway.. What I don't understand is this: how, with the veiw of God you profess, can you not fight back? I know you can just go along & get a prize, but what of all the multitudes of people who can't even feign to believe in God? We'll suffer more than words will ever be able to describe at the hands of God, for lacking the ability to love something we don't believe is even real!

I don't know any text from his time either: that's not to say that there wasn't. How many people have historical records from 2000 years ago? The fact that the bible has lasted so long is a credit to it. Can you prove that any man existed 2000 years ago unless they were a king or general etc.? Or even 1000 years ago? And there are aspects of the Bible that can be proven true. Just not all of it. Locations actually exist etc. And yes it's obvious that Pompeii did erupt, but that's not the point. And how come you believe these Egyptian and Roman writings but not the bible? This shows a huge bias on your part. It also backs up the biblical idea that even if God did reveal himself to people, some still wouldn't believe. So what's the point in having all this stuff that backs it up? If there were all these obvious clues more would possibly believe but then that would mean less choice wouldn't it?

There are alot of ancient texts that proof the existance of people other then kings & generals, Aristoteles comes to mind. The reason i place more value to those texts is because they often were written during said persons lifes, or very shortly after demise. I'm not saying Jesus didn't exist (wether he existed or not is totally irelevant) i'm saying that, according to me, he didn't perform miracles, nor resurrected. Also, the bible is man made, just as legends of dragons, unicorns, meduza & whatnot, what motivation do i have to place more value into the bible then other legends?

I couldn't care less what they do with my remains, i'm dead, i cease to exist, i do not believe that anything of me will keep on existing, i do not believe in the existance of heaven or hell.

The only way i can explain the concept of heaven & hell is that they are manmade constructs aimed at keeping us in check and taking away our fear of death.

I do not need said constructs to live a moral life, nor do i fear death. The idea that our minds (you would probably use the word soul) are eternal is illogical, the mind exists solely in the confines of our brains.

No, I use the word mind actually. For some reason I never liked the word 'soul' as it always has a very airy fairy badly written sci-fi feel to it. I do not fear death. I guess I fear dying but that's not the same thing. I do not think that the bible was created so that people wouldn't fear death. Having said that it might by used for that purpose by men but not by God.

I recognise that if the bible is indeed correct, then it is not within your power to change the way God does things.. But even though I wouldn't accomplish anything, I would gladly damn myself to eternal torment if I it meant me getting 1 chance to speak or strike out against Mr. Supreme Benevolence. Because if the Biblical god isn't the very incarnation of evil, then I simply cannot fathom what evil is. And if it's really because I cannot comprehend evil, then surely a benevolent entity will forgive me for hating what so obviously looks like the ultimate evil?

Anyway.. What I don't understand is this: how, with the veiw of God you profess, can you not fight back? I know you can just go along & get a prize, but what of all the multitudes of people who can't even feign to believe in God? We'll suffer more than words will ever be able to describe at the hands of God, for lacking the ability to love something we don't believe is even real!

They suffer because they chose it. God made hell for people like you would dont want god. But that is your choice, heaven is open to you.

Please explan how is god evil?

There are many people on this forums who would insist that there is no God becasue it cannot be explained by any kind of scinetific process. Who would essentially claim that there is no meaning to the universe, and that the universe just 'is', with no meaning or anything behind it. However to claim this is not scientific. It is philosophical, and no more defensable than any claim that there is a God. The idea that the universe has no meaning and life has no meaning etc is a philosophical idea, not a scientific one. And just because science cant explain any meaning that there may or may not be, that doesnt instantly mean there is no meaning. In short, the idea that the universe has no meaning is about as sceintific as the idea that it does. IE not at all


scinetific process? Wow this is just 1 more example of how u religious freaks are dumbasses. While its true that science cant explain everything... yet mabe because the universe is so large that its impossible for humans to know everything. Either way just stfu no1 cares what u have to say especialy in an athiest dominated website.:sniper: just go let your local priest hump you again. It might make you feel better

3) I never said that I agreed with Catholocism. No offence to Catholics but I don't think that their principals are right. They worship saints and Mary but isn't one of the commandments (sorry for the quote) II. "You shall not make for yourself an idol in the form of anything in heaven above or on the earth beneath or in the waters below. You shall not bow down to them or worship them; for I, the LORD your God, am a jealous God, punishing the children for the sin of the fathers to the third and fourth generation of those who hate me, but showing love to a thousand [generations] of those who love me and keep my commandments." so that among other things is a total contradiction to their religion.

Yea well, don't you Christians worship Jesus? :p
Since i'm not religious i take no offence mate, don't worry, as for the quote, punishing the children for the acts of the fathers (hey, mothers were free of this rule! unfair) doesn't seem very just to me neighter

4) Time is irrelevant. God had eternity to do something.

But it's not logical to wait so long (yea yea, he works in mysterious ways..)

There are alot of ancient texts that proof the existance of people other then kings & generals, Aristoteles comes to mind. The reason i place more value to those texts is because they often were written during said persons lifes, or very shortly after demise. I'm not saying Jesus didn't exist (wether he existed or not is totally irelevant) i'm saying that, according to me, he didn't perform miracles, nor resurrected. Also, the bible is man made, just as legends of dragons, unicorns, meduza & whatnot, what motivation do i have to place more value into the bible then other legends?

man made like computers, cars, tv, ect are? Let me say this: Is it not true that the reason you dont belive the bible is because it is diffcult and uncomfortable for you? well it should be

Yea well, don't you Christians worship Jesus? :p
Since i'm not religious i take no offence mate, don't worry, as for the quote, punishing the children for the acts of the fathers (hey, mothers were free of this rule! unfair) doesn't seem very just to me neighter



But it's not logical to wait so long (yea yea, he works in mysterious ways..)

God waits to save you sorry ass

I recognise that if the bible is indeed correct, then it is not within your power to change the way God does things.. But even though I wouldn't accomplish anything, I would gladly damn myself to eternal torment if I it meant me getting 1 chance to speak or strike out against Mr. Supreme Benevolence. Because if the Biblical god isn't the very incarnation of evil, then I simply cannot fathom what evil is. And if it's really because I cannot comprehend evil, then surely a benevolent entity will forgive me for hating what so obviously looks like the ultimate evil?

Anyway.. What I don't understand is this: how, with the veiw of God you profess, can you not fight back? I know you can just go along & get a prize, but what of all the multitudes of people who can't even feign to believe in God? We'll suffer more than words will ever be able to describe at the hands of God, for lacking the ability to love something we don't believe is even real!

If someone won't believe in God well isn't that a choice? A prize? I wish. Well I guess you can 'store up treasures in heaven' but that is a different story. Your right God does forgive. But only when your on earth when you've died it's too late. The basic principal of my religion is that if you believe that Jesus died for your sins repent all your sins then you are saved. God sees Jesus' purity and you are forgiven. Any sins you commit after that god will forgive if you ask him to. And you won't get to argue your case with god when you die. I think (i'm not saying for definite) that when you die all the wrongs you have done are read out to you and you will be so ashamed that you will not be able to answer back. There are no exeptions to this. It doesn't matter how intelligent or formidable a speaker you are during your lifetime it won't count in the end. So you won't get to 'stick it to the man' so to speak.

ok this is going to take a while

You asked :p

eternal soul- i belive that what you feel, what you are, you being can not die. I think it the very nature itself, i mean what would our body mean without it?

What you call soul i call mind, and for me the mind is the personality contained within the human brain, and since we know damages to the brain can affect ones mind i find it logical to assume that when the brain dies the mind disapears

heaven & hell - both build for free fill. God created humans to be with him. Heaven is his home. Hell, because god gave us free will he made hell for those who chooses it.

Your explication depends on the acceptance of a deity, wich is another illogical step to take for me

The concept of god? oh dear..... please expand for me
God creating us- the answer i am sure one day will be true. But do you think it could happen by chance

I believe life is nothing more then a series of electrochemical reactions between our molecules, and yes, i do believe we are the evolution of organisms who came to be through chance

Yea well, don't you Christians worship Jesus? :p
Since i'm not religious i take no offence mate, don't worry, as for the quote, punishing the children for the acts of the fathers (hey, mothers were free of this rule! unfair) doesn't seem very just to me neighter



But it's not logical to wait so long (yea yea, he works in mysterious ways..)

Hello... Jesus is God! The whole trinity thing? Father, Son and Holy Spirit.Yes mathematical impossibility: I know because I'm good at maths but like I said we can't comprehend everything. Did I ever say something about punishing children for the acts of their fathers? I think you might be mistaken.

I don't like the idea that when we're born we're doomed, but I don't really have a choice do I? I did not create the world so I cannot change that fact.

You state this as if it were a fact, fact implies proof, proof wich is sorely lacking.

They suffer because they chose it. God made hell for people like you would dont want god. But that is your choice, heaven is open to you.

Please explan how is god evil?Do you think I deserve to have my legs broken?

Better yet, do you think I deserve to go to prison?

Even better, supposing I live to be 70 (realistic, since I smoke), do you feel it would be appropriate to break every bone in my body & pumping me full of drugs that will highten the pain, every single day for the next 42 years? What if 500 people rape me with electrified, barbwired steel rods while they're breaking my bones? And slowly torturing all my friends to death & forcing me to watch it?

Do you think that would be a good thing?

Because according to the bible, that's getting off easy.

Please explan how is god evil?

Easy:

1 Samuel 15

15:2 Thus saith the LORD of hosts, I remember that which Amalek did to Israel, how he laid wait for him in the way, when he came up from Egypt.

15:3 Now go and smite Amalek, and utterly destroy all that they have, and spare them not; but slay both man and woman, infant and suckling, ox and sheep, camel and ass.

Evil.

Okay so my description of heaven isn't good. I don't claim to know what it's like because I've never been there. And yes how can everyone like it? I don't know! I'm not saying I know, but God does.

You just proved my point that religion is merely a human creation to deal with questions our mind can not cope with (in this case being wether or not there is life after death, and why there should be life after death plus the concept of an eternal life in bliss for someone who lives a religious life on Earth)

So i cant say i think that was wrong? because that would be my morals right?

Yes, that's my point, your morals, whom are influenced by your own perseption of right & wrong, and influences from your surroundings make you conclude that human sacrifice is evil, yet to those people, it was good, thus showing that morals are indeed human creations

Do you think I deserve to have my legs broken?

Better yet, do you think I deserve to go to prison?

Even better, supposing I live to be 70 (realistic, since I smoke), do you feel it would be appropriate to break every bone in my body & pumping me full of drugs that will highten the pain, every single day for the next 42 years? What if 500 people rape me with electrified, barbwired steel rods while they're breaking my bones? And slowly torturing all my friends to death & forcing me to watch it?

Do you think that would be a good thing?

Because according to the bible, that's getting off easy.


All the things you said, were all causes by humans NOT God. Are you really turning this in to an issue of abortion? should God have killed you because it was going to be tough? NO. What about the good things in life, like enjoying freindship, eating choclate and having kids? Oh i sorry did you just want these things? then go back and tell eve not to eat the apple

<Snip>
Slay that Ass! :p

@The Christians - I couldn't believe in God even if I wanted to. It's like asking me to believe that gravity will stop working at 10 am tomorrow.

Do you think I deserve to have my legs broken?

Better yet, do you think I deserve to go to prison?

Even better, supposing I live to be 70 (realistic, since I smoke), do you feel it would be appropriate to break every bone in my body & pumping me full of drugs that will highten the pain, every single day for the next 42 years? What if 500 people rape me with electrified, barbwired steel rods while they're breaking my bones? And slowly torturing all my friends to death & forcing me to watch it?

Do you think that would be a good thing?

Because according to the bible, that's getting off easy.

My understanding of the bible is that that depiction of hell is analogy.

Hell is seperation from God, and the eternal Oblivion that implies, Heaven is being in the presence of God, and the eternal moment of joy that implies.

I don't say I'm enough of a christian to believe in that, but rather that you're setting up a straw man here! :)

No, I use the word mind actually. For some reason I never liked the word 'soul' as it always has a very airy fairy badly written sci-fi feel to it. I do not fear death. I guess I fear dying but that's not the same thing. I do not think that the bible was created so that people wouldn't fear death. Having said that it might by used for that purpose by men but not by God.

Problem is, god didn't write the bible, man did

Easy:



Evil.

Well the about the killing in the old testment! God gave to chance to those about to die to be saved. Any child whould already get to heaven, since they are not old enough to chose from themselfs. AND if them people lived, Jesus would have not lived , and then we would all be in hell

They suffer because they chose it. God made hell for people like you would dont want god. But that is your choice, heaven is open to you.

Please explan how is god evil?

If god is real, and if god created us, he have us the ability to reason & use logic, yet, he demands we believe in something we can not prove with reason nor logic.

This conflict is what makes some of us reject the idea that he exists, so if he does exist, and he have us said facilities, he shouldn't damn those of us who follow the path of "no god" unless he isn't benevolent at all.

Also, the quote earlier someone posted about him being a jealous god implies he isn't benevolent, if he were, he would not damn the children of the sinners

Well the about the killing in the old testment! God gave to chance to those about to die to be saved. Any child whould already get to heaven, since they are not old enough to chose from themselfs. AND if them people lived, Jesus would have not lived , and then we would all be in hell

Didn't you say yourself that killing was evil?

Slay that Ass! :p

@The Christians - I couldn't believe in God even if I wanted to. It's like asking me to believe that gravity will stop working at 10 am tomorrow.
WHY? He offers heaven to everyone. Why cant you belive. God would help this to happen

scinetific process? Wow this is just 1 more example of how u religious freaks are dumbasses. While its true that science cant explain everything... yet mabe because the universe is so large that its impossible for humans to know everything. Either way just stfu no1 cares what u have to say especialy in an athiest dominated website.:sniper: just go let your local priest hump you again. It might make you feel better

Thank you for making us atheists look like hate bringing fascists :headbang:

All the things you said, were all causes by humans NOT God. Are you really turning this in to an issue of abortion? should God have killed you because it was going to be tough? NO. What about the good things in life, like enjoying freindship, eating choclate and having kids? Oh i sorry did you just want these things? then go back and tell eve not to eat the apple
Then why was I born? Just so I wouldn't believe in God, and then end up suffering eternal torment? How can you possibly justify Hell? How can you seriously say, from the bottom of your heart, that you believe the thing that created hell & will send me & half the people I know to hell, is Good?

How about this then: I was deeply in love with my old buyfriend, and even if I believed in Christianity, there is no way I could honestly apologise for that. And homosexuality is - at least according to most Christians - a sin, so I'd go to hell for not repenting that.

Just bloody lovely...

Anyway, as I said, I don't believe anything of the sort will happen. I just wanted to hear how you can justify calling God good & loving. To me, the Biblical God is a <Deleted, because there's no point in being obnoxious about it>.

man made like computers, cars, tv, ect are? Let me say this: Is it not true that the reason you dont belive the bible is because it is diffcult and uncomfortable for you? well it should be

The reason i can't believe in it is because it conflicts with how i view the world, and how i apply logic to it. If i apply logic to it the only conclusion i can reach is that it's a man made construct, with it's origins in ancient civilisations meant to deal with the questions they couldn't comprehend and as a means to control the masses

Didn't you say yourself that killing was evil?

good one? but lets not be closed here. If by killing, you save more lifes. Is it still evil. No because your saving more life and at the end of the day whats more evil, leting more people die because you couldt kill a few?

God waits to save you sorry ass

Save me from *what*?

If someone won't believe in God well isn't that a choice? A prize? I wish. Well I guess you can 'store up treasures in heaven' but that is a different story. Your right God does forgive. But only when your on earth when you've died it's too late. The basic principal of my religion is that if you believe that Jesus died for your sins repent all your sins then you are saved. God sees Jesus' purity and you are forgiven. Any sins you commit after that god will forgive if you ask him to. And you won't get to argue your case with god when you die. I think (i'm not saying for definite) that when you die all the wrongs you have done are read out to you and you will be so ashamed that you will not be able to answer back. There are no exeptions to this. It doesn't matter how intelligent or formidable a speaker you are during your lifetime it won't count in the end. So you won't get to 'stick it to the man' so to speak.

So even a serial killer can get into heaven, yet a person, who never harmed a person but didn't believe in him, can't? Doesn't that strike you as "odd"?

If god is real, and if god created us, he have us the ability to reason & use logic, yet, he demands we believe in something we can not prove with reason nor logic.

Christianity, like all religions, is one based on faith. Faith in something you cannot prove/detect by logic/reason - if you could, it wouldn't be faith!

If god is real, and if He created us, he gave us, in this faith stuff, the remarkable ability to put trust in something unseen, unheard, and unfelt. One could almost say that that trumps the amazing ability to reason - a faculty most animals like us possess, to a greater or lesser degree.

I don't know if it's true, and to an extent it doesn't matter that I don't - what would matter is whether one _believes_, can transcend logic and reason and come to faith.

So even a serial killer can get into heaven, yet a person, who never harmed a person but didn't believe in him, can't? Doesn't that strike you as "odd"?
Ok, so only the good people so to heaven? then no one will get there. There has to be some dived about it. God gives you the chance to recive him, can he be blamed if you dont take it?

Hello... Jesus is God! The whole trinity thing? Father, Son and Holy Spirit.Yes mathematical impossibility: I know because I'm good at maths but like I said we can't comprehend everything. Did I ever say something about punishing children for the acts of their fathers? I think you might be mistaken.

I'll use your quote:

"You shall not make for yourself an idol in the form of anything in heaven above or on the earth beneath or in the waters below. You shall not bow down to them or worship them; for I, the LORD your God, am a jealous God, punishing the children for the sin of the fathers to the third and fourth generation of those who hate me, but showing love to a thousand [generations] of those who love me and keep my commandments."

I never did get that trinity thing, because if Jesus is god, then he was omnipotent, thus he knew Judas would betray him even before he met him, thus implying that Judas did indeed not have free will, and thus he was the one making the biggest sacrifice as stated earlier

Elgesh']Christianity, like all religions, is one based on faith. Faith in something you cannot prove/detect by logic/reason - if you could, it wouldn't be faith!

If god is real, and if He created us, he gave us, in this faith stuff, the remarkable ability to put trust in something unseen, unheard, and unfelt. One could almost say that that trumps the amazing ability to reason - a faculty most animals like us possess, to a greater or lesser degree.

I don't know if it's true, and to an extent it doesn't matter that I don't - what would matter is whether one _believes_, can transcend logic and reason and come to faith.

That's not transcending anything. That's simply descending into willful ignorance. The idea that reason and logic are things to be transcended is itself a huge leap of faith with nothing to speak for it in any observable reality. The idea that faith is a necessity is itself an article of faith, and thus only a circular argument that justifies itself by claiming that the ability to escape such circularity is not of more value than the circularity itself... an utterly ludicrous proposition if ever there was one.

good one? but lets not be closed here. If by killing, you save more lifes. Is it still evil. No because your saving more life and at the end of the day whats more evil, leting more people die because you couldt kill a few?

Don't you think that a all-powerful being could come up with something more imaginative that slaughtering a whole tribe of people? Didn't they feel no pain and suffering? Do you honestly believe that this is what could be defined as "good"? Should we take this massacre as an example for good behaviour?

I never did get that trinity thing, because if Jesus is god, then he was omnipotent, thus he knew Judas would betray him even before he met him, thus implying that Judas did indeed not have free will, and thus he was the one making the biggest sacrifice as stated earlier
Wait a sec... if Judas had no free will, then he made no sacrifice. He just did as he was bid.

Well the about the killing in the old testment! God gave to chance to those about to die to be saved. Any child whould already get to heaven, since they are not old enough to chose from themselfs. AND if them people lived, Jesus would have not lived , and then we would all be in hell

You just tried to justify the slaughter of innocents, wich, by my morals, is evil.

Don't you think that a all-powerful being could come up with something more imaginative that slaughtering a whole tribe of people? Didn't they feel no pain and suffering? Do you honestly believe that this what could be defined as "good"? Should we take this massacre as an example for good behaviour?

Would you a large lighting stike that kill everyone of his enemies cos Ditto that would have kinda proof him being which would remove faith....

WHY? He offers heaven to everyone. Why cant you belive. God would help this to happen

He would help gravity to stop at 10PM? Well, then i might start to believe :p

You just tried to justify the slaughter of innocents, wich, by my morals, is evil.

Everyone dies, at least these people were giving to chance to live. Plus god created life, i think he can see fit when to that it.

Would you a large lighting stike that kill everyone of his enemies cos Ditto that would have kinda proof him being which would remove faith....

Is that a yes or a no?

Everyone dies, at least these people were giving to chance to live. Plus god created life, i think he can see fit when to that it.

So much for free will.

So much for free will.
Aye.

He would help gravity to stop at 10PM? Well, then i might start to believe :p

were is a brick wall when you need one :headbang: that would be proving his presents. I am trying to say he will help give you faith if you ask him

good one? but lets not be closed here. If by killing, you save more lifes. Is it still evil. No because your saving more life and at the end of the day whats more evil, leting more people die because you couldt kill a few?

Genocide is genocide. It can't be justified, not according to *my* morals, if your morals allow you to justify genocide, then i fear to ask what else you would try to justify

were is a brick wall when you need one :headbang: that would be proving his presents. I am trying to say he will help give you faith if you ask him
That would be proving his presence too.

That's not transcending anything. That's simply descending into willful ignorance. The idea that reason and logic are things to be transcended is itself a huge leap of faith with nothing to speak for it in any observable reality. The idea that faith is a necessity is itself an article of faith, and thus only a circular argument that justifies itself by claiming that the ability to escape such circularity is not of more value than the circularity itself... an utterly ludicrous proposition if ever there was one.

This is fun, isn't it? :D

'The idea that reason and logic are things to be transcended is itself a huge leap of faith with nothing to speak for it in any observable reality' - of course it is! If it could be proven to bring benefits, it wouldn't be faith, and following god/christianity wouldn't be through faith, but because it would _obviously_ bring benefits! It would affect the sine qua non of free will, without which the choice to follow god is meaningless.

A ludicrous proposition? Well, it's certainly one that lies outside the normal values and theories of logic and reason, and therefore, judging it by those standards, of course it's ludicrous. It doesn't fall into the domain of reason and logic though, so the act of attempting to judge it by those standards is itself somewhat... silly!

were is a brick wall when you need one :headbang: that would be proving his presents. I am trying to say he will help give you faith if you ask him

So what you're saying is that if you have faith that god exists, and you ask god for faith that he exists, then god will give you faith that god exists.

Of course, if you already had faith that god exists to the extent that you would ask for anything, then why would you need to ask for faith in the first place?

These are utterly circular and empty statements.

Aye.

There were free to live if they wanted it. I am saying that if an creater is not logical enough to be able to help with creations then who is?

That would be proving his presence too.

No because you would have to belive

Ok, so only the good people so to heaven? then no one will get there. There has to be some dived about it. God gives you the chance to recive him, can he be blamed if you dont take it?

If god is benevolent & just, yea, only the good people should get there, not the serial killlers who "repend" on their death bed, not the ones committing genocide, not the ones who go to war in god's name, but the ones whom help their fellow man and live a piecefull life. The illogical claim that those who repent also go to heaven implies to me that, indeed, the bible, and the faith surrounding it, is a man made creation, as it has way to much holes in it

Elgesh']This is fun, isn't it? :D

'The idea that reason and logic are things to be transcended is itself a huge leap of faith with nothing to speak for it in any observable reality' - of course it is! If it could be proven to bring benefits, it wouldn't be faith, and following god/christianity wouldn't be through faith, but because it would _obviously_ bring benefits! It would affect the sine qua non of free will, without which the choice to follow god is meaningless.

A ludicrous proposition? Well, it's certainly one that lies outside the normal values and theories of logic and reason, and therefore, judging it by those standards, of course it's ludicrous. It doesn't fall into the domain of reason and logic though, so the act of attempting to judge it by those standards is itself somewhat... silly!

Your proposition doesn't fall into reason and logic because you assume a priori that divinity cannot be understood through faith and logic. That's circular reasoning. Putting the word "faith" on this is just painting lipstick on a pig.

I have absolutely no faith in, for example, thermodynamic, but I have knowledge of it through reason. I can still chose whether or not to touch something hot and understand completely the consequences of doing so. I can even quantify the extent to which the exchange of heat will affect me. The idea that ignorance is necessary for free will to exist is an absolute fallacy and, when you get right down to it, a strawman whose inaccuracy is demonstrated every single day.

I'm still stuck with this Hell thing. If it really is eternal torment, then what did I do to deserve it? What did the majority of the population of the middle east do to deserve it? What did half my friends do to deserve it?

I mean, we're talking perfectly ordinary people here. Almost certainly some you Christians personally know & like as well. How can a decent being do such a thing?

And about why I can't believe.. That is an odd question. Why are christans not Muslims, Buddhists or Humanists? I bet you can't not believe in God. Just like I can't believe in God. No amount of money or promises would make me believe.

No amount of preaching would make me believe the Earth stopped dead in it's orbit around the Sun tomorrow either. And to me, Christianity is not the slightest bit more believable than that.

Genocide is genocide. It can't be justified, not according to *my* morals, if your morals allow you to justify genocide, then i fear to ask what else you would try to justify

God is all knowing and all powerfull, therefore he DOES know what is best for his people. The race could save themselfs, god gave them EVERY chance.

So even a serial killer can get into heaven, yet a person, who never harmed a person but didn't believe in him, can't? Doesn't that strike you as "odd"?

That's just the way it is. Sin is sin. We have a tendency to 'class' sin in terms of murder being terrible and little white lies not being sinful. God just sees sin as it is. Wherther it be a mass serial killer or the little girl who stole a cookie from the cookie jar it's still classed as sin. I don't make the rules, my job is to obey them and make other people aware of them.

Wait a sec... if Judas had no free will, then he made no sacrifice. He just did as he was bid.

Yet according to what's been said here, he's in hell being punished for obbaying god

If god is benevolent & just, yea, only the good people should get there, not the serial killlers who "repend" on their death bed, not the ones committing genocide, not the ones who go to war in god's name, but the ones whom help their fellow man and live a piecefull life. The illogical claim that those who repent also go to heaven implies to me that, indeed, the bible, and the faith surrounding it, is a man made creation, as it has way to much holes in it

But no one is perfect by the every nature of us. What god does is open up heaven to everyone

Your proposition doesn't fall into reason and logic because you assume a priori that divinity cannot be understood through faith and logic. That's circular reasoning. Putting the word "faith" on this is just painting lipstick on a pig.


If there is a god, he is supernatural. He is not natural. He is not of this universe. He is outside it, and its laws. How then can we expect to understand him through the same methods of logic and reason we use to understand the universe? That's why I make the distinction between logic and faith :)

That's just the way it is. Sin is sin. We have a tendency to 'class' sin in terms of murder being terrible and little white lies not being sinful. God just sees sin as it is. Wherther it be a mass serial killer or the little girl who stole a cookie from the cookie jar it's still classed as sin. I don't make the rules, my job is to obey them and make other people aware of them.

How do you know what the rules are? What you're propounding now isn't faith, it's knowledge. In this case, a knowledge of a particular set of laws. How do you know these laws are correct? How do you know that god "just sees sin" and sees difference between mass murder and telling a "little white lie"? How do you know what your job is?

What if what you're doing is absolutely and utterly wrong, and you're hurting people with what you're telling them in the case that you get them to believe you?

God is all knowing and all powerfull, therefore he DOES know what is best for his people. The race could save themselfs, god gave them EVERY chance.

If he is indeed all-powerful then why didn't he just talk to those poor people from Amalek, convince them and make them repent? If the last resort of an all-powerful god is mass slaughter, then how can he be benevolent at the same time?

Everyone dies, at least these people were giving to chance to live. Plus god created life, i think he can see fit when to that it.

A translation of a french poster i once saw:

<They say it's god that gives us life>
<They say it's god that takes it away>
<I say, giving is giving, taking it back is stealing>

Also, they were slaughtering people on the word of a man of faith, a person who claimed to have heard god's voice command him to do it, hey, i would call that being scizophrene or however it's spelled

I'm still stuck with this Hell thing. If it really is eternal torment, then what did I do to deserve it? What did the majority of the population of the middle east do to deserve it? What did half my friends do to deserve it?

I mean, we're talking perfectly ordinary people here. Almost certainly some you Christians personally know & like as well. How can a decent being do such a thing?

And about why I can't believe.. That is an odd question. Why are christans not Muslims, Buddhists or Humanists? I bet you can't not believe in God. Just like I can't believe in God. No amount of money or promises would make me believe.

No amount of preaching would make me believe the Earth stopped dead in it's orbit around the Sun tomorrow either. And to me, Christianity is not the slightest bit more believable than that.

I dont see what your problem is, if in life you dont want god then in death you dont get god. Simple. The only thing is God is great then you know what your lost. BUT YOU HAVE BEEN WARNED

If he is indeed all-powerful then why didn't he just talk to those poor people from Amalek, convince them and make them repent? If the last resort of an all-powerful god is mass slaughter, then how can he be benevolent at the same time?

Then why does he just come and talk to you? would you listen? It would destroy faith and free will. The bible say itself that you cant look at god face because in this life it would be to much for you.

I'm still stuck with this Hell thing. If it really is eternal torment, then what did I do to deserve it? What did the majority of the population of the middle east do to deserve it? What did half my friends do to deserve it?

I think the idea of hell as a place of physical torment is a holdover from the middle ages, an analogy that's become so commonplace and accepted that, in most people's minds, it's replaced the nature of the thing it's meant only to _reflect_.

If you're into psychology, think of how the metaphor of the brain-as-computer has been accused of limiting investigation, for example.

What hell is is seperation from god; that seperation was seen as something so terrible that only the most awful torments could reflect it as an image; and that's where the origin of hell-as-sadistic-torment was conceived!

Elgesh']If there is a god, he is supernatural. He is not natural. He is not of this universe. He is outside it, and its laws. How then can we expect to understand him through the same methods of logic and reason we use to understand the universe? That's why I make the distinction between logic and faith :)

In other words, your faith is reliant on a necessary ignorance of the nature of god. As I said, that is your a priori assumption.

Why, uif god exists, does it have to be "outside the universe" and "supernatural"? What necessitates this qualification? You are starting your argument with a conclusion.

If there is a god, it is so intimately involved with the universe that it is, in fact, the very basis of the universe itself. The knowledge of the laws by which the universe runs is thus direct knowledge of this god, requiring absolutely no faith whatsoever. In fact, with this knowledge, one can reliably predict events before they happen. There's nothing hidden, except by our own ignorance, which we must first acknowledge before making progress along the line to a real understanding of, and relationship with, this god, and it leads ultimately to the realization that we ourselves are an aspect of the divine. Because of this, we must treat our neighbor as we treat ourself, because ultimately what we do to our neighbor we do to ourselves. The kingdom of god is spread upon the earth precisely because there is no difference between heaven and earth, and we have within ourselves the very power to create heavens and hells... and do so all the time.

Why is this faith based upon ignorance and this remote, distant deity necessary?

I'll use your quote:



I never did get that trinity thing, because if Jesus is god, then he was omnipotent, thus he knew Judas would betray him even before he met him, thus implying that Judas did indeed not have free will, and thus he was the one making the biggest sacrifice as stated earlier

Honestly I didn't read all of that quote myself! But seriously God has a right to be jealous. He made us, Jesus saved us from sin. He deserves all the praise, recognition and worship. If you go and worship something else then that probably annoys him. I mean if someone else got all the recognition for something you did then you'd be pretty annoyed, wouldn't you?

Jesus was a man, and yet part of God. He was God on earth so to speak. It's hard to explain and I'm not saying it's easy to understand. Basically Jesus was born a man and lived life on earth as a man, just like any of us would. He did not have divine knowledge of everything going on in the universe like God The Father would. The Holy Spirit is like a gift or helper (I know loads of people will find it funny) that God sends Christians to help us during our time on earth. It's a bit like a conscience but not as annoying. It sort of makes you more aware of things.

Then why does he just come and talk to you? would you listen? It would destroy faith and free will. The bible say itself that you cant look at god face because in this life it would be no much for you.

What's this destroying faith and free will stuff? Didn't god show himself to humans? In the form of a burning bush for example? Didn't god show himself to people who were NOT believing in him?

Then why does he just come and talk to you? would you listen? It would destroy faith and free will. The bible say itself that you cant look at god face because in this life it would be to much for you.

The bible's wrong, then.

The only limitations to our knowledge and understanding are the length of our lives and our own willingness to overcome our innate ignorance.

We look at god in the face every single day. It's only our own ignorance that hides it from us. When that ignorance is valued, we begin turning the world into hell. When we realize it, we can turn the world into heaven.

I dont see what your problem is, if in life you dont want god then in death you dont get god. Simple. The only thing is God is great then you know what your lost. BUT YOU HAVE BEEN WARNEDSupposing I was an agnostic, or a Buddhist, or Muslim or any other of the myriads of philosophies & faiths on this planet, that all preach about deities & such, I'd still be going to hell.

Sure, I would probably know about Christianity, but chances are I'd believe you had got it wrong, and you'd be the one spending time somewhere undesirable after death.

I ask again; how can a good being put people through such a thing? How is that being good? If I tortured a random Buddhist, surely you wouldn't think me a good person, would you?

And this God entity supposedly does it to billions of people.

In other words, your faith is reliant on a necessary ignorance of the nature of god. As I said, that is your a priori assumption.

Why, uif god exists, does it have to be "outside the universe" and "supernatural"? What necessitates this qualification? You are starting your argument with a conclusion.

If there is a god, it is so intimately involved with the universe that it is, in fact, the very basis of the universe itself. The knowledge of the laws by which the universe runs is thus direct knowledge of this god, requiring absolutely no faith whatsoever. In fact, with this knowledge, one can reliably predict events before they happen. There's nothing hidden, except by our own ignorance, which we must first acknowledge before making progress along the line to a real understanding of, and relationship with, this god, and it leads ultimately to the realization that we ourselves are an aspect of the divine. Because of this, we must treat our neighbor as we treat ourself, because ultimately what we do to our neighbor we do to ourselves. The kingdom of god is spread upon the earth precisely because there is no difference between heaven and earth, and we have within ourselves the very power to create heavens and hells... and do so all the time.

Why is this faith based upon ignorance and this remote, distant deity necessary?

Oh dear this looks like a sprial to me, here we go again...

God wants to stay far enough away so you can choose him, without him forceing you into making a descison

God is all knowing and all powerfull, therefore he DOES know what is best for his people. The race could save themselfs, god gave them EVERY chance.

The problem is that *i don't accept his existance* and *that he uses men to do his bidding* thus said men *could just have been using him* as an *excuse* to slaughter the innocent.

Since the bible talks about genocide and even justifies it, then it is rather obvious that religion was used as a means to control the people of that time to do as they were told by influencial people. (Priests eg)

Oh dear this looks like a sprial to me, here we go again...

God wants to stay far enough away so you can choose him, without him forceing you into making a descison

So if I see something, that forces me to make a certain judgment about it? Ridiculous.

You've just claimed not faith, but knowledge. Specifically, you have claimed particular knowledge of the motivation of god. Yet you also claim that you can't have knowledge of god because faith is critical.

Again, an utterly empty series of self-contradicting statements.

That's just the way it is. Sin is sin. We have a tendency to 'class' sin in terms of murder being terrible and little white lies not being sinful. God just sees sin as it is. Wherther it be a mass serial killer or the little girl who stole a cookie from the cookie jar it's still classed as sin. I don't make the rules, my job is to obey them and make other people aware of them.

That's the job you self elected & apointed to you. You still haven't explained why your rules & religion is the only true religion when there are so many other religions out there, nor have you explained how there can be more then one religion if your religion is the one true path.

Supposing I was an agnostic, or a Buddhist, or Muslim or any other of the myriads of philosophies & faiths on this planet, that all preach about deities & such, I'd still be going to hell.

Sure, I would probably know about Christianity, but chances are I'd believe you had got it wrong, and you'd be the one spending time somewhere undesirable after death.

I ask again; how can a good being put people through such a thing? How is that being good? If I tortured a random Buddhist, surely you wouldn't think me a good person, would you?

And this God entity supposedly does it to billions of people.

Look some people dont want God? why should they go the heaven if they dont choose it? Therefore god need someway of telling who wants to go to heaven. and it is just the bible and not other religions, where it say that it is the only way.

Elgesh']I think the idea of hell as a place of physical torment is a holdover from the middle ages, an analogy that's become so commonplace and accepted that, in most people's minds, it's replaced the nature of the thing it's meant only to _reflect_.

If you're into psychology, think of how the metaphor of the brain-as-computer has been accused of limiting investigation, for example.Sadly, I'm not very familiar with psychology. I tried to take a class back in my school days, but my teacher (a dreadful woman) decided that I wasn't right in the head, and that the class should be centered around that. Not all people can deal with looking at a mohawk I suppose.. Anyway, I decided to take an extra chemistry class instead. Though there was more work involved, noone cared how I looked, and the subject was interesting.Elgesh']What hell is is seperation from god; that seperation was seen as something so terrible that only the most awful torments could reflect it as an image; and that's where the origin of hell-as-sadistic-torment was conceived!If that seperation from God is so godawfull (terrible pun, sorry), then how would it differ from the lake of fire thing? You argue that the two are similar, yet that the two aren't similar at all. I have some trouble following that line of thinking.

Then why does he just come and talk to you? would you listen? It would destroy faith and free will. The bible say itself that you cant look at god face because in this life it would be to much for you.

Basicly, the bible says "don't ask, you''re not supposed to know, just take our word for it, god told us so"... sorry, i don't buy that.

Elgesh']
What hell is is seperation from god; that seperation was seen as something so terrible that only the most awful torments could reflect it as an image; and that's where the origin of hell-as-sadistic-torment was conceived!

How can you be seperated from an omnipresent being?

Basicly, the bible says "don't ask, you''re not supposed to know, just take our word for it, god told us so"... sorry, i don't buy that.

Well, the Bible is contradicting him. God clearly did all those things that Nikkil says god couldn't do in the case of the Amalek people.

In other words, your faith is reliant on a necessary ignorance of the nature of god. As I said, that is your a priori assumption.

Why, uif god exists, does it have to be "outside the universe" and "supernatural"? What necessitates this qualification? You are starting your argument with a conclusion.

If there is a god, it is so intimately involved with the universe that it is, in fact, the very basis of the universe itself. The knowledge of the laws by which the universe runs is thus direct knowledge of this god, requiring absolutely no faith whatsoever. In fact, with this knowledge, one can reliably predict events before they happen. There's nothing hidden, except by our own ignorance, which we must first acknowledge before making progress along the line to a real understanding of, and relationship with, this god, and it leads ultimately to the realization that we ourselves are an aspect of the divine. Because of this, we must treat our neighbor as we treat ourself, because ultimately what we do to our neighbor we do to ourselves. The kingdom of god is spread upon the earth precisely because there is no difference between heaven and earth, and we have within ourselves the very power to create heavens and hells... and do so all the time.

Why is this faith based upon ignorance and this remote, distant deity necessary?

Now that's a post worth quoting! Excellent!

The problem is that *i don't accept his existance* and *that he uses men to do his bidding* thus said men *could just have been using him* as an *excuse* to slaughter the innocent.

Since the bible talks about genocide and even justifies it, then it is rather obvious that religion was used as a means to control the people of that time to do as they were told by influencial people. (Priests eg)

I sorry but i belive however you put God was right. If he didnt do it then we would all be in hell.
And as for innocent, only Jesus is innocent, and he gave up his life for you.

Why, uif god exists, does it have to be "outside the universe" and "supernatural"? What necessitates this qualification? You are starting your argument with a conclusion.

I'm answering your question with an answer!

If there is a god, it is so intimately involved with the universe that it is, in fact, the very basis of the universe itself. The knowledge of the laws by which the universe runs is thus direct knowledge of this god, requiring absolutely no faith whatsoever. In fact, with this knowledge, one can reliably predict events before they happen. There's nothing hidden, except by our own ignorance, which we must first acknowledge before making progress along the line to a real understanding of, and relationship with, this god, and it leads ultimately to the realization that we ourselves are an aspect of the divine. Because of this, we must treat our neighbor as we treat ourself, because ultimately what we do to our neighbor we do to ourselves. The kingdom of god is spread upon the earth precisely because there is no difference between heaven and earth, and we have within ourselves the very power to create heavens and hells... and do so all the time.

The god we're talking about is omnipotent, yes? Well, within this universe, omnipotence is logically impossible - you can't create a boulder tha's _so heavy_ you cannot lift it, and a 1000 other paradoxes. God might be within the universe, but he's not of it - that would limit him to its laws. He can affect is - no idea how, I'm not all-knowing! - without being of it. It's a crude, crude, crude, deconstructable analogy, but I imagine it might be like me playing a pc game - I'm outside it, not limited to the rules of it, but have an affect on it. I'm hesitant to use that image as it's so prone to being picked apart, but I do think it gives a flavour of the complex idea I'm trying to out across.

Why is this faith based upon ignorance and this remote, distant deity necessary?

Because if it was based on knowledge, logic, and reason, it:

would be limited to the intelligent, only those able to ascertain or at least understand the explanations.

would hamper free will - if you can accurately predict exactly what'll happen if you do xyz, you're not putting your trust in anything by doing xyz, you're not setting aside the comforts of what you know to risk everything for faith.

Honestly I didn't read all of that quote myself! But seriously God has a right to be jealous. He made us, Jesus saved us from sin. He deserves all the praise, recognition and worship. If you go and worship something else then that probably annoys him. I mean if someone else got all the recognition for something you did then you'd be pretty annoyed, wouldn't you?

Maybe, but i wouldn't damn then into the fith generation :p

Jesus was a man, and yet part of God. He was God on earth so to speak. It's hard to explain and I'm not saying it's easy to understand. Basically Jesus was born a man and lived life on earth as a man, just like any of us would. He did not have divine knowledge of everything going on in the universe like God The Father would. The Holy Spirit is like a gift or helper (I know loads of people will find it funny) that God sends Christians to help us during our time on earth. It's a bit like a conscience but not as annoying. It sort of makes you more aware of things.

That made absolutely no sense to me, sorry

What's this destroying faith and free will stuff? Didn't god show himself to humans? In the form of a burning bush for example? Didn't god show himself to people who were NOT believing in him?

A burning bush? *hasps*

Well, the Bible is contradicting him. God clearly did all those things that Nikkil says god couldn't do in the case of the Amalek people.

Bible contradicting, lol. It is in many places but thats because i am not smart enough and that god changes view from the New and old testoments

How can you be seperated from an omnipresent being?

Certain strains of Hinduism have an answer for this; they call it "maya." Really, all maya is is our own ignorance. I can see that. One's not really ever separate from it, one just thinks one because one doesn't know that it's right in front of you, all the time, being what it is instead of what one expects it to be.

Which is one reason why this whole idea that not knowing (i.e., faith) is something to be valued seems so bizarre to me. The idea that the divine is somehow "out there" instead of right here, right now, no matter what we're thinking about it and wanting it to be, and that real knowledge of some aspect of it is a bad thing, seems utterly twisted.

A burning bush? *hasps*

If god showed no-one then how would know his messages in the start? I am sorry humans are not that smart they do need someone the start the reglion spreading

Maybe, but i wouldn't damn then into the fith generation :p



That made absolutely no sense to me, sorry

Yeah, well you can't expect a schoolgirl to come up with a decent answer at around midnight can you?

Yeah, well you can't expect a schoolgirl to come up with a decent answer at around midnight can you?
tut tut tut

isnt it a school night?

I sorry but i belive however you put God was right. If he didnt do it then we would all be in hell.
And as for innocent, only Jesus is innocent, and he gave up his life for you.

He's a stinker for you.... who says we *aren't* in hell? Look arround you, there are multiple cultures, multiple languages, multiple faiths, murder & killing aplenty... Maybe *this* is hell and you're deluding yourself as are all the rest of humanity?

Think about it....

He's a stinker for you.... who says we *aren't* in hell? Look arround you, there are multiple cultures, multiple languages, multiple faiths, murder & killing aplenty... Maybe *this* is hell and you're deluding yourself as are all the rest of humanity?

Think about it....

Very clever. But completely irrelevant.

tut tut tut

isnt it a school night?

I'm off school tomorrow.

I'm off school tomorrow.

I mean today lol.

Sadly, I'm not very familiar with psychology. I tried to take a class back in my school days, but my teacher (a dreadful woman) decided that I wasn't right in the head, and that the class should be centered around that. Not all people can deal with looking at a mohawk I suppose.. Anyway, I decided to take an extra chemistry class instead. Though there was more work involved, noone cared how I looked, and the subject was interesting. If that seperation from God is so godawfull (terrible pun, sorry), then how would it differ from the lake of fire thing? You argue that the two are similar, yet that the two aren't similar at all. I have some trouble following that line of thinking.
Ouch! sucky teachers... suck, I guess :p

Seperation _not_ = a lake of fire? Well, we know (or can imagine) exactly what a lake of fire'd be like, but have no idea what seperation'd be like - hence the use of analogy, plus 'eternal seperation' isn't as cool a catchphrase as eternal damnation/hellfire, and loads of other colourful religious expressions through the ages.

What would that seperation be like, then? And why would a loving god permit this conceptualised-as-terrible thing to happen to _anyone_? I think that's the real sticking point? (I guess, but...?) Harder still to understand. As many theologians have denied that their god would punish someone, inflict suffering, on them forever, but... I dunno... it seems to be stressed quite a bit, doesn't it? But then - live your life as you see fit, treating people right, respecting others, and helping when you can, and you're effectively living the christian life. I don't imagine a god would consign anyone to eternal suffering for that.

He's a stinker for you.... who says we *aren't* in hell? Look arround you, there are multiple cultures, multiple languages, multiple faiths, murder & killing aplenty... Maybe *this* is hell and you're deluding yourself as are all the rest of humanity?

Think about it....

Dam it, i did't see that one coming *run for the hills*

Only i can feel God, i would't be able to in hell. Plus there is hope and death. Hell would last eternity and there is no hope there

Yeah, well you can't expect a schoolgirl to come up with a decent answer at around midnight can you?

I don't know who you are or what time it's there, but thx for atleast trying to explain it :)

Very clever. But completely irrelevant.

No it isn't, why would it be irrelevant?

Certain strains of Hinduism have an answer for this; they call it "maya." Really, all maya is is our own ignorance. I can see that. One's not really ever separate from it, one just thinks one because one doesn't know that it's right in front of you, all the time, being what it is instead of what one expects it to be.

Which is one reason why this whole idea that not knowing (i.e., faith) is something to be valued seems so bizarre to me. The idea that the divine is somehow "out there" instead of right here, right now, no matter what we're thinking about it and wanting it to be, and that real knowledge of some aspect of it is a bad thing, seems utterly twisted.
While I don't believe a word you say, I have to say I really like your philosophy :)

What's this destroying faith and free will stuff? Didn't god show himself to humans? In the form of a burning bush for example? Didn't god show himself to people who were NOT believing in him?

Yes, he did in the old testament. But that defies the point. He doesn't anymore, he provided Jesus so that we would have a way to get to him. He doesn't need to anymore. As we said earlier in this thread if he showed himself people still wouldn't believe.

Dam it, i did't see that one coming *run for the hills*

Only i can feel God, i would't be able to in hell. Plus there is hope and death. Hell would last eternity and there is no hope there

One of the definitions of hell i once read is all men living in their own dreams & beliefs ignorant of the thruth (or something to that) basicly you wouldn't know you were in Hell, you wouldn't know you're believing the wrong things and your life would be an endless repetition.

No it isn't, why would it be irrelevant?

Too many questions to answer, I'd rather not get tangental to what we're discussing.

Elgesh']The god we're talking about is omnipotent, yes?

Only insofar as it participates in everything that happens, as it is the basis of every event. The idea that it sits about plotting and planning as an omnipotent being is beyond the scope of anything I said

Well, within this universe, omnipotence is logically impossible - you can't create a boulder tha's _so heavy_ you cannot lift it, and a 1000 other paradoxes. God might be within the universe, but he's not of it - that would limit him to its laws. He can affect is - no idea how, I'm not all-knowing! - without being of it. It's a crude, crude, crude, deconstructable analogy, but I imagine it might be like me playing a pc game - I'm outside it, not limited to the rules of it, but have an affect on it. I'm hesitant to use that image as it's so prone to being picked apart, but I do think it gives a flavour of the complex idea I'm trying to out across.

You're creating criteria to suit your ideas, not what I've said. You're postulating, again, that god is something separate from everything else. I certainly never said that; in fact, I've said exactly the opposite. We do see laws in the universe, and that's how it works. That's all there is to it. I haven't posited omnipotence, nor any circumstance that requires it for a definition of divinity.

Why is this faith based upon ignorance and this remote, distant deity necessary?

Because if it was based on knowledge, logic, and reason, it:

would be limited to the intelligent, only those able to ascertain or at least understand the explanations.

In your case, it is limited only to those who don't have a conflict with the intellect. Why is this any less limiting?

You have posited that it is necessary to develop faith. I posit that it is necessary to develop the intellect by gaining direct knowledge. But beyond that, why is it even necessary to do either one? I haven't set some goal post for minimum necessary understanding. One can comprehend some aspect of the divine through any number of means. If the divine is the basis of everything, you can develop an understanding of it by developing an understanding of any thing. If plants are an aspect of god and one is a good gardener, then one gains an understanding through horticulture. There's no particular punishment or reward for having one degree or another of understanding. We do it because it's our nature; learning isn't the province of only a particular kind of person. The very idea that, in fact, something opposed to this very mechanism makes no sense at all and necessitates any number of baroque explanations that require far more complex reasoning than simple mathematical formulae or direct experience.

would hamper free will - if you can accurately predict exactly what'll happen if you do xyz, you're not putting your trust in anything by doing xyz, you're not setting aside the comforts of what you know to risk everything for faith.

And, again, this is a circular argument. What necessitates one doing these things?

Not to mention the fact that it's utterly wrong. People risk their lives for knowledge all the time. I have known of people who have died in the pursuit of knowledge of volcanoes; surely they gave up the comforts of what they already knew to risk everything... but for knowledge, not faith. There have been explorers who sailed into the unknown in order to learn more about the world, and some of them died doing it. They did it to gain knowledge, not because they required faith.

There is always more to know. The fact that we don't have knowledge doesn't mean that we can never have it, and people will risk everything to learn more. Not all of them, but people are driven by different things. Certainly, there are plenty of people who would consider themselves people of faith who live very conservatively, never considering new ideas, always doing what they're comfortable with, day after day, year after year.

Too many questions to answer, I'd rather not get tangental to what we're discussing.

Well, it seemed like a fun area of discussion to me.... *sobs*
Well, i'm off now, gotta work in like 5 hours :p

Yes, he did in the old testament. But that defies the point. He doesn't anymore, he provided Jesus so that we would have a way to get to him. He doesn't need to anymore. As we said earlier in this thread if he showed himself people still wouldn't believe.

But we were discussing a part of the OT.

God ordered a whole tribe to be slaughtered. Since he is all-powerful and still chose this solution instead of talking to those guys and convincing them and make them repent, must we not call him evil?

One of the definitions of hell i once read is all men living in their own dreams & beliefs ignorant of the thruth (or something to that) basicly you wouldn't know you were in Hell, you wouldn't know you're believing the wrong things and your life would be an endless repetition.

If that what you belif yourself, then enjoy bissfull ignorance. However i not going to risk it.

I don't know who you are or what time it's there, but thx for atleast trying to explain it :)

Why is it that when I mention that I'm young people get all nice (or else all horny but that's besides the point)? Seriously if you were honestly being nice then thanks :)

While I don't believe a word you say, I have to say I really like your philosophy :)

Belief is unnecessary. You can call it quantum foam or quarks or electromagnetic energy if you like. That's really my point. It just is, and I don't see any reason to postulate that it judges us and metes our rewards and punishments. You and I and everyone else here and the computers we're typing on and what have you are all just aspects of the same thing. Things we like, things we don't like, all of it. It doesn't matter. We can understand it, but we can't petition it. It's the same thing as the laws of physics and the replication of DNA. It's just the way things work and the stuff it works upon, and that's it. What's to believe in?

He's a stinker for you.... who says we *aren't* in hell? Look arround you, there are multiple cultures, multiple languages, multiple faiths, murder & killing aplenty... Maybe *this* is hell and you're deluding yourself as are all the rest of humanity?

Think about it....

The Wachowski brothers called. They would like their script for the Matrix back. :p

But we were discussing a part of the OT.

God ordered a whole tribe to slaughtered. Since he is all-powerful and still chose this solution instead of talking to those guys and convincing them and make them he repent, must we not call him evil?

AHH why cant you listen and understand the points raised by me. For the LAST time

1. By the deaths of these people many more were allow to live
2. These people were given EVERY chance to change and THEY choose not no therefore endangering jesus path into the world
3. These people were NOT innoceint and killed gods people and were barbaric

Why is it that when I mention that I'm young people get all nice (or else all horny but that's besides the point)? Seriously if you were honestly being nice then thanks :)

Good point maybe i should try it- I am young be nice to me PLEASE

Elgesh']Ouch! sucky teachers... suck, I guess :p

Seperation _not_ = a lake of fire? Well, we know (or can imagine) exactly what a lake of fire'd be like, but have no idea what seperation'd be like - hence the use of analogy, plus 'eternal seperation' isn't as cool a catchphrase as eternal damnation/hellfire, and loads of other colourful religious expressions through the ages.

What would that seperation be like, then? And why would a loving god permit this conceptualised-as-terrible thing to happen to _anyone_? I think that's the real sticking point? (I guess, but...?) Harder still to understand. As many theologians have denied that their god would punish someone, inflict suffering, on them forever, but... I dunno... it seems to be stressed quite a bit, doesn't it? But then - live your life as you see fit, treating people right, respecting others, and helping when you can, and you're effectively living the christian life. I don't imagine a god would consign anyone to eternal suffering for that.Hehe, likeable as that response was, it really didn't answer the question, did it?

I think it's somewhat amusing that the three of you still haven't answered whether a good & loving God can punish people for eternity, for the one simple shortcomming of not realizing God exists untill they get clubbered.

I'm reminded of a time when some of the lads & I were walking down a street & one of the guys were going on & on about something. At one point I interrupted him & said "Don't look where you're going". He spend the next 5 seconds laughing & smiling at me, then knocked himself on his arse because he walked head-first into a tree.
If God's real, then we hardcore atheists are just like my friend. We never realize just what we're doing until we're knocked on our arses.

But do we deserve it? What about the multitudes of people who were watching our for the wrong tree (so to speak)?

I simply can't understand how some people can maintain such a deity is good & loving.. or even just 'sometimes nice around noon on Sundays'. Because to me, jumping on people like he does (according to the Bible, and not just the brimstone Christians), really isn't what I'd call nice, good, loving or benevolent. Quite the opposite, in fact.

And no, I don't blame the tree. It was a late-night attempt at an analogy.

But we were discussing a part of the OT.

God ordered a whole tribe to slaughtered. Since he is all-powerful and still chose this solution instead of talking to those guys and convincing them and make them he repent, must we not call him evil?

I don't think that that's the first time something like that is mentioned in the OT. Honestly I felt apalled when I first read that kind of stuff and had the same sort of reactions. And also I felt that the Bible could be quite sexist. In fact sometimes I still do. But I'm only human. We may be apalled by God's violence but isn't war part of life? I mean God helped his people to win and lose wars depending on what they had done and what he planned for them as a result. I'm sure that there are more complex reasons why he killed those people. I think maybe they were warned by a prophet but wouldn't listen.
Many parts of the bible can be taken out of context. For example I read a part where it said something like 'the sinner will say there is no God' so you can take the last part of the phrase out and voila! The Bible contradicting itself.

The Wachowski brothers called. They would like their script for the Matrix back. :p

lol. I knew that sounded all too like a film I've actually seen.

God created existence, Science created life, Karma fate and destiny run it all, and people are just here to bitch moan and argue about how we came about.:D :p

AHH why cant you listen and understand the points raised by me. For the LAST time

1. By the deaths of these people many more were allow to live
2. These people were given EVERY chance to change and THEY choose not no therefore endangering jesus path into the world
3. These people were NOT innoceint the killed gods people and were barbaric

You're not listening to me.

You are currently saying that your all powerful god is incapable of finding another solution than SLAUGHTERING a whole tribe. An all powerful god should have no need to slaughter anyone.

You say he needed to do it, because only this way others would be saved. So he isn't all powerful or what? :confused:

It doesn't matter wether they were barbaric or not endangered Jesus (isn't Jesus god? They were endangering god?) or not. God could have convinced them, by appearing, doing some miracles and stuff like he did the whole time. Teach them. Point out to them why they were wrong. Is god such a bad teacher?

They were given chances? When? And even if - isn't god forgiving?

God is either evil or not all powerful.

Good point maybe i should try it- I am young be nice to me PLEASE

With a previous comment like 'Isn't it a schoolnight?' you sound older. Not really old but I mean at least in your twenties. Yeah I know that's not old. Older than me.

Hehe, likeable as that response was, it really didn't answer the question, did it?

I think it's somewhat amusing that the three of you still haven't answered whether a good & loving God can punish people for eternity, for the one simple shortcomming of not realizing God exists untill they get clubbered.

I'm reminded of a time when some of the lads & I were walking down a street & one of the guys were going on & on about something. At one point I interrupted him & said "Don't look where you're going". He spend the next 5 seconds laughing & smiling at me, then knocked himself on his arse because he walked head-first into a tree.
If God's real, then we hardcore atheists are just like my friend. We never realize just what we're doing until we're knocked on our arses.

But do we deserve it? What about the multitudes of people who were watching our for the wrong tree (so to speak)?

I simply can't understand how some people can maintain such a deity is good & loving.. or even just 'sometimes nice around noon on Sundays'. Because to me, jumping on people like he does (according to the Bible, and not just the brimstone Christians), really isn't what I'd call nice, good, loving or benevolent. Quite the opposite, in fact.

And no, I don't blame the tree. It was a late-night attempt at an analogy.

*looks at questions, screams, notices people watching, hids in the cupboard*

God is all powerfull, all loving, all wise and all knowing

this means : he does what is best for us, he knew what our heart is, and knows if we are going to change and can give us every chance to do os.
God can not take away our freedom to choice to do so would be immoral, same as he cant force us to go to heaven if we choose not to follow him. Its by our free will that god created hell.

He also is all forgiving so when you screw up, hevean is still open to you.

HE makes it so on your judgement day you cannot say "if only i knew", "if only i had more time".

McVenezuela

Alright, you've worn me out; heh, no, I'm at my bedtime!:p

I do think you're creatively misunderstanding what I post; I'm thinking of your bit about folk 'dying for knowledge', and intellect/knowledge. Your conception of finding god through reason seems to me to assume that, implictly, _lack_ of knowledge and reason would limit your ability to know god, which is unfair on thick people, or folk born at a time before certain advances were made etc etc.

And I'm sorry I didn't set the goalposts more firmly - I assumed we were talking about an omnipotent, loving god (the one you'd find in the bible, or the christian faith), but I didn't say so - when I tried to explain that god, you thought I was dragging out ideas from your thoughts that you didn't put in - again, apologies, I was playing in the wrong lane!

Put simply, I find myself thinking that maybe the search for god (or whatever you want to call what it is we've been doing!) through reason and logic is futile - it's not using the right tools for the task, for the reasons I've mentioned:

Lack of impediments to it except faith;
the nature of omnipotence and its relationship to a logical, reasoned, rules-based universe;
the nature of logic and reason, and why a precise knowledge of god limits the free will of committing to him solely by faith
the nature of faith, and the need to take this god on trust rather than testing the waters first through trying to find out more about him before committing to him.

In that paradigm, a seperation of the explanatory powers of science and religion works.

But anyway, I'm away to bed :) I've had fun, hope you have too, and I'm sorry I couldn't stick around longer - see you anon, though, I hope!

Belief is unnecessary. You can call it quantum foam or quarks or electromagnetic energy if you like. That's really my point. It just is, and I don't see any reason to postulate that it judges us and metes our rewards and punishments. You and I and everyone else here and the computers we're typing on and what have you are all just aspects of the same thing. Things we like, things we don't like, all of it. It doesn't matter. We can understand it, but we can't petition it. It's the same thing as the laws of physics and the replication of DNA. It's just the way things work and the stuff it works upon, and that's it. What's to believe in?Se that's what I like about it :)

- It's kind of like what I & a whole bunch of others often say about various mechanisms in nature; belief is inconsequential.

And of course, apart from you deifying nature, our philosophies doesn't differ veru much at all.

You're not listening to me.

You are currently saying that your all powerful god is incapable of finding another solution than SLAUGHTERING a whole tribe. An all powerful god should have no need to slaughter anyone.

You say he needed to do it, because only this way others would be saved. So he isn't all powerful or what? :confused:

It doesn't matter wether they were barbaric or not endangered Jesus (isn't Jesus god? They were endangering god?) or not. God could have convinced them, by appearing, doing some miracles and stuff like he did the whole time. Teach them. Point out to them why they were wrong. Is god such a bad teacher?

They were given chances? When? And even if - isn't god forgiving?

God is either evil or not all powerful.

God is all wise, he knew that was the best option. Jesus is god's son and also god, dont ask!

for that last comment, i am telling you now what your doing by not coming to christ is worng, are you going to listen to me?

EDIT : god is forgiving but you have to want it- again free will

God is all wise, he knew that was the best option. Jesus is god son and also god, dont ask!

for that last comment, i am telling you now what your doing by not coming to christ is worng, are you going to listen to me?

So let me get this straight.....sometimes the best option is to kill the buggers when they just don't feel like doing things your way? That doesn't really sound like a good thing to do.

God is all wise, he knew that was the best option. Jesus is god son and also god, dont ask!

for that last comment, i am telling you now what your doing by not coming to christ is worng, are you going to listen to me?

If the only solution your all-wise, all-powerful, all-forgiving, all-loving, all-benevolent being can up with is genocide, then I won't become a member of the club.

If the only solution your all-wise, all-powerful, all-forgiving, all-loving, all-benevolent being can up with is genocide, then I won't become a member of the club.

But every Tuesday is free ice cream night.

So let me get this straight.....sometimes the best option is to kill the buggers when they just don't feel like doing things your way? That doesn't really sound like a good thing to do.

God killed them as a last resort, he did not say, ah you have forgetten to pray, death to you all. That the people were doing was dangerous, and needed to be stopped.

Right i am off to bed. If you want to ask me anymore question, message me ingame just search for nikkil

Hehe, likeable as that response was, it really didn't answer the question, did it?

I think it's somewhat amusing that the three of you still haven't answered whether a good & loving God can punish people for eternity, for the one simple shortcomming of not realizing God exists untill they get clubbered.

I'm reminded of a time when some of the lads & I were walking down a street & one of the guys were going on & on about something. At one point I interrupted him & said "Don't look where you're going". He spend the next 5 seconds laughing & smiling at me, then knocked himself on his arse because he walked head-first into a tree.
If God's real, then we hardcore atheists are just like my friend. We never realize just what we're doing until we're knocked on our arses.

But do we deserve it? What about the multitudes of people who were watching our for the wrong tree (so to speak)?

I simply can't understand how some people can maintain such a deity is good & loving.. or even just 'sometimes nice around noon on Sundays'. Because to me, jumping on people like he does (according to the Bible, and not just the brimstone Christians), really isn't what I'd call nice, good, loving or benevolent. Quite the opposite, in fact.

And no, I don't blame the tree. It was a late-night attempt at an analogy.

The analogy isn't bad, in my opinion. I just don't agree with you. If it were up to me I wouldn't be so harsh. But who am I to make the rules? My idea of heaven could be a complete and utter nightmare. In our modern view then we don't deserve it. Only murderers deserve to die in some countries (even though I don't agree that anyone should be given the death penalty) according to society in general. But society isn't perfect. Have you ever heard of the leader of a country that made all the right decisions? I haven't because nobody's perfect. But God is. I don't get why he does things half of the time. I am an intelligent person. Doesn't mean I can fully comprehend God. I don't want to wish pain on people, but in the end if we sin, knowingly or not, hell awaits us. It's not my choice, I am but a mere pawn in the scheme of things.

Se that's what I like about it :)

- It's kind of like what I & a whole bunch of others often say about various mechanisms in nature; belief is inconsequential.

And of course, apart from you deifying nature, our philosophies doesn't differ veru much at all.

Meh, it's just a matter of names. Yogis say "prana," I say "electron potential moving along an axon." I maintain that the originators of religion largely had the same goals that we do now; they were using the best tools that they had at the time to explain the universe in which they lived. They postulated things to fill in gaps in their knowledge, and every so often religions tended to reform themselves as the tools, and thus the knowledge, improved. You can use a stone axe or a scalpel to hack up a body; we've just got better tools now to understand. Some people are still trying to use the stone axes, as it were.

Frankly, I think that religion was how the quest for knowledge started out, and if we could somehow take what we know now back in time to those first authors, it would look very different that what it looks like now. After all, nearly all of those authors were trying to help their cultures out every bit as much as a scientist or surgeon does now. We've just gotten better at it over time, as is the case with many things.

Shiva? Jehovah? Zeus? Whatever. All just mile markers on a road to understanding how the universe works.

If the only solution your all-wise, all-powerful, all-forgiving, all-loving, all-benevolent being can up with is genocide, then I won't become a member of the club.

what did you want him to do send in flowers?

God killed them as a last resort, he did not say, ah you have forgetten to pray, death to you all. That the people were doing was dangerous, and needed to be stopped.

Right i am off to bed. If you want to ask me anymore question, message me ingame just search for nikkil

How can an omnipotent being ever be limited to a "last resort"?

God killed them as a last resort, he did not say, ah you have forgetten to pray, death to you all. That the people were doing was dangerous, and needed to be stopped.

Right i am off to bed. If you want to ask me anymore question, message me ingame just search for nikkil

This might just be me here but I'm guessing an all powerful being has a few more tricks up it's sleeve then just kill the bastards and be done with it. Just seems lazy to me really.

Hehe, likeable as that response was, it really didn't answer the question, did it?


But do we deserve it? What about the multitudes of people who were watching our for the wrong tree (so to speak)?


My bad then, sorry! (and right after I said I was going to bed... oh well, this _one_ post). I thought it _did_ answer you, but obv. I was too... crappy.

One might even say sucky.

Anyway, in the conception of god I got, you _don't_ deserve seperation or whatever you call it for anything except taking your gift, the gift of _yourself_ into the world, and giving pain to others. Not crap 'you bitch!' 'I want more!', low level shit, but important things; it's _chock-ful_ of analogy, but ever meditate on the ideas around 'theft is the only crime, rape the only sin' - that sort of pain-giving, 'important' pain, as it were, not the normal bumps and bruises we all get going through life.

Belief in god becomes less important to living right, doing right. I think maybe the bible gives clues in that direction, but to take it all as gospel (another awful pun - we're even!) is an error. Don't get me wrong, belief in god'd help - but only insofar as it helps people to live right, not as an article of faith (I win the pun count!) in of itself.

Religion itself becomes much less important compared to the good that is meant to flow from it - it's that goodness that's important, not the words that are framed around it.


Right, that's it - really goodnight! I'm going to lock up, then head to bed. Hope to see you anon!

If the only solution your all-wise, all-powerful, all-forgiving, all-loving, all-benevolent being can up with is genocide, then I won't become a member of the club.

It's sad that several hours on a forum amounts to this conclusion... Can you really let one incident that you didn't even read deeply into taint and destroy all that we've argued about tonight? If so then I'm really sorry.:(

Ok i now have not answered your questions well
there are two books which go into great detail on these topics
they are

the case for faith
the case for christ

Both by Lee stonable (spelt wrong sorry)

anyway good night feel free to message me

This might just be me here but I'm guessing an all powerful being has a few more tricks up it's sleeve then just kill the bastards and be done with it. Just seems lazy to me really.

Have you ever met someone so stubborn that there's no way they'll listen to you no matter how hard you try? God knew nothing else would work, so why try?

Yeah I'm wrecked too. Goodnight!;)

Have you ever met someone so stubborn that there's no way they'll listen to you no matter how hard you try? God knew nothing else would work, so why try?

So appearing to them and saying, "Hey there umm yea I'm God and apparently you guys haven't been getting my message or something, maybe your answering machine was full or you just killed that prophet I sent but I'm kinda gonna need you to convert now mkay." is to hard for God to do. Damn I never knew I had a better work drive then an all powerful diety, perhaps I really should be asking for that raise I've been wanting.

Frankly, I think that religion was how the quest for knowledge started out, and if we could somehow take what we know now back in time to those first authors, it would look very different that what it looks like now. After all, nearly all of those authors were trying to help their cultures out every bit as much as a scientist or surgeon does now. We've just gotten better at it over time, as is the case with many things.

Shiva? Jehovah? Zeus? Whatever. All just mile markers on a road to understanding how the universe works.You won't hear me disagree with that. It's exactly how I've always thought of religion, and that line of thinking seems very well supported by history as we know it. Pretty6 much all religions were the centers of science, innovation & social progress, and did a lot of social engineering, back in the days before the scientific method. And the scientific method itself is arguably nothing but the natural development of that - not implying it has anything to do with religion or specific world veiws.

Occam's Razor. That's why I don't believe in God.

Also, the Church was being all bitchy. They pissed me off to no end... and to think that I used to follow all the propoganda they fed me...

Elgesh']Anyway, in the conception of god I got, you _don't_ deserve seperation or whatever you call it for anything except taking your gift, the gift of _yourself_ into the world, and giving pain to others. Not crap 'you bitch!' 'I want more!', low level shit, but important things; it's _chock-ful_ of analogy, but ever meditate on the ideas around 'theft is the only crime, rape the only sin' - that sort of pain-giving, 'important' pain, as it were, not the normal bumps and bruises we all get going through life.Heh, that's a decidedly unchristian outlook. It does sound nice, but you kind of ruin the point of the whole Christ myth. But at least it doesn't nessecitate a cruel God.Elgesh']Right, that's it - really goodnight! I'm going to lock up, then head to bed. Hope to see you anon!Alright. Nite nite. To all of you.

You won't hear me disagree with that. It's exactly how I've always thought of religion, and that line of thinking seems very well supported by history as we know it. Pretty6 much all religions were the centers of science, innovation & social progress, and did a lot of social engineering, back in the days before the scientific method. And the scientific method itself is arguably nothing but the natural development of that - not implying it has anything to do with religion or specific world veiws.

Kind of ironic, isn't it? The implication I get from this line of reasoning is that not only have those who are still wielding the analogical stone axes turned their back on science — but ultimately upon the founders of the very religions they profess to follow.

(And before anyone gets the idea that I'm applying this to any one religion, I mean any religion at all which claims that any word or text is the inerrant revelation of deity, immutable and unchanging through all time.)

Kind of ironic, isn't it? The implication I get from this line of reasoning is that not only have those who are still wielding the analogical stone axes turned their back on science — but ultimately upon the founders of the very religions they profess to follow.

(And before anyone gets the idea that I'm applying this to any one religion, I mean any religion at all which claims that any word or text is the inerrant revelation of deity, immutable and unchanging through all time.)
One could say that the proverbial stone axe once used to carve the way for human progress, is now being used to chop the noses off the curious.

Ironic doesn't even begin to describe it.

Though I don't suppose the actual function of religion has changed much. Just the role of it. It's still propelling out societies, just not forward.

Judas? The real hero? Correct me if I'm wrong but where does it say that Jesus knew that he would be king of all heaven etc? As far as I can see all he knew was that he had to be crucified for the sins of the world. And yes even if he did know then he didn't do it so that he could reap the rewards in heaven. He was without sin and so to do it for a selfish, greedy motive like that would be sinning. The fact is that he did it for others, for people who hated him.

And Judas is not 'have to' betray him. He had already organised and negotiated prior to Jesus making aware that he knew what he would do. And Judas did not realise what he did until after Jesus' death and he couldn't live with it so he used his bribe money to buy a field to hang himself in.

You are wrong. Consider yourself corrected.

Jesus might not come out and say as much, but he never denies it when it is offered to him... he understood he was the fulfillment of Messianic prophecy, no? He talks about preparing houses, and his father's kingdom, etc... it is not too deeply buried.

Did I SAY he did it for the reward? I don't think so... what I said is, it is a SMALL sacrifice to give up your life, when you KNOW that you'll be resurrected in threee days time, and that you are going to be the boss in some mystical playground for all eternity.

Regarding Judas - he had a destiny to fulfill, did he not? Could Peter have been the one to betray Jesus? No matter what his thoughts/second thoughts about the matter, he was not ALLOWED to change his heart. Jesus TOLD him he would betray him, and that HE KNEW it. It was also NECESSARY that someone betray Jesus... so Judas HAD TO betray him, whether he wanted to or not, in order that prophecy be fulfilled.

Oh - and regarding the Potter's field.... well, it depends which version you take. Scripture says two different things about that episode... one set implies that Judas bought the field, one set implies the Pharisees bought it, with the 'blood money'. One set of scripture says Judas killed himself, one implies he was killed.

Sigh... Your still thinking within the box.


Matter of opinion, my friend... you 'see' a box, where others might argue there is none.


Nobody can imagine pure love or a person who never does wrong because we've never seen one.


Poppycock. Perhaps you cannot? I pity you if that is so. I can easily picture 'pure love'... and it doesn't have anything to do with half-human apotheotic manifestations.

Nor can we really get how bad Satan is.


According to scripture, if you take the time to read it... not 'bad' at all. Look at the Book of Job... Satan is god's investigator, his prosecutor... nothing more.

He does the work he is given.

It was only once the movement that was to become Christianity encountered Dualism in other local religions, that they tried to argue 'Satan' as an 'evil' entity.

Take any evil dictator and they don't even come near the mark.


Of course not. HaSatan (The Adversary) was an angelic rank.... those that prosecute the sins of men.

Many aspects of the Bible are impossible for our minds to imagine, for example eternity as everything in this world comes to an end. But if there are smarter people, and indeed smarter species, then surely there is someone who 'gets' it, who is infinitely smarter than everyone else. Imagine how impossible some concepts must be for say a dog? We can't get some things, we just have to accept that somebody else does.

To argue that, just because YOU don't comprehend something, it must be explained by mysticism, is flawed logic.

What was my first thoughts, its too perfect. But then if nothing else i trusted in my self, these feeling i was having were telling me something was right.

This is 'bad religion', scripturally.

The Bible tells us NOT to trust 'our hearts', because they are deceptive.

If your 'feelings' told you you were going the right way, and IF you accept scripture as 'true'... then you must confront the possibility that the flesh has lied to you.

I dont see why? Most histoical books are written 100's of years after the event does that make them less true? NO. whereas the gospial was written 60 year after it happen

This is entirely untrue.

Most historical books are written pretty soon after the events... or are collected from sources created pretty soon after the events.

In the case of World War 2, for example, MUCH of the material was created DURING that war... Seigfried Sassoon being a good example.

And the Gospels... there is still debate about who even wrote them... Matthew and Luke seem to be interpretations of ONE text (by an unknown author) - which is referred to as "Q" in theological circles.

John wasn't even THERE.

The Gospels are unreliable, because they were not necessarily written by eye-witnesses... in some cases, it is KNOWN that the individual (like John) was not a witness.

...you won't care either because if, according to my religion, you don't repent then you'll be in Hell and that is the worst place imaginable....


Your religion is wrong, my friend.

Or at least, in the face of a vast majority of OTHER religions, that do not agree with your religion, how do you PROVE your religion is RIGHT?

In other words... you STATE it as FACT... but you can't PROVE it.


...You probably think that when you die you'll just cease any consciousness, like in a dreamless sleep. If only.

Are you dead? Have you previously died and been resurrected?

(Operation table 'near-death experiences aside, even I've had one of those).

If you HAVE NOT already died, and been brought back, then you are ONLY voicing opinion, here.

You WANT there to be a Heaven when you die. You WANT the Biblical stories to be true.

But, you just don't have any way to prove it.

The difference between religion and science is the difference between truth and fact. Truth is relevant, but fact is universal.

He did reveal his will to us. Look at the old Testement.

The Old Testament ONLY reveals god's will for the Jews.

And, since the earliest Old Testament texts are no earlier than 900BC, it was FAR from the first 'inspired word' of god.

So because there is no proof it cant be true right?

Well just to add that there is proof to back some of the bible clams. like texts written by roman solders, and digging in areas as also bought up some proof.

Show sources?

Which peer-reviewed text did you find the information in?

Where is this additional evidence?

Show sources?

Which peer-reviewed text did you find the information in?

Where is this additional evidence?
Er... The only "proof" of the bible that I've ever seen has been texts speaking of a man called Jesus of Nazareth and writings speaking of Pontius Pilate.

1: I never said that the islam faith is older.

Islam IS older. So say the Moslems.

How is a Christian going to prove them wrong?

They claim they are inspired by god.... the Christians claim THEY are inspired by god.... both groups even claim the SAME god...

The Qu'ran is simply the Testament that clarifies and updates the previous texts... which, strangely, is what the New Testament claims to be, also.

To say that Islam is a lie, then, is to argue the same is possible for the Bible.

Er... The only "proof" of the bible that I've ever seen has been texts speaking of a man called Jesus of Nazareth and writings speaking of Pontius Pilate.

Indeed.... the writings of Josephus or Tacitus... written LONG after the fact, by people who were not even BORN at the time.

There is NO independent, contemporary evidence of the alleged earthly ministry of the man they called Christ.

Hell, even the Gospels don't agree on all the elements of the story.

(Try using the Gospels to work out where Jesus was, 3 days after his baptism).

Islam IS older. So say the Moslems.

How is a Christian going to prove them wrong?

They claim they are inspired by god.... the Christians claim THEY are inspired by god.... both groups even claim the SAME god...

The Qu'ran is simply the Testament that clarifies and updates the previous texts... which, strangely, is what the New Testament claims to be, also.

To say that Islam is a lie, then, is to argue the same is possible for the Bible.
Actually, wasn't Islam founded in the 600s?

Indeed.... the writings of Josephus or Tacitus... written LONG after the fact, by people who were not even BORN at the time.

There is NO independent, contemporary evidence of the alleged earthly ministry of the man they called Christ.

Hell, even the Gospels don't agree on all the elements of the story.

(Try using the Gospels to work out where Jesus was, 3 days after his baptism).
Well, the way I see it, there are two versions of Jesus:

The historical figure, Jesus of Nazareth, and the religious figure, Jesus the Christ.

Actually, wasn't Islam founded in the 600s?That's what my Muslim friends say anyway. I've never heard a Muslim claim Islam wasn't simply the result of God correcting the religion when it had gotten off the track.

Well, the way I see it, there are two versions of Jesus:

The historical figure, Jesus of Nazareth, and the religious figure, Jesus the Christ.Is there any proof of the historical figure?

There are a few people out there who belive that science and god contradict eachother, this is not necicarially the case...all science dose it explane what happens or how something happend. it dose not say that the force creating what ever caused it or that the scientifc prosses that occur.

for instance:
we know that 2 Hyrogen atoms combine with 1 oxygen atom to create water, nothing says that the reason they do this was against gods will.

as a scientist i think in a way that is extreamly secptical of all views on anything. i am as sceptical of science as i am of god. there can be no proof eather way that god does or does not exist, therefore there are no facts for anyone to base there belifs off of. this is why they are called beliefs...

Is there any proof of the historical figure?
I do believe that there have been texts discovered referring to a Jesus of Nazareth.

Eh, personally, I don't believe in the whole Christianity thing. ^^; I'm pagan.

The difference between religion and science is the difference between truth and fact. Truth is relevant, but fact is universal.


The last time I checked pi wasn't equal to three (yes it does indirectly say this in the bible) and it was impossible for water to magically appear in quanitites to cover the entire planet (in such high quantites that the extra water vapor alone would choke and Noah and any poor animals he /was/ able to gather in such a short amount of time). People who try and prove these fables "scientifically" piss me off royally. Either admit that they're just good morals and stoytelling, take it on faith and admit you can't prove it, or give up altogether. Akin to ghost hunters and people looking for Atlantis, you're just making real science look bad.

There are a few people out there who belive that science and god contradict eachother, this is not necicarially the case...all science dose it explane what happens or how something happend. it dose not say that the force creating what ever caused it or that the scientifc prosses that occur.

for instance:
we know that 2 Hyrogen atoms combine with 1 oxygen atom to create water, nothing says that the reason they do this was against gods will.

as a scientist i think in a way that is extreamly secptical of all views on anything. i am as sceptical of science as i am of god. there can be no proof eather way that god does or does not exist, therefore there are no facts for anyone to base there belifs off of. this is why they are called beliefs...

Two words: Occam's Razor.
If you were really a scientist, you'd know about this.
How is a "God" equally or more logical?

Actually, wasn't Islam founded in the 600s?

Yes. The organised religion, after the inspiration of Mohammed, is only 1400 years old... but Moslem's argue that there is a direct line back to the Biblical Ishamel... and that ALL of the characters of the Old Testament line were, in fact, Moslems... just under different name.

For an example, I'd guess.... imagine when you grow up, that you find out that Bill Gates is your biological father.... you'd be the same person you'd always been... but now you'd have this whole other heritage, that you've not been aware of...

Thus - the Jews and Christians have simply failed to appreciate Allah is the 'name of God'.

SCIENCE EXPLAINS ALL!!! BOW TO THE SCIENCE GOD!

Science... Religion, it's all the same.

It's all about what you put your 'faith' in. The uncaring universe, or the uncaring God.

Well, the way I see it, there are two versions of Jesus:

The historical figure, Jesus of Nazareth, and the religious figure, Jesus the Christ.

This is true... however, there is no independent, contemporary evidence for EITHER of them.

Maybe the Bible Jesus IS based on a real man... but we know nothing about that man.

Indeed, looking at what evidence there is, the most LIKELY explanation (due to all the similarities, etc) is that our 'Jesus' in the scripture, is simply the addition of a Jewish name (well, recognisable to a Jewish audience), to an older story... maybe some Mithraist legend, or an account of the early holyland Buddha stories (which are about 600 years older than the New Testament).

SCIENCE EXPLAINS ALL!!! BOW TO THE SCIENCE GOD!

Science... Religion, it's all the same.

It's all about what you put your 'faith' in. The uncaring universe, or the uncaring God.

Science can't explain everything. There is a point where people make their own decisions about "truth". For example, no one can really "prove" conclusively that reality itself exists; that's the entire premise of exostentialism. It's all about how you set the bar on what qualifies as "proof" for you... and a lot of religious people set that bar really low.

I do believe that there have been texts discovered referring to a Jesus of Nazareth.


That's the problem... right there...

Many people 'believe that there have been texts discovered'... and simple repitition of THAT 'belief' has somehow become confused with 'evidence'.

There are NO independent, contemporary accounts of an earthly Jesus of Nazareth... OR of his miraculous alter-ego.

We wouldn't accept modern sources with the same kind of 'flying-in-the-face-of-the-evidence' content.

Example: If a whole series of closely-related texts were found, which clearly stated that the Holocaust never happened... we wouldn't accept such assertions without some pretty good evidence.

And, another example, more closely related to the first: If a series of texts appeared, that claimed that the English royal family were actually giant Lizard-beings (something 'supernatural', but that is not directly disproved by everyday knowledge), we wouldn't accept just ONE set of related texts as any kind of evidence... nor the follow-up texts, if, a hundred years later, someone decided to write a book about those 'lizard king' stories.

It's the same both ways. Science cannot disprove God's existance, nor can science prove God's existance.

Which makes religious people ultimately smarter. The Universe is already explained. They know everything. Science can't explain everything. Which means anyone who follows science is ultimately dumber, since everything is not explained.

Science is the new religion guys. The problem with science is that it's just as bad as the Catholic church was in the 1400s. Science is on a witch-hunt, and their target is Religion.

(and this is coming from an atheist... oh god, what's the world coming to...)

Just because i can explain something doesn't make me smarter then someone else. or in this case just because something i believe is true can explain something and thence i can regurgetate it believing it as fact does not make me smarter at all it just makes me a fool. I could say the grass is green beacuse an all powerful being got a big crayon and decided to colour it that way. But doesn't make me smarter then a person who said i don't know why the grass is green. Thus your statement that religious people are smarter because they can explain everything is not credible at all. The smartest and wisest people of all realise just how little they do know and your statement suggest that you believe that these people who can't explain everything through science are not as smart as religous people who put complete and blind faith in an omnipresent being.

That's the problem... right there...

Many people 'believe that there have been texts discovered'... and simple repitition of THAT 'belief' has somehow become confused with 'evidence'.

There are NO independent, contemporary accounts of an earthly Jesus of Nazareth... OR of his miraculous alter-ego.

We wouldn't accept modern sources with the same kind of 'flying-in-the-face-of-the-evidence' content.

Example: If a whole series of closely-related texts were found, which clearly stated that the Holocaust never happened... we wouldn't accept such assertions without some pretty good evidence.

And, another example, more closely related to the first: If a series of texts appeared, that claimed that the English royal family were actually giant Lizard-beings (something 'supernatural', but that is not directly disproved by everyday knowledge), we wouldn't accept just ONE set of related texts as any kind of evidence... nor the follow-up texts, if, a hundred years later, someone decided to write a book about those 'lizard king' stories.

*sigh*

No, there isn't an independently-verified set of data. There was just a religion (Judaism) who was highly intolerant of any competing claims to the authority of the Sanhedrin, who nevertheless when pressed to dispute the doctrine of the Christians, never once pointed out what should have been the first thing that would have come out of my mouth if I were a member of the Sanhedrin and I were confronted with a loony claiming that a week ago a fictional Messiah was executed in the central city of the Jewish world: who exactly was this Jesus, and why the hell don't I remember him? If he were fictional, Christian Jews would have been a laughingstock for anyone that remembered bothered to take a look at Golgotha, which was pretty much damn near everybody given how Golgotha is situated. They were not.

So there are two possible logical explanations for this: one is that the most prominent Jewish leaders of the day were less skilled in logical and temporal reasoning than I was at two years old, and the other is that they disputed what Jesus was, not whether he was. Only one follows Occam's Razor. Do the math.

Science can't explain everything. There is a point where people make their own decisions about "truth". For example, no one can really "prove" conclusively that reality itself exists; that's the entire premise of exostentialism. It's all about how you set the bar on what qualifies as "proof" for you... and a lot of religious people set that bar really low.

No one has a right to reach a point (this 'point' being presumably where the line is blurred and it is hard to tell) to "decide" what the "truth" is. That is such a base irreducable self evident fact.

The moment you "decide" what it is, you have something besides truth.

Also, I feel that "I think, therefore I am" is a pretty good proof we exist.

*sigh*

No, there isn't an independently-verified set of data. There was just a religion (Judaism) who was highly intolerant of any competing claims to the authority of the Sanhedrin, who nevertheless when pressed to dispute the doctrine of the Christians, never once pointed out what should have been the first thing that would have come out of my mouth if I were a member of the Sanhedrin and I were confronted with a loony claiming that a week ago a fictional Messiah was executed in the central city of the Jewish world: who exactly was this Jesus, and why the hell don't I remember him? If he were fictional, Christian Jews would have been a laughingstock for anyone that remembered bothered to take a look at Golgotha, which was pretty much damn near everybody given how Golgotha is situated. They were not.

So there are two possible logical explanations for this: one is that the most prominent Jewish leaders of the day were less skilled in logical and temporal reasoning than I was at two years old, and the other is that they disputed what Jesus was, not whether he was. Only one follows Occam's Razor. Do the math.

What are you talking about?

If Jesus never existed, as we are positing here.... then the Snahedrin would have no 'story' to decry, would they?

And - considering the EARLIEST texts about this 'Jesus' fellow didn't turn up until at least a generation AFTER the story is alleged to take place...

And, given that the alleged figure claimed to be coming back in the lifetime of his followers...

And, given that, a generation later, this 'messiah' figure was still not returning with the Sword and the Fire and all...

Why would the Sanhedrin half a century AFTER the fact even bother to 'deny' something that was patently not true?


Also - of course... you are arguing as though the lack of evidence of a Sanhedrin response, is EQUAL to evidence of lack of a Sanhedrin response.

Maybe there WAS a Sanhedrin refutation, and it has been lost/destroyed/covered-up?

No one has a right to reach a point (this 'point' being presumably where the line is blurred and it is hard to tell) to "decide" what the "truth" is. That is such a base irreducable self evident fact.

The moment you "decide" what it is, you have something besides truth.

Also, I feel that "I think, therefore I am" is a pretty good proof we exist.

That's quite the arrogant statement. So basically, you're saying that there is only one point of view that the universe should be seen from (namely yours)?

"I think, therefore I am," is not particularly good proof to some people. In fact, that entire statement could be branded as "false" since you can't prove that that statement actually exists. Exostentialism is so much fun.

That's quite the arrogant statement. So basically, you're saying that there is only one point of view that the universe should be seen from (namely yours)?


On the contrary, friend... I think you are missing the other poster's point completely...

Unless I read it wrong, what they were saying was, once ANYONE 'decides' they have 'truth', that determination itself is an indicator that they are ACTUALLY dealing with something that has become subjective.

Thus - that poster isn't pushing 'one point of view', at all... and is, in fact, arguing against the concept of a 'decided' specific 'point of view' of any form.

On the contrary, friend... I think you are missing the other poster's point completely...

Unless I read it wrong, what they were saying was, once ANYONE 'decides' they have 'truth', that determination itself is an indicator that they are ACTUALLY dealing with something that has become subjective.

Thus - that poster isn't pushing 'one point of view', at all... and is, in fact, arguing against the concept of a 'decided' specific 'point of view' of any form.

You're right; I did misread a part of it. However, there is still a problem with it:

No one has a right to reach a point to "decide" what the "truth" is.

If no one has the "right", to decide their point of view, then how can it be established as truth? Wouldn't that pose a problem that is solvable only through exostentialism?

i have never understood why people stake so much in this topic. it is obvious that one's religion, or lack of one, is based entirely on circumstance. i was raised in a non-religious suburb in which i have known only 3 kids growing up who went to church regularly, and they did it because they were forced to. whereas someone from birmingham georgia is far more likely to be a devoted christian. all i am saying is that there is no point in discussing this topic because nobody's opinion will change as it has been imbued into their being from birth. its best to simply acknowledge that all matters of religion must not be present in government because people have widely varying beliefs regarding faith and no one group should be given the chance to politically homogenize another.

btw, sorry if this was already said, i was not about to read all the way down.

http://www.nationstates.net/nickelbourg

i have never understood why people stake so much in this topic. it is obvious that one's religion, or lack of one, is based entirely on circumstance. i was raised in a non-religious suburb in which i have known only 3 kids growing up who went to church regularly, and they did it because they were forced to. whereas someone from birmingham georgia is far more likely to be a devoted christian. all i am saying is that there is no point in discussing this topic because nobody's opinion will change as it has been imbued into their being from birth. its best to simply acknowledge that all matters of religion must not be present in government because people have widely varying beliefs regarding faith and no one group should be given the chance to politically homogenize another.

btw, sorry if this was already said, i was not about to read all the way down.

http://www.nationstates.net/nickelbourg

I used to be a devout Christian Conservative. Now I'm a hardcore-athiest Liberal (not the Neo-Lib kind; the *real* Liberal).

People can change their opinions.

I used to be a devout Christian Conservative. Now I'm a hardcore-athiest Liberal (not the Neo-Lib kind; the *real* Liberal).

People can change their opinions.

I think the significant point is that while people can, most don't.

I think the significant point is that while people can, most don't.

If that's the point he was trying to make, he didn't quite say that:

...there is no point in discussing this topic because nobody's opinion will change as it has been imbued into their being from birth.

But yes, Alfred, you're right; most people don't change. I think that's a huge mistake for most people.

The last time I checked pi wasn't equal to three (yes it does indirectly say this in the bible)

No it doesn't. That's the stupidest thing I've ever heard.

From the KJV: 1 Kings 7:23
And he made a molten sea, ten cubits from the one brim to the other: it was round all about, and his height was five cubits: and a line of thirty cubits did compass it round about.

Why would they say "and a line of thirty one and a little more than four tenths cubits" instead of just saying thirty? And if you are going to take them literally, I read once that if you do some gematria (where each of the Hebrew letters has a numberical value and you do stuff with that) then you can say that the writers of the old testament approximated pi to 3.1416, which is a much better approximation that anyone else had at that time.

You're right; I did misread a part of it. However, there is still a problem with it:

If no one has the "right", to decide their point of view, then how can it be established as truth? Wouldn't that pose a problem that is solvable only through exostentialism?

The post didn't say 'no one has the right to decide their point of view'... it was more about deciding what is 'TRUTH'.

Your point of view is your own, and, as long as you realise that, there are no problems...

The Christian has a 'point of view' that he/she believes describes the world accurately.... the Atheist has quite a different 'point of view'.

The problem arises when one or the other decides that they are dealing with an objective truth...

Because, of course, we have no real way of deciding OBJECTIVE truths, because we can only perceive subjectively.

This is even more 'true', when one deals with 'truths' that are about things (like religion) that MUST be about an entirely personal experience.

So - one has the 'right' to determine 'points of view'... one has no innate 'right' to decide what is objective 'Truth'.

No it doesn't. That's the stupidest thing I've ever heard.

From the KJV: 1 Kings 7:23
And he made a molten sea, ten cubits from the one brim to the other: it was round all about, and his height was five cubits: and a line of thirty cubits did compass it round about.

Why would they say "and a line of thirty one and a little more than four tenths cubits" instead of just saying thirty? And if you are going to take them literally, I read once that if you do some gematria (where each of the Hebrew letters has a numberical value and you do stuff with that) then you can say that the writers of the old testament approximated pi to 3.1416, which is a much better approximation that anyone else had at that time.

Perhpas not the MOST stupid thing you've ever heard, friend...

The problem isn't with rounding errors... the problem is that some people hold that the Bible is ABSOLUTE... it can have no errors, there is, thus, no allowance for a 'rounding error' in the text.

There is a story that tells of an Iowa legislator (I believe) trying to have the 'law' changed, to recognise Pi as equal to 3, using the Biblical example as 'evidence'... purely because of 'innerancy'.

So - is a comment about 'indirect' suggestions REALLY the 'stupidest thing you ever heard.?

Why would they say "and a line of thirty one and a little more than four tenths cubits" instead of just saying thirty?

Why would it give a value at all ?

I used to be a devout Christian Conservative. Now I'm a hardcore-athiest Liberal (not the Neo-Lib kind; the *real* Liberal).

People can change their opinions.

Same hear although I don't know the difference between Neo Liberal and real Liberal

Perhpas not the MOST stupid thing you've ever heard, friend...

The problem isn't with rounding errors... the problem is that some people hold that the Bible is ABSOLUTE... it can have no errors, there is, thus, no allowance for a 'rounding error' in the text.

There is a story that tells of an Iowa legislator (I believe) trying to have the 'law' changed, to recognise Pi as equal to 3, using the Biblical example as 'evidence'... purely because of 'innerancy'.

So - is a comment about 'indirect' suggestions REALLY the 'stupidest thing you ever heard.?

Okay so I exaggerated a little. And the bible wasn't the only reason (or even a reason?) that Iowa was going to change the value of pi to 3.

Even the comparatively innocuous idea that the writer of I Kings might have been speaking in only approximate terms is unacceptable to some people, because it implies, however slightly, that some passages in the Bible were never intended to be taken with exact literalness. There have been a lot of efforts to explain away the approximation to pi, and also some folklore about the attempts.

The most famous episode took place in the 19th century, when the legislature of Iowa supposedly considered a resolution to make pi legally equal to 3, based on the Biblical passage. Actually, the effort was the brainchild of a well-meaning but not overly mathematical legislator to make things easier for practical calculations by legislating a standard and simple value of pi. If we can define other weights and measures, why not pi? The proposal had very little to do with the Bible and died a quick death in committee.
source: http://www.uwgb.edu/dutchs/pseudosc/pibible.htm

Why would it give a value at all ?

Why not? They were telling about how big the thing was, it didn't matter if it was all that accurate.

Okay so I exaggerated a little. And the bible wasn't the only reason (or even a reason?) that Iowa was going to change the value of pi to 3.

source: http://www.uwgb.edu/dutchs/pseudosc/pibible.htm

I've seen that site before, I believe...

However, what I haven't been able to find, is a more 'reliable' source of the information... hearing about anecdotal testimony, a hundred years after the fact, it's hard to decide WHERE the truth lies.

I'd like, someday, to find a source that confirms, one way or the other, what the pressure behind the legislative attempt was.

Why not? They were telling about how big the thing was, it didn't matter if it was all that accurate.

I think the point is.... why go into the measurements of the thing, when surely they are not the important part of the story?

Also - why even mention the numbers, if you aren't going to ensure they are accurate?

I'm envisioning the first books of Genesis being written in 'near enough' units... 'and on the fifth day, god rested', 'ten of each male and female, of the clean beasts'... etc.

We are a qualitative creature. We set store in the 'numbers' of things.

I think the point is.... why go into the measurements of the thing, when surely they are not the important part of the story?

Also - why even mention the numbers, if you aren't going to ensure they are accurate?

But they were important, at least a little. From the same site I quoted earlier, "the essential point was the impressive size of the cauldron."

Also, if the diameter was something like 9.8 cubits, they would have rounded it. Ancient civilizations generally used only integers; most of them didn't have very good ways of expressing decimals.

Science doesnt explain everything

Yes, science doesn't explain everything. It does, however, explain millions of things very well.

Religion, on the other hand, tries to explain one thing... and it does a poor job of it.

But they were important, at least a little. From the same site I quoted earlier, "the essential point was the impressive size of the cauldron."

Also, if the diameter was something like 9.8 cubits, they would have rounded it. Ancient civilizations generally used only integers; most of them didn't have very good ways of expressing decimals.

However, the Hebrews DID use fractions... they used the cubit, they used the hand, they used the width of a finger, etc.

Also - I think you are making biased estimates about the level of knowledge our ancestors may have had... try looking up Babylonian impact on math, sometime.

(And, then bear in mind that the Hebrews spent a while attending Babylonian schools).

Aslo - if the point was that a cauldron was huge... something along the lines of "The Cauldron was huge" is going to have more impact than nebulous listed figures. Or, alternatively, if they said the volume it could hold.. in terms of something 'real'.... like, 50 sheep, maybe?

Nikola Tesla.
Ah, be fair .... show the posting where this is, or at least, get him up here to fend for himself over his overtly heretical point of view.

Yes, science doesn't explain everything. It does, however, explain millions of things very well.

Religion, on the other hand, tries to explain one thing... and it does a poor job of it.

Similir to my science has been wrong lots of times but religion can only be wrong ones statement. Good obsrevation Gartref

Similir to my science has been wrong lots of times but religion can only be wrong ones statement. Good obsrevation GartrefSurely you mean how religion has been relegated to only one thing. Because using the scientific method, we've found out rain isn't God crying, thunder isn't God when he's mad, tides aren't God cleaning the shorelines and so on..

The Wachowski brothers called. They would like their script for the Matrix back. :p

Bah, this idea is older than the Matrix, and the Matrix sucked :p

AHH why cant you listen and understand the points raised by me. For the LAST time

1. By the deaths of these people many more were allow to live
2. These people were given EVERY chance to change and THEY choose not no therefore endangering jesus path into the world
3. These people were NOT innoceint and killed gods people and were barbaric

And gods people weren't barbaric? They killed everything including their sheep! Maybe they didn't believe in the same god? Is that a reason to slaughter them all? And i still don't believe the first point you made, because *YOU CAN NOT POSSIBLY KNOW* what would have happened if they were allowed to live, for all we know the world could even have turned out to be a better place had Jesus never existed.

Good point maybe i should try it- I am young be nice to me PLEASE

We are being nice, we're having a discussion & sofar haven't been resorting to underhanded techniques & insults :fluffle:

I think maybe they were warned by a prophet but wouldn't listen.

Well, if i were to say i'm telling gods word, and that you should jump arround wearing pink tutu's, would you believe me? I don't believe in prophets tho :p

lol. I knew that sounded all too like a film I've actually seen.

The idea is alot older, i think it originally comes from Verne's book on hell, but i could be completely confused on this matter tho ;)

And gods people weren't barbaric? They killed everything including their sheep! Maybe they didn't believe in the same god? Is that a reason to slaughter them all? And i still don't believe the first point you made, because *YOU CAN NOT POSSIBLY KNOW* what would have happened if they were allowed to live, for all we know the world could even have turned out to be a better place had Jesus never existed.

you right i dont know what would have happen, but an all-knowing god would have done. Gods people did what was commanded of them to do, by something one who knows everything. I am sure God had his reasons and he would not have done this lightly. After why would he go though creating us just to destory us and God is all loving he would have been greatly sadden by theses deaths.

Yes, science doesn't explain everything. It does, however, explain millions of things very well.

Religion, on the other hand, tries to explain one thing... and it does a poor job of it.


On the contrary, since science cannot provide very good explanations for things like time and the laws of nature, nor love or morality or even a consciousness, one has to wonder how anyone could imagine the limited attempts of science to explain such things could ever be considered superior to e.g. Christianity's version of the meaning of life--the great adventure of a personal relationship with none other than the Creator of all things.

It's sad that several hours on a forum amounts to this conclusion... Can you really let one incident that you didn't even read deeply into taint and destroy all that we've argued about tonight? If so then I'm really sorry.:(

He's using this incident as means to demonstrate his point, i think.
His point is that the bible is contradictive, and that the god the bible presents is anything but good & benevolent.

Have you ever met someone so stubborn that there's no way they'll listen to you no matter how hard you try? God knew nothing else would work, so why try?

*looks in mirror*
*looks at you*

Well hey, i have met such people :p :fluffle:

On the contrary, since science cannot provide very good explanations for things like time and the laws of nature, nor love or morality or even a consciousness, one has to wonder how anyone could imagine the limited attempts of science to explain such things could ever be considered superior to e.g. Christianity's version of the meaning of life--the great adventure of a personal relationship with none other than the Creator of all things.

Please present what you believe to be science's conception of "time" and "the laws of nature". I'm interested in what you think science has to say on these issues.

Where I'm from, you can often tell how credible a person is by taking an inverse function of the proclaimed importance of who they have a "personal relationship" with...we call it "name-dropping" and it reveals a lot about people.

i sorry i need to ask, why do the people hear why the people dont belive in god care enough to come and discredit him?

i sorry i need to ask, why do the people hear why the people dont belive in god care enough to come and discredit him?

Because, unfortunately, many people are trying to use their version of God to pass laws that affect everybody. I'm not accusing you of doing that, but many are doing it. When you excercise the right to proselytize, others have the right to respond.

In short, we care because many religionists have politicized it, and now we have to care.

And gods people weren't barbaric? They killed everything including their sheep! Maybe they didn't believe in the same god? Is that a reason to slaughter them all? And i still don't believe the first point you made, because *YOU CAN NOT POSSIBLY KNOW* what would have happened if they were allowed to live, for all we know the world could even have turned out to be a better place had Jesus never existed.

It's one thing to kill in obedience to a direct command of God, quite another to kill for your own purposes.

In the minds of the people of that day, I reckon they would have seen God's word as the way to determine wrong from right. With such a mindset, it would have been possible to go to war against another culture, carrying out God's commands, with a clear conscience. Thus, your appeal to justice in such a 'slaughter' would be against God, not the Israelites. But once you go there, you end up criticising God over His sense of justice, as if you know all the details and could have done things better. While questioning God is not forbidden in the Bible, we are warned that our wisdom is quite a lot less than His, and that such questioning is madness, unless such questions come from integrity.

It's one thing to kill in obedience to a direct command of God, quite another to kill for your own purposes.

In the minds of the people of that day, I reckon they would have seen God's word as the way to determine wrong from right. With such a mindset, it would have been possible to go to war against another culture, carrying out God's commands, with a clear conscience. Thus, your appeal to justice in such a 'slaughter' would be against God, not the Israelites. But once you go there, you end up criticising God over His sense of justice, as if you know all the details and could have done things better. While questioning God is not forbidden in the Bible, we are warned that our wisdom is quite a lot less than His, and that such questioning is madness, unless such questions come from integrity.

How do you feel this reasoning would have applied at Nuremburg?

Can there be a wisdom that justified barbarism?

Is it okay to abdicate your determination of "justice" over to a "wisdom" that you refuse to question? Or one that you confess to not fully understanding?

If its not okay to criticise or question God for its sense of judgement, and you just obey it...what do you think that will lead to?

Please present what you believe to be science's conception of "time" and "the laws of nature". I'm interested in what you think science has to say on these issues.

Where I'm from, you can often tell how credible a person is by taking an inverse function of the proclaimed importance of who they have a "personal relationship" with...we call it "name-dropping" and it reveals a lot about people.

Fair enough question. What I meant by such comments is that while science is able to describe the effects of time and how it can be measured, it cannot say where it came from or what it actually is (as far as I have read). Same goes with something like gravity. We can deduce formulas and equasions that will describe the interaction of matter. We can describe the effect that it has, enough to make very accurate predictions. But we still don't know WHAT it is, or where it came from, in scientific terms.

It's one thing to kill in obedience to a direct command of God, quite another to kill for your own purposes.


"Just following orders" is the difference. Its not a big one.

On the contrary, since science cannot provide very good explanations for things like time and the laws of nature, nor love or morality or even a consciousness, one has to wonder how anyone could imagine the limited attempts of science to explain such things could ever be considered superior to e.g. Christianity's version of the meaning of life--the great adventure of a personal relationship with none other than the Creator of all things.
Funny how you miss the point of the religion you are apparently citing.
Christianity isn't the worship of god, it's the worship of christ.
Jesus was, of course, a practicing Jew ... and he pointed out on many occasion what was needed for reconciliation between the populace of the faithful and their creator, whom he very cleary spelled out WAS NOT HIM.
I'll point out that the text WAS DELIBERATELY ALTERED from "By means of me" to "Through me". You know what i'm talking about.
Jesus said *where* that he was the creator of all things, and NONE OTHER?

EDIT: I should also add that the crucifixes, so often worn by certain folk calling themselves "christian" (all the way back ....) are graven images, and i think there's a commandment about that kind of behaviour ....

There are many people on this forums who would insist that there is no God becasue it cannot be explained by any kind of scinetific process.

name one.

Fair enough question. What I meant by such comments is that while science is able to describe the effects of time and how it can be measured, it cannot say where it came from or what it actually is (as far as I have read). Same goes with something like gravity. We can deduce formulas and equasions that will describe the interaction of matter. We can describe the effect that it has, enough to make very accurate predictions. But we still don't know WHAT it is, or where it came from, in scientific terms.

Doesn't the same weakness apply to your concept of God?

We'ev been over this before. Its not a strength of a belief system that it has to resort to the supernatural when it doesn't understand.

You never answered me before. If people 1,000 years ago assigned a supernatural explanation to everything they couldn't understand at the time, and held to those explanations, what would the world be like?

Because, unfortunately, many people are trying to use their version of God to pass laws that affect everybody. I'm not accusing you of doing that, but many are doing it. When you excercise the right to proselytize, others have the right to respond.

In short, we care because many religionists have politicized it, and now we have to care.

Right so you care because people do? i am sorry i am not convinsed.

I have heard that some eople care, and i am not saying you are one of them, because the idea of God makes them so uneasy because it means thier life would have change, so they go out their to prove he is not true

Fair enough question. What I meant by such comments is that while science is able to describe the effects of time and how it can be measured, it cannot say where it came from or what it actually is (as far as I have read). Same goes with something like gravity. We can deduce formulas and equasions that will describe the interaction of matter. We can describe the effect that it has, enough to make very accurate predictions. But we still don't know WHAT it is, or where it came from, in scientific terms.

this is such a cop-out.

in such terms, we can't say "what" anything is.

what, for example, "is" an apple?

science can describe how it grows, where it grows, how animals taste it, what it does in an organism after it is consumed, and even likely historical scenarios for how it came to exist in its current form, among a host of other things science can tell you about said apple.

do you take the position that science fails to tell you what an apple "is?"

Doesn't the same weakness apply to your concept of God?

We'ev been over this before. Its not a strength of a belief system that it has to resort to the supernatural when it doesn't understand.

You never answered me before. If people 1,000 years ago assigned a supernatural explanation to everything they couldn't understand at the time, and held to those explanations, what would the world be like?

The White House?

Right so you care because people do? i am sorry i am not convinsed.

I have heard that some eople care, and i am not saying you are one of them, because the idea of God makes them so uneasy because it means thier life would have change, so they go out their to prove he is not true

You didn't read the post well. I said I care because people try to use their version of God to pass laws that restrict my life. Laws that, if passed, would be enforced on me with the threat of prison, with the use of force.

Those laws are hopefully a long way off, but religionists are pressing it harder every day. That's why I care, because of what they're trying to do.

There are a few people out there who belive that science and god contradict eachother, this is not necicarially the case...all science dose it explane what happens or how something happend. it dose not say that the force creating what ever caused it or that the scientifc prosses that occur.

for instance:
we know that 2 Hyrogen atoms combine with 1 oxygen atom to create water, nothing says that the reason they do this was against gods will.

as a scientist i think in a way that is extreamly secptical of all views on anything. i am as sceptical of science as i am of god. there can be no proof eather way that god does or does not exist, therefore there are no facts for anyone to base there belifs off of. this is why they are called beliefs...

Hmmmm... I'm just curious... what do you think of the way in which the atoms in a water molecule bind together, particularly if you would be so kind as to explain the mechanisms of binding which affect the orbitals?

The White House?

That is depressing, mean, and a laser-cut perfect point.

You didn't read the post well. I said I care because people try to use their version of God to pass laws that restrict my life. Laws that, if passed, would be enforced on me with the threat of prison, with the use of force.

Those laws are hopefully a long way off, but religionists are pressing it harder every day. That's why I care, because of what they're trying to do.

Whats laws?

...all science dose it explane what happens or how something happend. it dose not say that the force creating what ever caused it or that the scientifc prosses that occur.



Did you just say it explains what happens or how, but not the scientific process?

I hope this is a language problem...

Hmmmm... I'm just curious... what do you think of the way in which the atoms in a water molecule bind together, particularly if you would be so kind as to explain the mechanisms of binding which affect the orbitals?

this is not chemistry how would that help

EDIT- i am trying to say that is not a chemisry lession here, this one mechanism would not help the point

i sorry i need to ask, why do the people hear why the people dont belive in god care enough to come and discredit him?

Can I get that again... in words?

Whats laws?

Numerous groups in my State want to keep Gays from marrying and adopting children, and they use religion as a means to justify their case.

If they solely used some kind of argument regarding the suitably of Gays as spouses or parents, I'd hear it out, but instead, they cite their "God" as the legislative impetus.

How do you feel this reasoning would have applied at Nuremburg?

Can there be a wisdom that justified barbarism?

Is it okay to abdicate your determination of "justice" over to a "wisdom" that you refuse to question? Or one that you confess to not fully understanding?

If its not okay to criticise or question God for its sense of judgement, and you just obey it...what do you think that will lead to?

Nuremburg....(does a quick google).....aha, you mean the Nazi war criminal trials, I presume. I cannot see how this applies, actually, since the Nazi's were hardly Christians (at least not according to the words of Jesus) (Christians being the modern day equivalent of the Israelites of the Old Testament--God's people, consistent with the Christian view point), nor were they claiming to be fulfilling the direct commands of God.

Barbarism is a word that can be defined several ways. That the Creator is in a position to create life and to destroy it can hardly be defined as barbarianism. That humans want to conquer for their own gains by any means is perhaps what I would consider a more workable definition. Thus I do not see wisdom and barbarianism as bed mates, by any stretch of the imagination.

When one does not understand the ways of God, particular over issues of justice, I find it unnecessary to 'abdicate' one's sense of justice. That the situation is simply not currently understood does not mean we should then criticise God. A Christian approach to such a topic would be to trust God for His sense of justice. Note: understanding may be lacking, but trust should not. That is all that God asks. The attitude that you appear to take is that if you don't understand, make your own conclusions, and judge God as barbaric. I don't see this as more reasonable than trusting God to be righteous in His judgement.

In the Christian world view, obedience to God will always result in the good, even if it is the best of a bad situation, since God is good, completely good. Obedience to Good will always result in good, even in a world filled with darkness. Such 'blind' obedience does not come from closing one's eyes, but rather from opening them to the light of God.

On the contrary, since science cannot provide very good explanations for things like time and the laws of nature, nor love or morality or even a consciousness, one has to wonder how anyone could imagine the limited attempts of science to explain such things could ever be considered superior to e.g. Christianity's version of the meaning of life--the great adventure of a personal relationship with none other than the Creator of all things.

Science can't provide good explanations for time and the laws of nature? It certainly does provide extremely good explanations OF them. So much so that they have been applied time and again to create things like the computer you're reading this on which works consistently and repeatedly. Time is simply a measurement of rates of change.

As to your second point, where's the explanation FOR god in this model of reality? Where'd it come from?

i sorry i need to ask, why do the people here feel the need to discredit god if they belive that he does not exist?

this is not chemistry how would that help

EDIT- i am trying to say that is not a chemisry lession here, this one mechanism would not help the point

I think McV might be trying to illustrate that you are making statements about science that you may not have arrived at from an informed position.

I think McV is successful thus far.

It's one thing to kill in obedience to a direct command of God, quite another to kill for your own purposes.

Most of such killing in human history has, in one way or another, claimed to have been done "in obedience to a direct command of God," including some very current killing I'll let you guess at.

The problem is, if there is a "god" as you describe it, it is by definition beyond interpretation by non-gods. Thus, anyone acting at the supposed behest of a "god" is guaranteed to be mistaken.

The only conceivable route around this difficulty I see is admitting the reality that antropomorphic, polytheistic religions are much better at explaining the world we live in than silly monotheistic, socio-political, supreme-being religions.

If you wanna spread divinity out among a bunch of flawed, jealous, and self-interested superheroes, I'll acknowledge some sense to your argument. Otherwise you're still just making assertions the form of which denies argument to any dissenting view.

It's one thing to kill in obedience to a direct command of God, quite another to kill for your own purposes.

In the minds of the people of that day, I reckon they would have seen God's word as the way to determine wrong from right. With such a mindset, it would have been possible to go to war against another culture, carrying out God's commands, with a clear conscience. Thus, your appeal to justice in such a 'slaughter' would be against God, not the Israelites. But once you go there, you end up criticising God over His sense of justice, as if you know all the details and could have done things better. While questioning God is not forbidden in the Bible, we are warned that our wisdom is quite a lot less than His, and that such questioning is madness, unless such questions come from integrity.

If, as has been claimed repeatedly in this and many other threads on this subject by the devout, direct knowledge of god is undesireable and destructive of faith, and in fact impossible as has also been claimed, then how does one know that it's god requiring such slaughter? If interaction with god is restricted solely to faith, faith being defined as something outside of logic and reason, then how is it possible to know that the "request" isn't simply a murderous psychotic delusion?

I cannot see how this applies, actually, since the Nazi's were hardly Christians (at least not according to the words of Jesus) (Christians being the modern day equivalent of the Israelites of the Old Testament--God's people, consistent with the Christian view point), nor were they claiming to be fulfilling the direct commands of God.
.

Ah, so you have to be able claim that you're following Divine orders and be willing to claim that you are God's chosen. Then you can apply that reasoning. Had the Nazis been aware of this rule, they might have been willing to satisfy it.

Because, unfortunately, many people are trying to use their version of God to pass laws that affect everybody. I'm not accusing you of doing that, but many are doing it. When you excercise the right to proselytize, others have the right to respond.

In short, we care because many religionists have politicized it, and now we have to care.
EXCELLENT post.
*seconded*

That the Creator is in a position to create life and to destroy it can hardly be defined as barbarianism. That humans want to conquer for their own gains by any means is perhaps what I would consider a more workable definition. Thus I do not see wisdom and barbarianism as bed mates, by any stretch of the imagination.
.

So if General Somebody orders the heads of children smashed against rocks, its barbaric. If General Somebody says God ordered it, its not. If God orders it directly, its not. That's a pretty thin double standard.

The White House?
:eek:

....sssssSIZZLIN'..........

Numerous groups in my State want to keep Gays from marrying and adopting children, and they use religion as a means to justify their case.

If they solely used some kind of argument regarding the suitably of Gays as spouses or parents, I'd hear it out, but instead, they cite their "God" as the legislative impetus.

I have to say to this, I have many gay friends so i dont say this lightly.

God says that steeling, alultly are wrong? do you want to disagree? I think not. Just because you think something is right or wrong does make that true. Look at the case for abortion, there are lots of people on boths sides and who is right?

I sorry but i like to think that the bible given by all wise God, holds the true answer to whats right and worng. Am i being blind by saying that? Even as some non-belivers have point it is nothing else our reglion is good morale set

So if General Somebody orders the heads of children smashed against rocks, its barbaric. If General Somebody says God ordered it, its not. If God orders it directly, its not. That's a pretty thin double standard.

The scary thing is, if someone is really willing to allow that kind of logic (and you HAVE to apply that kind of logic - as a Christian - to not live in shame at the history recorded in the book of Joshua) - then THAT person would also have to support the Holocaust, IF Hitler had claimed he was divinely inspired.

Fair enough question. What I meant by such comments is that while science is able to describe the effects of time and how it can be measured, it cannot say where it came from or what it actually is (as far as I have read). Same goes with something like gravity. We can deduce formulas and equasions that will describe the interaction of matter. We can describe the effect that it has, enough to make very accurate predictions. But we still don't know WHAT it is, or where it came from, in scientific terms.

And three hundred years ago, it couldn't say what fire is. Now it can.

Two hundred years ago, it couldn't explain precisely the behavior of benzene. Now it can.

The fact that science doesn't know everything about everything only indicates that more work remains to be done. It says nothing about whether those answers can be determined.

Religion served the same purpose, only in a cruder way, and everything that wasn't understood was simply lumped together under the banner of "It's this way because god wills it to be so." It represents a very primitive form of scientific reasoning, only with an added ontological hypothesis.

Note that nowhere does Christianity, for example, explain what radiation is or where it comes from. It utterly lacks an explanation of what the basis for the replication of traits from parent to offspring is. Such things are simply explained as "god's will."

Note: understanding may be lacking, but trust should not. That is all that God asks. In the Christian world view, obedience to God will always result in the good, even if it is the best of a bad situation, since God is good, completely good. Obedience to Good will always result in good, even in a world filled with darkness. Such 'blind' obedience does not come from closing one's eyes, but rather from opening them to the light of God.

What you've described here is a beautiful case study for what this use of the term "abdication" means. You summed up everything important when you said "understanding may be lacking, but trust should not".

As soon as you admit that you don't understand where the light is coming from, or the reasoning of the entity aiming the light, then this light is exactly what has blinded you.

this is such a cop-out.

in such terms, we can't say "what" anything is.

what, for example, "is" an apple?

science can describe how it grows, where it grows, how animals taste it, what it does in an organism after it is consumed, and even likely historical scenarios for how it came to exist in its current form, among a host of other things science can tell you about said apple.

do you take the position that science fails to tell you what an apple "is?"

It's not really the same. With an apple, we can determine what the elemental constituents, how it formed (well, not all the details yet, but getting there), and where it came from (i.e. NOT the supermarket). However, try answering the same questions for time.

However, you do have a point. We are at odds to determine the meaning of an apple through science. That's because science doesn't try to solve this question. This would be for philosophy and religion. Thus, it is rather silly to say that science gives better answers than religion.

Nuremburg....(does a quick google).....aha, you mean the Nazi war criminal trials, I presume. I cannot see how this applies, actually, since the Nazi's were hardly Christians (at least not according to the words of Jesus) (Christians being the modern day equivalent of the Israelites of the Old Testament--God's people, consistent with the Christian view point), nor were they claiming to be fulfilling the direct commands of God.

you need to read some history. Hitler *decidedly* believed he was doing the work of God and Christ.

and sorry, neither you nor "christians" (and what does that *really* mean today anyway?) get to re-define "christians" as "israelites" just because *you* think christians are the "God's people" of today. By such a definition the "modern day equivalent" of the Israelites is every single denomination in the modern judeo-christian-islamic world, "consistent" with each of their viewpoints.

in fact, name me a religion whose believers *don't* claim to be "god's" chosen few...

this is not chemistry how would that help

EDIT- i am trying to say that is not a chemisry lession here, this one mechanism would not help the point

I have my reasons for asking. Let him answer.

I have to say to this, I have many gay friends so i dont say this lightly.

God says that steeling, alultly are wrong? do you want to disagree? I think not. Just because you think something is right or wrong does make that true. Look at the case for abortion, there are lots of people on boths sides and who is right?

I sorry but i like to think that the bible given by all wise God, holds the true answer to whats right and worng. Am i being blind by saying that? Even as some non-belivers have point it is nothing else our reglion is good morale set

You are exactly the reason that many people feel the need to point out the inconsistencies in some versions of Christianity. We don't go around picking apart Shinto Buddhists because they don't posture their beliefs as being imposable on everybody else.

If, as has been claimed repeatedly in this and many other threads on this subject by the devout, direct knowledge of god is undesireable and destructive of faith, and in fact impossible as has also been claimed, then how does one know that it's god requiring such slaughter? If interaction with god is restricted solely to faith, faith being defined as something outside of logic and reason, then how is it possible to know that the "request" isn't simply a murderous psychotic delusion?
You know, there are many instances of the circumstances of god supposedly speaking to his/her/its followers *ALONE* and usually while they were under the influence of something that bereaves them of their usual, if arcane, reasoning faculty.
Most of those "conversations" or "diatribes" were under those circumstances, if i recall correctly.
You know, burning bushes and deserts and caves while under a fever's influence, fasting, et cetera.
...
Already implying delusion, even to a psychotc extent. The murder? Well, that might be a fringe benefit, really.

The scary thing is, if someone is really willing to allow that kind of logic (and you HAVE to apply that kind of logic - as a Christian - to not live in shame at the history recorded in the book of Joshua) - then THAT person would also have to support the Holocaust, IF Hitler had claimed he was divinely inspired.

If you're a Christian, you're the kind that I hope winds up in the leadership. If you're not, sorry.

And three hundred years ago, it couldn't say what fire is. Now it can.

Two hundred years ago, it couldn't explain precisely the behavior of benzene. Now it can.

The fact that science doesn't know everything about everything only indicates that more work remains to be done. It says nothing about whether those answers can be determined.

Religion served the same purpose, only in a cruder way, and everything that wasn't understood was simply lumped together under the banner of "It's this way because god wills it to be so." It represents a very primitive form of scientific reasoning, only with an added ontological hypothesis.

Note that nowhere does Christianity, for example, explain what radiation is or where it comes from. It utterly lacks an explanation of what the basis for the replication of traits from parent to offspring is. Such things are simply explained as "god's will."
Good point(s)!!!
This thread's getting pretty interesting, if i may type so.

If you're a Christian, you're the kind that I hope winds up in the leadership. If you're not, sorry.
If i may interject ....
catch his nation name.

*sneaks back out*

Thus, it is rather silly to say that science gives better answers than religion.

So many people have mentioned that science and religion answer different questions, and therefore the answers cannot be ordinally compared, but I'll say it again.

Science can't provide good explanations for time and the laws of nature? It certainly does provide extremely good explanations OF them. So much so that they have been applied time and again to create things like the computer you're reading this on which works consistently and repeatedly. Time is simply a measurement of rates of change.

As to your second point, where's the explanation FOR god in this model of reality? Where'd it come from?

My point is that while science helps us to work with time and the laws of nature, it cannot explain e.g what time really is. The effect of time is change, perhaps, and to define time as a measurement of rates of change implies that our definition depends on how we relate to time. But it doesn't go that one step 'deeper' and tell us what it is.

It's not really the same. With an apple, we can determine what the elemental constituents, how it formed (well, not all the details yet, but getting there), and where it came from (i.e. NOT the supermarket). However, try answering the same questions for time.

However, you do have a point. We are at odds to determine the meaning of an apple through science. That's because science doesn't try to solve this question. This would be for philosophy and religion. Thus, it is rather silly to say that science gives better answers than religion.

except that science *does* give better answers than religion AT ALL POINTS in the material world. period. And that's all science cares about. See Jonas Salk, for example.

Your problem is that you are asserting the primacy of a kind of meaning science doesn't care about, and every time you attempt to denigrate the efforts of science to explain physical phenomena like gravity or time, you do so through ignorant, dogmatic tropes that attempt to efface the actual scientific thought about these phenomena.

Your philosophical position about science needs work. Some knowledge of actual science would be a good start.

Originally Posted by McVenezuela
Hmmmm... I'm just curious... what do you think of the way in which the atoms in a water molecule bind together, particularly if you would be so kind as to explain the mechanisms of binding which affect the orbitals?

i can answer that one for you if you want

If i may interject ....
catch his nation name.

*sneaks back out*

I took it as reference "Graven Idols", which are forbidden by the Old Testament, so maybe he's Jewish or just witty, or both.

As for the rendering Grave and Idle, I thought it might reference that certain dour lethargy that grips thoughtful people at times...

you need to read some history. Hitler *decidedly* believed he was doing the work of God and Christ.

and sorry, neither you nor "christians" (and what does that *really* mean today anyway?) get to re-define "christians" as "israelites" just because *you* think christians are the "God's people" of today. By such a definition the "modern day equivalent" of the Israelites is every single denomination in the modern judeo-christian-islamic world, "consistent" with each of their viewpoints.

in fact, name me a religion whose believers *don't* claim to be "god's" chosen few...

When we consider the claims of both the Israelites and the claims of Hitler to be 'doing the work of God', we don't have to accept those claims simply because they are made. Jesus himself warned that many would come in his name. What we need to do is to see if those claims are consistent with the revealed truth of God. Hitler's claims obviously were not. Whereas, Jesus himself is recorded as quoting Moses, and criticising the religious leaders for not believing Moses.

What you've described here is a beautiful case study for what this use of the term "abdication" means. You summed up everything important when you said "understanding may be lacking, but trust should not".

As soon as you admit that you don't understand where the light is coming from, or the reasoning of the entity aiming the light, then this light is exactly what has blinded you.
As has been said about you before,
your posts are truly poetic.

*bows*

You ROCK.

My point is that while science helps us to work with time and the laws of nature, it cannot explain e.g what time really is. The effect of time is change, perhaps, and to define time as a measurement of rates of change implies that our definition depends on how we relate to time. But it doesn't go that one step 'deeper' and tell us what it is.

So, say for instance a theoretical physicist began interrelating time with space, and even positing a kind of curvature to them. Would that be one step "deeper"? And is that kind of investigation of time less deep than just saying "Um...I dunno, lets say God"?

After why would he go though creating us just to destory us

Entertainment value?