It seems to work

[The Drunken Actuary]

I've been thinking about this for a while and I just can;t see how god can really exist. Anyone have anything insightful to offer?

[USCanuck]

I also have thought a lot about that recently. After September 11th, I'm convinced there is no God.

[General Kenobi (ret.)]

http://www.newadvent.org/summa/100203.htm

[The Drunken Actuary]

Obi-Wan:
I checked out your web site and remain thoroughly unconvinced. I'm not sure if you are joking or you actually beloeive these 'proofs' are valid. The first 'proof' of the existence of god goes something like this: Anything in motion must be put in motion by something else. Since nothing can put itslef into motion God must have put the 'first' thing in motion. This proof gives no account of how god was put into motion. All of the arguments seem to follow the same logic: that in order to explain the world we need a god. But it seems to me that you are merely avoiding the question. Where did god come from and why do you feel it necessary to invent something even more complex to explain something you so not understand.

[Andy Lang]

For all you secular humanists, agnostics, nontheists and plain old atheists, check into the two major issues of the Skeptical Inquirer on this topic--one this year and one last.

Brilliant stuff written by brilliant people, many of them top scientists, like carl Sagan, who was blackballed by many in the sciences for years for his views.

BTW--most polls continue to say that 90% of Americans believe in God.

Although overstated it still tells you something important about human beings--but then maybe you don't want to know that.

There is a serious and fairly large body of scientists who claim there is 'religious gene' that we have that once upon a time helped us survive and now will help us become extinct, as the planet protects it's own.

This gene cuts off neuron connections to the rational thinking part of our brains--chanting monks use it all the time, as do many in the current Bush admistration.

Think of that the next time we have a ferocious 1 in 100 years storm that now comes nearly every year, or when another person gets skin cancer from too much sun exposure, as Bush just did.

Instead of Bush being remembered as the person who waged War against Terrorists, he is more likely to be remembered as the Big Oil Guy who caused global warming to increase so much we couldnt stop it in time.

Bt then, at that point, no one will care.

Just as they do not care at this time. Gotta win the war.

[Anonymous]

Take it for what it is worth, but I have a slightly different definition of God. A God is a force that causes people to act with a certain morality or set of beliefs. God(s) could have created man, or man could have created God(s). Whichever of the two possibilities happened, God now exists because there are these belief systems which people use to determine "correct" actions within everyday life. Any belief which you follow is in a sense a force that has power over you, it dictates your actions. Whether one chooses to disseminate these attributes of the belief system (or if they were disseminated from) to many Gods or assign them all to one God does not matter, as the same result is achieved, a code of morality in which the believer bases his (her) actions.
Basic summation, I have no idea about the creation of the world, but God(s) do exist and the majority of people like having those fatherly and motherly figures in control of this place.


Side note based on Cogito, ergo sum. I think therefore I am. It stops there, all that I know about existence is that I think, you may all be creations of my mind and I may be the only God who created you guys as a form of placation to ease my boredom with myself. Well, anyway. . .

[General Kenobi (ret.)]

I'm entirely serious. You are quite correct in characterizing in saying that at least the first three proofs are very much the same idea.

The fourth proof is not very amenable to modern ways of thinking, and I wouldn't care to defend it to most people because its assumptions require a lot of argument to support. (I think it's valid, but not very helpful.)

The fifth is basically the argument from design.

This proof gives no account of how god was put into motion.

That's precisely the point of it. God is the unmoved mover, the uncaused cause, the necessary being causing unnecessary things to be.

St. Thomas addresses the infinite regression option in his third way:
1) Assume it is possible for things to exist or not to exist; that is, nothing exists in and of itself.
2) Assume an infinite amount of time has already passed, since we are barring, as an hypothesis, the unmoved mover or the uncaused cause.
3) Then, since nothing exists without a cause, and since it is possible for nothing to exist, at some point in the past, nothing existed.
4) At some point in the past, nothing existed, and, since nothing exists without a cause, therefore nothing exists now.
5) But things do exist now, and therefore something must exist of itself, uncaused by anything else.

[Andy Lang]

Science and religion are diametric opposites

Each time science proves something that religion used to say proved god exists,to justify the power clerics hang onto, religion first resists, then moves to another area we know little about.

Time has been known to be relative, and indeed stop at the speed of light. Since we cannot acheive the speed of light, since it is like an asymptotic constant or ever know everything, since at that point we are god, thus religion will move again to somewhere else to justify itself, over and over ad infinitum, until fewer and fewer things are not known and there are fewer and fewer believers, then god is dead, for all practical purposes.


Bye bye, ignorance.
Hello science.
Bye bye Miracles.
Hello science.
Bye bye John Ashcroft.
Hello Janet Reno.
Bye bye hegemony.
Hello democracy.
Bye bye God.
Hello Freedom.
Bye bye Wars.
Hello Peace.
Bye bye Evil
Hello Good.

Or is it?

Hello Bush.
Bye bye planet.
Hello Big Business
Bye bye freedom.
Hello money.
Bye bye mankind.
Hello Mamman.
Bye bye god.

[The Drunken Actuary]

OWK:
Maybe I'm missing your point but it seems to me that you are simply arguing for the existence of god because you have no other explanation for the existence of the universe. This seems like just a cop-out to me and still requires an explanation for the existence of god. The universe is complex enough, why make it more so by introducing a god that created it with the snap of his fingers?

This has always troubled me. I have also been troubled by the haphazrd way in whice the Bible seems to have been compiled.

[E. Blackadder]

And let's not forget the obscure languages in which it was written: Aramaic (sp?); Hebrew; Greek...

Why not Chinese, Spanish, and English? :smile:

[anon3]

I hope you're not really questioning the existence of God only because of the Sept 11th events. September 11th was a horrible atrocity committed against thousnads of innocent civilians. But if this is the evnet which makes you doubt the existence of God, I think you really need to take a step back and examine world history, and other recent events.

Ask the 6 million+ Jews, Poles, and many others who were "exterminated" by the Nazi's if they feel God exists.

Ask the 40 million+ Russians killed by Stalin's Army if they believe in God.

Ask the hundreds of thousands of Americans fighting and killing each other during the Civil War if they believe in God.

[General Kenobi (ret.)]

I think you're quite close to the point, but missing one key thing:

This seems like just a cop-out to me and still requires an explanation for the existence of god.

Where does God come from? Nowhere. He has always been (in fact, time is His invention, just as space and matter are). Therefore, he needs no explanation. He is. That's why, when Moses asks His Name (Exodus 3:14), the answer is "I AM".

If God must have a cause, then we're stuck in an infinite regress situation again.

[Lee Mellon]

I don't know about any god, but I do know that Robert Reich exists.

[Oracle]

If Andy Lang says there is no god, that's proof enough for me that god does exist.

[Lee Mellon]

..and there was this guy who used to wander the subways and ride the Staten Island ferry in the late 60s early 70s, wearing robes and a turban declaiming "I am the sun god!" He was well over 6 feet tall and I never saw anyone disagree with him.

[The Drunken Actuary]

On 2001-12-24 10:18, Obi-Wan Kenobi wrote:
I think you're quite close to the point, but missing one key thing:

This seems like just a cop-out to me and still requires an explanation for the existence of god.

Where does God come from? Nowhere. He has always been (in fact, time is His invention, just as space and matter are). Therefore, he needs no explanation. He is. That's why, when Moses asks His Name (Exodus 3:14), the answer is "I AM".

If God must have a cause, then we're stuck in an infinite regress situation again.


OK, Im curuous: if you can accept the above about the origin of God, why can you not accept the same about the universe itself; that it just exists and needs no explanation. Again, it sounds like a cop-out. Also, I'm wondering how you or anyone knows about the existence of God in the first place other than from ANCIENT writings whose origins and meaning are rather unkown (see above posts). And whose purpose seems to be (a) to explain how we all got here (b)why it is ok to kill peoples from other tribes, nations etc. (c) a code of ethics. (c) is important but did not come from god on a mountain. Not that I;ve studied the subject intensly but I doubt everyone thought it was ok to kill and steal from each other before that fateful trip of the mountainside by Moses. The ten commandments are basic morality necessary for a human society to exist. It is for the good of society that people do not kill each other etc. Anayway, maybe I'm missing your point, but I guess I see no logic to your arguments. And it's not that I think everything in the world should be logical or that god would behave rationally, its just that without a rational foundation for a belief in god, I need something else to convince me and ancient writings are not yet doing it for me as they do for everyone esle. Why is Chritianity any more valid that Zoroastrianism or Greek mythology?

[The Drunken Actuary]

On 2001-12-24 11:52, Lee Mellon wrote:
I don't know about any god, but I do know that Robert Reich exists.


I do too. There was this guy who's mom sat in front of him in a movie theater...

[Don Quijote]

On 2001-12-24 23:15, The Drunken Actuary wrote:
[quote]

OK, Im curuous: if you can accept the above about the origin of God, why can you not accept the same about the universe itself; that it just exists and needs no explanation

If you follow Aquinas´arguments (the uncaused cause), then it is perfectly valid to stop at the universe itself simply existing from all time. In that case, the Universe becomes God, and there are a number of religions both historical and current that consider the universe to be God.

You seem to have moved on at the end of your post to ask why Christianity, in particular, is a more "correct" understanding of God. Does this second question imply that you now accept the existence of God as a hypothesis and are curious about means of worshiping said God or are you claiming that the fact that humans attempt to worship God in different forms is itself negative evidence for the existence of God?

[Andy Lang]

Tomorrow is Winter Solstice.

A long time ago, at Stonehenge, High Priests told everytone to watch what he could do at Stonehenge, at the the Great Pyramids, at Chichen Itza and many other places--and as the sun rose to a certain spot in the sky the bright beam of light moved across the face of the earth into a selected spot, lit up with dazzling brilliance, and the High Priest said to the, awaiting, open-mouthed and stunned multitude:

SEE! I AM THE BOSS OF YOU!

BACK TO WORK, LEAVE YOUR DONATIONS IN THE BOX ON THE WAY OUT, AND ANY NONBELIEVERS COME SEE ME, WE HAVE SOMETHING NICE FOR YOU.

[Anonymous]

Since you can't know for sure either way...why not take the easier softer, way and believe that God or some power greater than yourself does indeed exist.

If you can start there...I'd say the next step is to ask for a small gift of faith.

[Anonymous]

On 2001-12-23 02:52, USCanuck wrote:
I also have thought a lot about that recently. After September 11th, I'm convinced there is no God.


God doesn't step in to prevent man's inhumanity to man. God gave humanity the gift of free will. And as we all know, and as Al Pacino once said (in The Devil's Advocate): "Free will, it is a b**ch."

[E. Blackadder]

On 2001-12-25 17:17, Andy Lang wrote:
Tomorrow is Winter Solstice.


That's nice. On Earth, winter solstice was on December 21st at 2:21 PM EST.

[General Kenobi (ret.)]

I hate to bail on a good discussion, so I'll try to get back to you, but I'm going away from the office (and home) for a couple weeks, so please excuse me if I suddenly seem to disappear.

All I would probably do anyhow is attempt to summarize down Peter Kreeft's Yes or No? (http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/0898703581/qid%3D1009373786/ref%3Dsr%5F11%5F0%5F1/107-9635252-3494152) , so I recommend seeking out a copy.

[The Drunken Actuary]

On 2001-12-25 12:06, Don Quijote wrote:

On 2001-12-24 23:15, The Drunken Actuary wrote:
[quote]

OK, Im curuous: if you can accept the above about the origin of God, why can you not accept the same about the universe itself; that it just exists and needs no explanation

If you follow Aquinas´arguments (the uncaused cause), then it is perfectly valid to stop at the universe itself simply existing from all time. In that case, the Universe becomes God, and there are a number of religions both historical and current that consider the universe to be God.

You seem to have moved on at the end of your post to ask why Christianity, in particular, is a more "correct" understanding of God. Does this second question imply that you now accept the existence of God as a hypothesis and are curious about means of worshiping said God or are you claiming that the fact that humans attempt to worship God in different forms is itself negative evidence for the existence of God?




Neither really, I was trying to understand why it is so easy for someone to accept one religion but reject all others. I referenced Christianity because Obi Wan quoted from St Thomas whom I believe was Christian. The existence of god as a hypothesis can never be disproven from what I have been told, so I will keep it open. In fact, that is why I started this discussion the first place.

[The Drunken Actuary]

On 2001-12-25 23:29, ODB@WuTang.com wrote:
Since you can't know for sure either way...why not take the easier softer, way and believe that God or some power greater than yourself does indeed exist.

If you can start there...I'd say the next step is to ask for a small gift of faith.


One cannot simply choose to start believing in God any more than one can choose to believe that 4+4=9. If there is such a thing as a gift of faith, can you further suppose that those who do not have faith have simply not been given faith by god; ie he does not want them?

[The Drunken Actuary]

On 2001-12-25 23:36, ODB@WuTang.com wrote:

On 2001-12-23 02:52, USCanuck wrote:
I also have thought a lot about that recently. After September 11th, I'm convinced there is no God.


God doesn't step in to prevent man's inhumanity to man. God gave humanity the gift of free will. And as we all know, and as Al Pacino once said (in The Devil's Advocate): "Free will, it is a b**ch."



God parted the Red Sea to stop the Egyptions 'inhumanity' towards the Isrealis. I seem to remember a few other biblical stories about god's direct intervention on earth. Is it ok for god to destroy the cities of Sodom and Gamorrah because the people living in those cities made choices god did not like yet not intervene to prevent great acts of evil today.

<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: The Drunken Actuary on 2001-12-26 09:46 ]</font>

<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: The Drunken Actuary on 2001-12-26 09:46 ]</font>

[Polly Nomial]

My problem is not so much with the concept of god, but in the depiction of him. Forgive me for over-simplifying a complex set of issues but:

If god was able to converse with a variety of men (always men, never women :smile:) during the "bibical times" then surely he is able to do so now. Thus he chooses not to and hence we have invented a lengthy explanation of the importance of faith.

If he created the earth, then he must be choosing not to help us along by say closing up the ozone hole. (unless, of course, he is simply too busy with such things as helping teams win ball games.)

And why would a being as all powerful as god need to be worshipped? Does he have an ego problem?

My take on this is that god never could talk to people, fix things, nor perform very much in the way of miracles. This leads me to believe that:

(1)Either god does not exist, or

(2)He exists without all of the powers attributed to him in the bible (or other religious equivalents).

Now (1) is an easy choice (for me), but I prefer to go with (2). I'd like to think that there is some spiritual side to life that goes beyond what we can observe through our senses. But, it's really not important to me whether this spiritually has anything to do with a god or if it just exists. (or not)

Religion and worship seem rather pointless to me. Rather than get together with a group of people and pray, it makes more sense to me to go out and try to help our fellow humans in any way we can. (except teaching them about god, that is!)

I can't think of a tidy way to wrap this up. I have no established doctrine to point anyone to. I guess I would just say that it's OK not to have all of the answers neatly packaged in a book.

[General Kenobi (ret.)]

And why would a being as all powerful as god need to be worshipped? Does he have an ego problem?

Worship is an acknowledgement of what is. If you read a great book, see a great movie, listen to some great music, your proper response is appreciation. The proper response to God, who is greater than any of those things, is greater appreciation, which is worship.

[Holton]

First of all, I believe that God does speek to us today. He doesn't appear to all of us in some glorious manifestation. I believe that there is a prophet on the earth today who does receive constant guidance and direction from him. We as well can recieve guidance from the Spirit as we are "in tune" and seeking that direction.

As far as preventing evil and performing miracles, I think it is simple. God has a grand plan for this planet and the people who live on it. Events occur to provide learning experiences for all of us. Sometimes these are wonderful miracles. Sometimes they are horrible tragedies. And unfortunately, we often learn and grow more from trials and difficult situations than from the easy days of life.

[The Drunken Actuary]

On 2001-12-26 10:47, Obi-Wan Kenobi wrote:
And why would a being as all powerful as god need to be worshipped? Does he have an ego problem?

Worship is an acknowledgement of what is. If you read a great book, see a great movie, listen to some great music, your proper response is appreciation. The proper response to God, who is greater than any of those things, is greater appreciation, which is worship.


How can one respond to something that does not make itself apparent?

[The Drunken Actuary]

Holton:

What sort of grand plan could involve genocide, torture, tragedy, and countless suffering, much of it in the name of god? How could this grand plan possibly be considered 'good' by any rational person?

You say it is unfortunate that we grow from hard times, but didn't god create us? Why would he create us in such a way that requires unspeakable evil for us to learn?

<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: The Drunken Actuary on 2001-12-26 11:02 ]</font>

[M.]

That's been a tough question for me to grapple with: Is faith a gift from God? (I'm no Bible scholar, but I have read a verse which indicates it is.) If so, then why not give it to everyone?

The best theory I can come up with is that God does not choose to give faith to the proud. Which kind of makes sense. Who are we to DECIDE whether or not God exists? He either does or does not. If He does, and He did in fact create the universe, then He is deserving of a tremendous amount of respect.

In today's culture, we don't have much respect for anyone or anything. The concept of seeing some entity as our Lord, much less one we can't see or touch, is very foreign to most in the Western World, particularly the intellectuals.

I will say that my faith was weak to non-existent until I learned humility.

I hope that helps someone.

<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: M on 2001-12-26 11:08 ]</font>

[The Drunken Actuary]

If we are proud, is it not because god made us that way? Why withhold such a precious gift from your own creations simply because they are behaving they way you designed them to behave? Besides, since god knows the future, why make us go through the motions anyway, if this is some sort of test of free-will? Don't tell me - its a grand plan that no one knows about and humans are to stupid to understand so we should just accept it because...because why again??

Why do you bash 'the wester world'? There are many people in the western world who are very religious as well as humble. The west gives coutless money to other nations, we send in our military to feed starving masses of other countries (who got that way because of internal civil war), we stop aggression and genocide because it is the right thing to do. I do not see china, India, russia or any other non-western countries doing the same.

[General Kenobi (ret.)]

I would say that God offers faith to everyone, but not everyone chooses to accept it. This is a concept that has been disputed on and off for centuries.

It came into particular prominence in the writings of Calvin and his followers, who taught that God's grace is irresistible, and that those who do not have faith must not have been offered it. Protestant bodies in the Calvinist tradition (Presbyterians et al.) still officially teach this (though, as with every group, any given member may believe something radically different).

There are plenty of other approaches to the problem. Throwing my Catholic hat on for a moment, I will say that my best understanding of our teaching is that we may not deny the power and necessity of God's free gift. At the same time, each person must accept or reject that gift for himself. Any answer which fits these parameters is possible, and none is (again, to the best of my knowledge) official.

<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: Obi-Wan Kenobi on 2001-12-26 11:44 ]</font>

[The Drunken Actuary]

OK, but all this discussion about the 'gift of faith' is merely semantics relying on the meaning of the word gift. I continue to maintain that it is impossible for someone who has doubts about the existence of god to simply 'accept the gift of faith' and change his mind. Do you not think I would like to believe in an afterlife of eternal happiness? Of course I would. But again, I can no more do that than I can start believing that 4+4=9.

[M.]

You're probably right that God created us proud, and that this is a test of free will. I'm not a big supporter of predestination, so I don't totally agree with some other Christians that God knows in advance the way every human is going to act in every remaining second of their life. Thus, God may not know exactly which people will have faith at the end of their lives. Then again, He probably has a much better idea than anyone else.

As for "bashing" the Western World, I wasn't engaging in wholesale criticism. I do, however, believe that Eastern cultures are, generally speaking, more accustomed to the idea of subservience. Westerners much prefer the idea of equality, which is appropriate among humans, but probably not appropriate in relating to deity.

As to your last argument, I don't understand why you equate accepting the existence of God with accepting that 4 + 4 = 9. The latter is an absolute falsehood, easily proven with kindergarten logic.

Saying that God absolutely does not exist seems to me as unreasonable as saying that life can not exist anywhere else in the universe. Just as I may never see conclusive evidence of life on other planets during my lifetime, I also may never see definitively that God exists. However, I don't think that means I should rule out the possibility of either.

[moj]

The fact is that you can't prove god exists or does not exist. Those that believe in his existence rely on faith for thier justification. Those who do not point to a lack of evidence.

My only concern is that there are so many religions out there. If god exists, I assume he knows the "proper" religion. So, the billions of people not in that faith are all screwed. This is not a pleasant thought.

[M.]

The whole "billions of people being screwed" issue was another burning question for me. However, I noticed that Jesus says the only way to heaven is through Him. Couldn't that simply mean that those who will enter must meet His criteria?

Many Christians believe that those who have never heard of Christianity will have the opportunity to go to heaven, but will be judged based on how they have lived their lives. Apparently there is some biblical precedent for this belief.

[The Drunken Actuary]

M:
I merely used the 4+4 example to explain that one does not choose their belief. If one does not believe in god, one cannot wake up one morning and say, 'gee this god thing sounds good, I think I'll start believing that every word in the Bible has been translated correctly and is totally true.' That is not to say one cannot be convinced that it is true, only that it cannot be a conscious (sp?) choice.
It's hard to imagine an ominpotent being with the ability to create the universe by saying a few simple words that does not know the future of every single person on earth.

moj:
If that is your only concern, there are many ways around that. The simplest is that god shows himself to people in different ways. FOr some it may be hinduism, Buddhism, Islam or whatever. I'm not buying it, but I wouldn't let that alone stop me from believing in god. I might let it stop me from believing in certain religions however, since many of them proclaim to be the only path to heaven.

<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: The Drunken Actuary on 2001-12-26 13:16 ]</font>

[Holton]

M,

Don't worry. Though you are correct that God knows the one correct religion, the billion of others are not "screwed". At some point in their life or after-life they will be presented with THE TRUTH and may or may not accept it. That's not to say eat, drink, and be merry in this life and rely on your later opportunities. Because you will possess the same spirit or personality at that time as you do on this earth.

[Holton]

Sorry M, I meant to address moj.

[The Drunken Actuary]

On 2001-12-26 13:15, Holton wrote:
M,

Don't worry. Though you are correct that God knows the one correct religion, the billion of others are not "screwed". At some point in their life or after-life they will be presented with THE TRUTH and may or may not accept it. That's not to say eat, drink, and be merry in this life and rely on your later opportunities. Because you will possess the same spirit or personality at that time as you do on this earth.


Holton, that brings up a good point. What if someone is in a brain damaging accident and because of certain neurological probelms in his head, he becomes a ruthless murderer, whereas before the accident he was a rightous soul. Which personality will persist in the afterlife. Or conversly, what if someone is born with a chemical imbalance in their brain that causes them to kill, but doctors are able to treat him and he becomes a nice guy. Again, how will god judge this person in the afterlife?

[Crystal Dragon.]

I think it is a crime how many terrible things have been done 'in the name of God,' and how many people ask 'how can He let this happen' and 'He must not exist.'

I know God is here. God doesn't do these things; people do. God created sin; He allows it to exist. Dante's Inferno illustrated that to know good, one must know evil. You can't have white without black. I can't prove or disprove His existence. Sometimes I really wish I could...

[The Drunken Actuary]

CD, how do you know god is here? Saying that god created sin and allows it to exist....to test us or whatever... I think we covered that and no one has shown me how this is anything more than a cop-out for theists who can;t ever tell us WHY god allows evil to exist. Saying that dantes inferno is the proof seems a bit weak. I can certainly envision a world that has good but no sin. And the arguement that you can;t have white without black is again, semantics, as the ability of objects to reflect or absorb certain wavelengths of light (or all or none) has nothing to do with the topic at hand.

Yes, people do these things and if you are correct and god is here, he is doing nothing to stop them from doing these things.

edit-much better that way.

<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: The Drunken Actuary on 2001-12-26 13:38 ]</font>

[loose nugget]

DA,

What would it take for you to believe in God?

You also keep mentioning that you just cant wake up and believe. You might not suddenly wake up and believe in something but your beliefs can change. Do you have deep political views, have they ever changed?

[Holton]

Why should God always act to stop evil acts? Yes, it causes sadness and pain for good people, but it also allows the evil doers to be judged justly. If God prevented everyone from making mistakes, everyone would go to heaven because we had to and this life on earth would be a waste.

[Holton]

Drunk,

I admit I don't have the answers for brain damaged or chemically imbalanced individuals. I have to cop out and say I'll leave those decisions up to THE JUDGE.

[M.]

DA -

I think I finally understand what you're saying. You're saying you can't adopt a belief unless you've been convinced that it makes more sense than your current beliefs. Totally makes sense.

Here's the problem: I don't think one can truly "reason out" religion, although Descartes and others have tried.

Before I believed, but was searching, it was recommended that I read "Mere Christianity" by C. S. Lewis. Some folks say that "thinking people" really benefit from reading it. I didn't.

What it came down to for me was one day saying, "Okay, God, if you're out there, I want to know you. If you give me the gift of faith, I will be a Christian and will pursue knowing you further."

That was a big step of humility for me. I was afraid of losing the respect of my friends. I worried that they would associate me with all of the mindless hicks out there who shout a lot of very questionable dogma. But I decided I would take the risk if I could have faith.

[moj]

I should be more careful with my wording. I am not concerned about the existence of god, nor about the "proper" religion. It just always bugged me that people can say how their religion teaches them to respect others, but as soon as those others die, they will have to go to h*ll for not being a part of the "true" religion. It seems to me that any god worthy of worship would not allow so many "wrong" religions to be formed.

I should have put this into a tangent since it is more about religion than about the existence of god. However, it is hard not to link the two topics together.

[General Kenobi (ret.)]

DA:

God did not create evil, because evil is not a created thing. It is an absence or distortion of good.

A viable question remains: Why does God permit evil? If you go clear back to the Aquinas link I gave you (and he was Catholic, and therefore a Christian to those who allow us the title), his reply to Objection 1 gives his answer: God permits evil so that greater good may come of it.

The ultimate example of this is the Crucifixion--if you grant that Jesus was the sinless Son of God, and God himself, then killing him was the worst thing anyone ever did. Yet that was the cause of our salvation.

On a more practical level, one can ask what you want God to do about evil. Do you want him to step in every time someone decides to abuse their free will? How free is the will if He did that? What would you think about a God who created robots instead of humans?

[The Drunken Actuary]

Holton:
don't you see, my question to you about the chemically imbalanced gets to the heart of what the meaning of evil or good are. Maybe they are not as absolute as the writers of the bible or many of us today think.

Obi-Wan,
if I accept that jesus was god and that killing him was the ultimate evil, can you please explain to me exactly how that saved us (and from what)?

<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: The Drunken Actuary on 2001-12-26 15:27 ]</font>

[RedSoxFan]

For what it's worth, one of the main reasons I believe in God (& creationism, vs. evolution) is that I can't possibly fathom how the complexities of the human body (not to mention all other living creatures) just evolved from a single living cell (which just happened to be created by a bolt of lightning hitting just the right mixture of primordial ooze). Frankly, "God just made everything" is more believeable to me than that.

[General Kenobi (ret.)]

As simply as I can put it:

In choosing to do wrong things, we have hurt our relationship with God. Not because He's keeping score, but because He is 100% good and bad things simply can't survive in His presence.

Worse yet, we have nothing He needs, and so we have no way to atone for our mistakes. To a modern mind, the immediate response is probably, "Well, why couldn't He just say, 'Forget about it'?"

But I think most of us really don't feel that way in our own relationships, either as the offended or the offender. If I have hurt you, I need to make up for it to restore our relationship. If it was a minor incident, both of us would probably think a simple apology would do the trick. But if it was major, something more would be needed. When we harm a relationship, we incur a debt.

But what happened on the Cross is that God's mercy met His justice. Someone had to pay the price, but He chose to pay it Himself. (If you hurt someone else, I can, if I choose, help you make up for it.) He gave up His (human) life out of love so that we could be with Him.

That's a really quick cover of a complex issue.

[The Drunken Actuary]

Lee, I donlt know if you read this full discussion, but we discussed that argument and here is my question to you: If the universe is so complex that you can't explain how it got here, why is it intellectually satisfying to you to make up something even more complex to explain it? ie, where did god come from and how come you don't need an explanation of that?

[The Drunken Actuary]

On 2001-12-26 15:52, Obi-Wan Kenobi wrote:
As simply as I can put it:

In choosing to do wrong things, we have hurt our relationship with God. Not because He's keeping score, but because He is 100% good and bad things simply can't survive in His presence.

Worse yet, we have nothing He needs, and so we have no way to atone for our mistakes. To a modern mind, the immediate response is probably, "Well, why couldn't He just say, 'Forget about it'?"

But I think most of us really don't feel that way in our own relationships, either as the offended or the offender. If I have hurt you, I need to make up for it to restore our relationship. If it was a minor incident, both of us would probably think a simple apology would do the trick. But if it was major, something more would be needed. When we harm a relationship, we incur a debt.

But what happened on the Cross is that God's mercy met His justice. Someone had to pay the price, but He chose to pay it Himself. (If you hurt someone else, I can, if I choose, help you make up for it.) He gave up His (human) life out of love so that we could be with Him.

That's a really quick cover of a complex issue.


1. If bad things cannot survive in his presence than he must not present on earth.
2. If we have nothing he needs, why does he need us to atone for our mistakes?
3. If god is infinitely good, why can;t he say just forget about it? You are assuming that he is motiviated by the same things we are which is an assumption I find improbable for an infinetely powerful being. If we incur a debt by harming a relationship, than you contradict what you said earlier when you said god is not keeping score. Apparently he is now.
4 What was someone paying the price for? Original Sin I assume which seemed to be nothing more Adam and Eve eating certain fruit. If that;s the case, i don;t see how dying on a cross would do anything to atone for that. I do not uderstand what you mean by 'his mercy met his justice.' Nor do I understand why 'someone had to pay the price?' especially if god is not keeping score? But even if he is, I still don't get how jesus dying on a cross allowes us to be with him. Please elaborate.

[The Mad Hatter]

DA,

I sympathize with you in not understanding the clearly (to us) irrational belief in God. I have asked myself the question over the years "Why does religion persist?" The answer appears to me to be a combination of 1) Humans are afraid of death and 2) Humans are afraid of meaningless. The God hypothesis seems to alleviate both of these fears.

Without the God hypothesis, we are left to find our own meaning to and to face death as it appears to be: final. This will sound strange to the believers out there (who are so used to demonizing unbelievers), but it takes courage to be an atheist.

[The Drunken Actuary]

Hatter,
I had come to the same conclusions. I was trying to use this forum to understand how seemingly rational people would persist in such an irrational belief. Unfortunately no one can really do so or answer my questions directly or satisfactorily. Follow up questions seem to be ignored.

BTW, I am an AC Clarke fan as well. His latest stuff (like the past 20 years) has been pretty disappointing though.

[RedSoxFan]

DA, I will do my best to address this, but I also want you to explain why you believe in the complexities and impossibility of evolution?
As for my beliefs, I believe the reasons for and methods of God's creation of the earth are above human's comprehension. As difficult as it is for people to accept it, we are not-all knowing, and never will be. So, I believe that we cannot understand the nature of God's existence and how he came to be. I don't find it intellectually satisfying at all.. I'm curious about this as anyone else. But it doesn't keep me from believing it.


On 2001-12-26 15:52, The Drunken Actuary wrote:
Lee, I donlt know if you read this full discussion, but we discussed that argument and here is my question to you: If the universe is so complex that you can't explain how it got here, why is it intellectually satisfying to you to make up something even more complex to explain it? ie, where did god come from and how come you don't need an explanation of that?

[RedSoxFan]

I don't have time to go back and read over everything but I did see posts about how God could allow things like the holocaust and Sept 11 to occur, particularly when his spirit is among us. Well, sin and evil entered the world with Adam, and we cannot be fully with God in that sense until we are in heaven. God has given humans free will to do what we want and believe what we want. Unfortunately, Hitler and Bin Laden chose to use their influence to cause death and destruction.

Another thing: Some people may say if God was alive, he would have stopped Sept 11. But where would God draw the line? Would he have stopped Littleton? Or your friend who was killed by a drunk driver? Maybe Osama would have used a nuclear bomb, but God stopped him. So I don't understand those arguments.

Also, I think DA posted about choosing one's belief. I was also wondering if you could explain that more. I chose to believe in God, based on my experiences and considerable thought (e.g. my post on creationism vs evolution).

[loose nugget]

If you do not think the belief in God is valid for "rational" people, then what do you believe in? Evolution? There are many many unanswerable questions in that theory. If you can not believe in something because not all of your questions are answered then what will you ever believe in?

I think rational people can believe in God because they have thought it out and came to that conclusion. That does not mean they can answer every possible question on the behavior of God or why things are the way they are. But I do not think that negates the belief in God or proves that he does not exist. If asked as a child why my parents did some of the things they did, including possibly letting me hurt my self, I could not have explained it. I thought they were completly stupid. Now I see they were not so dumb and for the most part what they did made sense. Maybe we will get to a point to understand God in a similar way.

As to the point of it taking courage to be an athiest, I do not think I agree. It seems to take away much of the responsibility of your actions. And it still leaves many unanswered questions.

[The Drunken Actuary]

Lee, thanks for the fresh perspective. I;m not sure what you mean when you ask me to explain the "complexities and impossibility of evolution" but I will try anyway. First, I never said anything about evolution, though I think it has merits over creationism, mainly that there is some evidence to support it. Though it certainly has faults.

I can see that you are a creationist and that you find it believable that god created the universe. But my question to you was where did god come from and you answered by saying you don't know. It seems strange to me that you look around the world, reject evolution or other theories of creation because they are too unlikely in your estimation yet can believe in a god that must be infinitely more complex than the universe and accept that that god has created the universe out of nothing. You must believe that 'god always was and always will be..." but why can;t you believe the same about the universe itself and thus eliminate the need for the introduction of a god? It seems to me that you have introduced something more complicated to explain away something too complicated for you to understand? Especially since the only reason you seem to believe in god is that you need an explanation for the complexities of the world.

Ok, as far as where god should draw the line? He shouldn't draw any line. He should use his considerable powers to make life on earth better for everyone. If I stand by and let a mother drown her children when I can easily have stopped it, I would be charged as a criminal. If I defended myself by saying that I was testing the mother to see what she would do I would be branded insane. Why do you not hold god to the same standards that you do other people?

Finally, as far as choosing one's belief, you make it sound as easy as choosing what pair of pants to wear. Let me ask you: could you choose to NOT believe in god tomorrow if you wanted?

[The Drunken Actuary]

On 2001-12-26 16:49, loose nugget wrote:
If you do not think the belief in God is valid for "rational" people, then what do you believe in? Evolution? There are many many unanswerable questions in that theory. If you can not believe in something because not all of your questions are answered then what will you ever believe in?

I think rational people can believe in God because they have thought it out and came to that conclusion. That does not mean they can answer every possible question on the behavior of God or why things are the way they are. But I do not think that negates the belief in God or proves that he does not exist. If asked as a child why my parents did some of the things they did, including possibly letting me hurt my self, I could not have explained it. I thought they were completly stupid. Now I see they were not so dumb and for the most part what they did made sense. Maybe we will get to a point to understand God in a similar way.

As to the point of it taking courage to be an athiest, I do not think I agree. It seems to take away much of the responsibility of your actions. And it still leaves many unanswered questions.


I never said anything it taking courage to be an atheist. However being one requires you to take total responsibility for your actions not the opposite as you suggest. As a theist, you can always justify your actions as being gods will. As an atheist, you cannot.

Also I never said anything about evolution. I am trying to discuss the reasons why people believe in god. If you do not like evolution fine. Tell me why creationism is satisfactory to you. I do not need every possible question about the behavior of god answered, but I am interested in the rational thought process that leads to the conclusion that there is one. You said there can be one, please spell it out for me.

[Crystal Dragon.]

Didn't Hitler kill millions? How many millions?

Bin Laden killed less than 10,000. I don't see how the comparison could be made between the actions of these two other than their disregard for life and their insanity. BL would have to do what he did 99 more times to kill a million... Not that quantity should be the ultimate qualifier of evil, but it's really some distance between the two.

Can I prove God exists? No. But I know He is here. That's faith. I don't need proof. Is there evidence? Yes. And they go to bed at 8pm and wake up at 6am, every day. You don't have to get it. I sincerely hope you do. I do, and that's enough for me.

[Polly Nomial]

On 2001-12-26 15:49, LeeGreenwoodIsCool wrote:
For what it's worth, one of the main reasons I believe in God (& creationism, vs. evolution) is that I can't possibly fathom how the complexities of the human body (not to mention all other living creatures) just evolved from a single living cell (which just happened to be created by a bolt of lightning hitting just the right mixture of primordial ooze). Frankly, "God just made everything" is more believeable to me than that.


Funny, I use the same argument against the existance of God. Just look inside a microscope at the complexities of life! DNA, RNA, aminio acids..... How did god come up with all that stuff? Why did god come up with all that stuff? Why not just throw some mud together and infuse it with life? Evolution, allows for millions of years for such complexities to develop.

[The Mad Hatter]

ln,

I don't "believe" in evolution in the sense that you "believe" in God. I believe that evolution took place because the evidence points that way. There are many things that could happen that would change my mind, but I think they are unlikely because the evidence that evolution took place is so strong now.

Your "belief" in God on the other hand is impervious to any evidence. There is nothing that could happen that would change your mind.

I could be persuaded to believe in God, all he has to do is appear to me and prove He is God. I wouldn't set the bar that high even, for example, I would accept it if (at my command) he put the WTC back together and brought everyone back to life. Or maybe make the stars move around in the sky to spell "God Exists". These would be easy feats for the Omnipotent One. I am reasonable sure though that this won't happen.

[M.]

As someone suggested earlier, the complexity of living organisms suggests a creator, or at least an intelligent orchestrator. One of Andy Lang's recent posts describes the planet's control mechanisms one day wiping out the human race. Who put those control mechanisms there in the first place?

[Andy Lang]

In answer to the question which heads this thread, Yes.

The good Sarge does.

Personally I think it is Ollie North, trying his best so I dont get into his epic adventures in Iran-Contra.

Hey--Ollie! Can I see that Marine Uniform again--the one you brought out with all the polished medals and decorations on at the Hearings--and the 16 flags right behind you?

Hey Ollie! Did you ever meet the Pope or any of his emissaries in all of that stuff you have been up to for so long?

Im you know, cloding in on the thrid part if the Bush Triumvirate---Rich folks in Big Business, the Right-Wingers--and--gasp--the Roman Catholic Heirarcy and the Polish Pope.

The Pope and Reagan did a masterful thing--getting rid of Communism the way they did.

But you know I didnt like the rest of the stuff that came with it very much at all. You know--the siding with and full support by the Pope and Casey and other sin the CIA of right-wing fascist dictators in Latin America.

Nor did I like the setting up of the Christian Coalition using Jerry Falwell as the front man either--and the using the suckers in the CC--Protestants no less, who fell for the whole thing, by golly.

Ahhh--America--the one might nation that used to have Separation of Church and State--now falling prey to the Pope and his retinue.

Let me ask you something Ollie.

What one thing does our great success have in North America that is not present in Latin America--the other part of the hemisphere that has roughly the same natural resource as us--maybe even more--that is reponsible for us suceeding so much and them failing so miserably?

Answer? We haven't allowed the Catholic Church to control the political arena they have there.

But they are giving it their all now with their guy in the white House and all. And the millions of fundamentalist dupes out there without a clue.

But I will give them more than a few clues as to how it's happening. Watch for it in your local Opus Dei Thread.

Baaaaaaafd stuff.

Ollie you need to go to Confession--baaaaaadly.

[The Drunken Actuary]

On 2001-12-26 17:33, M wrote:
As someone suggested earlier, the complexity of living organisms suggests a creator, or at least an intelligent orchestrator. One of Andy Lang's recent posts describes the planet's control mechanisms one day wiping out the human race. Who put those control mechanisms there in the first place?


No M, the complexity of the universe DOES NOT suggest a creator for the creator would be even more complex than the creation. You simply put the question back one generation so I will ask it to you: Who created the god? And please do not say no one, he has always existed etc. because I can use that argument about the unverse itslef and eliminate one layer of complexity.

[axjoke]

DA.. nice to see somebody else that shares my view about ones lack of ability to choose that which they believe. I've had that discussion with various christians and they don't seem to comprehend this idea.

Has anybody ever pondered how boring it would be to be an omniscient being? The notion of an all-knowing being is absurd. One can't even be both omniscient and have free choice because you would have to do that which you knew you would do.

[The Drunken Actuary]

Thank you axjoke, I'm glad someone has pointed out yet another discrepency.

[Andy Lang]

Lee:

[As for my beliefs, I believe the reasons for and methods of God's creation of the earth are above human's comprehension. As difficult as it is for people to accept it, we are not-all knowing, and never will be. So, I believe that we cannot understand the nature of God's existence and how he came to be.]

Hey, I am often cited for being above people's comprehension and no one can understand the nature of my existance either nor how I came to be, but people do not think I am god. But I think Polly said that.

The only one who is truly above comprehension is AndyBert and even he says he isnt God. He is, though (or is it was?) The First Mover.

At least that's what all the girls used to say.

[The Drunken Actuary]

OK Andy you are officially getting on my nerves with your irrelevent posts.

<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: The Drunken Actuary on 2001-12-27 10:10 ]</font>

[The Mad Hatter]

DA,

Omnipotent = bored? Star Trek Voyager hit this one on the head once with a Q episode. I rather like to the whole Q thing - what if an Omnipotent being did exist, but was totally and completely unconcerned with human happiness? Would you obey Him?

[axjoke]

Hatter... Being omniscient would be boring. Name one thing you would do for fun? Being omnipotent might not be so bad if you didn't know the results that would come from your actions.. but i assume being all-powerful would leave much to be desired. How fun would it be for kobe bryant to play basketball with a bunch of 6th graders? When no challanges exist and there is nothing to learn, nothing to accomplish then one might as well be dead.

[RedSoxFan]

axjoke: you are making the mistake of assuming that God has human properties. I don't think an omnipotent being would have any need to have fun or to avoid being bored. God doesn't even play basketball.

DA: Yes, I believe God created the universe out of nothing, and He is infinitely more complex than the universe. How this can be, or how he came into being, is beyond human's comprehension. It's definitely beyond mine, because I have no clue how it happened. Why can't I believe the same about the universe? I think you're referring to why can't I believe life has evolved. I think it's because humans have actually seen the material. We've analyzed cells and organisms, and we have theories about how evolution has taken place. But that's all we've been able to accomplish: educated guesses. The best explanation I've heard of evolution is that genes have gradually mutated. But how did they know how to do this? And how did cells know how to combine with each other? and on and on. If you sit and think about how one cell got created by chance, and today there are humans, I don't care how many billions of years elapsed, I think it takes a lot of faith to believe in that. You also said "Especially since the only reason you seem to believe in god is that you need an explanation for the complexities of the world. " There are many reasons I believe in God, but this is the relevant one. I can go into more detail on that if you like.

DA, you also posted about drawing the line, but I think you should rethink your argument. If God should have stopped a Mom from drowning her kids, he should have stopped all other homicides. What about accidental killings, like being killed by a drunk driver? So then we wouldn't have to be careful crossing the street. Following this a little further, wouldn't this make a believer out of everyone? If people saw on CNN a couple of planes heading for the WTC, but they suddenly stopped, safely landed, and all the terrorists were instantly struck dead, a lot of people would become believers. And they wouldn't believe on faith, they'd be forced to believe. And God wants us to believe on faith.

DA: I chose my belief in college. I could choose not to believe. For example, I could choose to not pray, not go to church, and live a life of sin, not giving God a second thought. But instead, every day I choose the opposite. I choose to pray, etc. Yes, many children are brought up in Christian homes, and continue their beliefs in adulthood. But they still have their own minds, and can choose not to believe.

[axjoke]

Lee..

The basketball story was symbolic, simply to show what life would be like without challenges. What would an omniscient being do for fun or pleasure? Also am omniscient being doesn’t even have free will. Say at time 1 god knew at time 5 he would chose to plague the earth with frogs. Now time 5 has came and he should have the option of plaguing us with frogs, flies or locust or all of the above. However, since he is omniscient he has to do that which he knew he would do and plague us with frogs. An omniscient being would always have 1 choice and hence no free will.

As for us choosing our beliefs, your argument was flawed. Clearly we can choose to pray, attend church, read the bible and even discuss religion on web sites. However, we have no choice in the end result, that which we truly believe. As DA said before, I can’t choose to believe 4 + 4 = 9, because I’m not convinced that’s its true. What you believe is a result of your experiences and your interpretation of those experiences. It is not a conscious decision one makes.

[General Kenobi (ret.)]

I'm going to pull a hit-and-run, I'm afraid. I'm going to be away from my computer for an extended period, but I think I did DA and myself something of a disservice by posting a link to St. Thomas's argument as my starting point.

St. Thomas was attempting to show that there are no rational objections to belief in God. His arguments are not why he believed, nor are they why I believe.

Take them or leave them, for I don't have the time to do a long discussion, but here are the reasons I believe (cf. The Beliefs of Catholics (http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/089870586X/qid=1009464556/sr=1-1/ref=sr_1_11_1/107-9635252-3494152), Ronald Knox):

1) The Gospels exist.
2) There are more and older copies of them than any other texts of the same age.
3) Their contents are multiply attested by many quotations from other authors.
4) With the possible exception of Luke's census, they corroborate with available secular history. (There are explanations for the census issue as well.)
5) Therefore, if they did not contain religious material, they would be accepted as history.
6) There is no good reason to assume a priori that religious or miraculous material is false. Statements to the contrary are expressions of faith in the unproven and unprovable universal explanatory power of "scientific" knowledge.
7) The Gospels (and some of the Epistles) attest that Jesus lived, identified himself with God the Father, died, and rose again.
:cool: The Resurrection happened.
A) That Jesus was never buried, or that the disciples in distress went to the wrong tomb, is highly unlikely given that early Christian apologists were concerned only to defend against the charge that the disciples moved Jesus's body from the tomb.
B) None of the disciples ever admitted to having moved the body. Their price for that refusal was, in the case of all but a few of the twelve Apostles (St. John being the known exception, with a few others as probables) was martyrdom, which they could easily have avoided by admitting they made up the stories of the Resurrection.
C) St. Paul presents a list of witnesses to the Resurrected Jesus, with the clear implication that most of them were alive and available to confirm the story.
9) The Resurrection vindicates Jesus's claims for himself.

As I said, that's a sketch. Refer to Monsignor Knox's work for a much fuller version. None of the evidence is enough to compel belief for those who do not wish to believe. God only invites--He does not force.

I can add my own experiences as reinforcing the above, for Christianity is not merely a matter of rational argument. I attest to and affirm those experiences, but many of them are largely subjective (i.e., I believe they are real, but an outside observer might not be able to verify them) and have only as much influence as you are willing to let me have.

<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: Obi-Wan Kenobi on 2001-12-27 10:06 ]</font>

[M.]

I don't agree that God necessarily created the universe from nothing. Genesis 1:2 reads:

Now the earth was formless and empty, darkness was over the surface of the deep, and the Spirit of God was hovering over the waters.

It could be that God and all matter existed in the beginning. The whole history of evolution could be correct, but with God directing it. After all, how did species with male and female gender ever come into existence?

[Polly Nomial]

I'm confused. Why must an omniscient being know the future? If there is free will - something both sides of the fence would like to think there is - then an omniscient being would know all that was and all that is, but not all that is to come. No?

[RedSoxFan]

axjoke: you're still attributing human properties to God, and his nature is nothing like that of a human. I don't know this for sure, but its quite possible God doesn't "know" things or executes "free will" or that he even "makes decisions". God is. If we can't even begin to describe his nature or how he came into being, we can't describe his decision making or any other attributes. For example, if God, as it is said, is in all places at one time, certainly his nature is nothing like that of a human.

[loose nugget]

DA and others,

Many people have told you why they believe. Correct me if I am wrong, but I feel like you are really hung up on the fact that people who believe can not answer every question. I would like to know is there anything that someone could say that you would think was "rational". Also what do you think it would take for you to believe in God?

[RedSoxFan]

axjoke & DA, etc: I must be missing something on your "choosing" argument. Why exactly can't I just choose to believe in God? John Walker chose to believe in Allah as a Muslim. So did this Richard Reid/Tariq Raja guy. I chose to believe in God, the father of Jesus. I don't have proof, as one has that can disprove that 4+4=9. You chose to believe in evolution, which is currently explained by theories.

edited to add the word "have".

<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: LeeGreenwoodIsCool on 2001-12-27 10:22 ]</font>

[Polly Nomial]

On 2001-12-27 10:19, LeeGreenwoodIsCool wrote:
axjoke & DA, etc: I must be missing something on your "choosing" argument. Why exactly can't I just choose to believe in God? John Walker chose to believe in Allah as a Muslim. So did this Richard Reid/Tariq Raja guy. I chose to believe in God, the father of Jesus. I don't proof, as one has that can disprove that 4+4=9. You chose to believe in evolution, which is currently explained by theories.



I don't believe in evolution. I just think that it is the best explanation so far. I would love to see more conclusive evidence for evolution - as I would love to see more conclusive evidence for the existance of god. Evolution does not rely on faith.

[The Drunken Actuary]

On 2001-12-27 09:35, LeeGreenwoodIsCool wrote:
axjoke: you are making the mistake of assuming that God has human properties. I don't think an omnipotent being would have any need to have fun or to avoid being bored. God doesn't even play basketball.

DA: Yes, I believe God created the universe out of nothing, and He is infinitely more complex than the universe. How this can be, or how he came into being, is beyond human's comprehension. It's definitely beyond mine, because I have no clue how it happened. Why can't I believe the same about the universe? I think you're referring to why can't I believe life has evolved. I think it's because humans have actually seen the material. We've analyzed cells and organisms, and we have theories about how evolution has taken place. But that's all we've been able to accomplish: educated guesses. The best explanation I've heard of evolution is that genes have gradually mutated. But how did they know how to do this? And how did cells know how to combine with each other? and on and on. If you sit and think about how one cell got created by chance, and today there are humans, I don't care how many billions of years elapsed, I think it takes a lot of faith to believe in that. You also said "Especially since the only reason you seem to believe in god is that you need an explanation for the complexities of the world. " There are many reasons I believe in God, but this is the relevant one. I can go into more detail on that if you like.

DA, you also posted about drawing the line, but I think you should rethink your argument. If God should have stopped a Mom from drowning her kids, he should have stopped all other homicides. What about accidental killings, like being killed by a drunk driver? So then we wouldn't have to be careful crossing the street. Following this a little further, wouldn't this make a believer out of everyone? If people saw on CNN a couple of planes heading for the WTC, but they suddenly stopped, safely landed, and all the terrorists were instantly struck dead, a lot of people would become believers. And they wouldn't believe on faith, they'd be forced to believe. And God wants us to believe on faith.

DA: I chose my belief in college. I could choose not to believe. For example, I could choose to not pray, not go to church, and live a life of sin, not giving God a second thought. But instead, every day I choose the opposite. I choose to pray, etc. Yes, many children are brought up in Christian homes, and continue their beliefs in adulthood. But they still have their own minds, and can choose not to believe.



Lee, I'm still confused. You readily admit that god is infinitely more complex then the universe. You also admit that the main reason you believe in god is because you need an explanation of how humans came to exist (evolution for some reason doesn;t do it for you-that's fine) because humans are so complex that they couldn;t just come into being by 'natural means'. I still do not understand why it is intellectually satisfying to you to just throw your hands up and say 'well god has just always exiosted and it's beyond human comprehension how' when the entire reason you believe in god is because you need an explanation for something you don;t understand the origins of. All you are doing is moving the question one step back. And you do bring up a good point: humans have analyzed the material and performed experiments that have PROVED simple life forms can spontaneously occur under the conditions believed to exist billions of years ago. We have also seen evolution in action. No, no one has watched as man evolved from lower life forms, but we have seen bacteria evolve to become immune to antibiotics. We have seen fruit flies evolve. Evolution exists. Weather it was the cause of all life on earth I suppose is debateable and I did not start this to discuss the merits of evolution. I was asking you why you believe in god and all you can tell me is that you need to invent something more complex to explain something less complex. Very weak argument I think.

No , I do not have to rethink my argument about drawing the line. It is perfectly valid. As a father, I would prevent my child from being hit by drunk drivers, from being drowned etc. I would do everything I can to protect my kids, as would most parents. So, because we are all gods children, as I have heard many times, why does he not protect us. For an omnipotent super being it should be a small task to protect everyone. Again, if I fail to save someone I clearly have the power to save, I am a criminal. Why isn't god?

I think someone else refuted your pitiful argument about choices but I'll beat that dead horse too. To prove that you can change your beliefs, I want you to choose to believe that Saturn has no rings. I mean truly believe it. Then in a few days you can choose to believe it does again.

[axjoke]

Polly.. I took all-knowing to include the future as well as all that happened in the past. I'm not sure if this notion of god's knowledge is supported by the biblical text or not. Maybe somebody knows what god is claimed to know according to the bible? I was certainly led to believe, at a younger age, that god knew all things past and future events.

Lee.. You are still missing the boat. I don't think you made a conscious decision to believe in god. I think you were convinced it was true through life experiences and through your viewpoint of the impossibilities of evolution. I myself don’t' choose to believe in evolution. I've been presented with a theory and evidence that supported it.. for whatever reason my brain places a higher probability of it being accurate than the accounts of genesis.. hence i believe in evolution or at least some other theory is more convincing to me.

Belief is often said not to require proof. So why can't you consciously choose to believe 4 +4 = 9?.. it requires faith, not proof right? Its not about faith but rather about being convinced something is true, or that it is at least the most probable solution in your mind.

[loose nugget]

I do not BELIEVE that anyone has proved that simple life can spontaneously come into existence. That is completly untrue.

[The Drunken Actuary]

On 2001-12-27 10:18, loose nugget wrote:
DA and others,

Many people have told you why they believe. Correct me if I am wrong, but I feel like you are really hung up on the fact that people who believe can not answer every question. I would like to know is there anything that someone could say that you would think was "rational". Also what do you think it would take for you to believe in God?


LN, actually, Obi-Wan's explanation, while not satisfactory to me, at least shows he/she has put some thought into the subject. Lee, on the other hand has avoided the question I have asled several times about why she invents something more complex to explain something less complex. This is the type of irrational thinking that I would like to explore. I don;t really want to change Lee's mind, I just want to know why that can be acceptable to an otherwise rational person.

[Anonymous]

One cannot simply choose to start believing in God any more than one can choose to believe that 4+4=9. If there is such a thing as a gift of faith, can you further suppose that those who do not have faith have simply not been given faith by god; ie he does not want them?


Yes. God does not want you. In all probability, he hates you.

-Love, Tyler


<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: ODB@WuTang.com on 2001-12-27 10:47 ]</font>

[Anonymous]

So, because we are all gods children, as I have heard many times, why does he not protect us. For an omnipotent super being it should be a small task to protect everyone. Again, if I fail to save someone I clearly have the power to save, I am a criminal. Why isn't god?

You have your perspectives skewed. In the god/human half of that analogy, you (&we) are the children, whereas in the first half we are the parents. So the logical response to your analogy is that children often don't think that parents are doing what is in their (the child's) best interest. I, as a child, didn't want to eat spinach. Surely if my parent was a good parent they wouldn't make ME eat spinach. The parent knows things the child doesn't. The child will sometime not understand why he/she has to go through things (eating spinach, going to bed, bathing) that he she finds distasteful.

So, just as we as children suffered through things that our parents allowed to happen to us (or even DID to us) while we could not figure out the purpose, so would God sometimes allow thing to happen to us, the purpose for which we would not grasp.


If you review many of your arguments, you imply strongly that if there was a God, that you would understand him fully. I know you may call this a cop-out (because you seem to be calling alot of things "cop-outs" :wink: ) but it makes sense. If there is an omnipotent God, and you aren't him, it stands to reason that not all of his actions would make sense to you--much in the same way that not all of your actions make sense to a 1-yr old.

[The Drunken Actuary]

On 2001-12-27 10:41, loose nugget wrote:
I do not BELIEVE that anyone has proved that simple life can spontaneously come into existence. That is completly untrue.

I believe it has been done in experiments with CH4, NH3, CO2 and other common chemicals of ancoent earth. They zapped it with electricity (lighteming) and bammo you had complex proteins or something. I don;t really remember all the details from my college days but I believe the experiment was done in the 50's. One of the experimenters names was . . . Krick, I think. Not sure. Anyway, there is enough science to back up the possibility. Certainly more than there is to back up coming back from the dead.

[The Drunken Actuary]

On 2001-12-27 10:49, Shekky Tree wrote:
So, because we are all gods children, as I have heard many times, why does he not protect us. For an omnipotent super being it should be a small task to protect everyone. Again, if I fail to save someone I clearly have the power to save, I am a criminal. Why isn't god?

You have your perspectives skewed. In the god/human half of that analogy, you (&we) are the children, whereas in the first half we are the parents. So the logical response to your analogy is that children often don't think that parents are doing what is in their (the child's) best interest. I, as a child, didn't want to eat spinach. Surely if my parent was a good parent they wouldn't make ME eat spinach. The parent knows things the child doesn't. The child will sometime not understand why he/she has to go through things (eating spinach, going to bed, bathing) that he she finds distasteful.

So, just as we as children suffered through things that our parents allowed to happen to us (or even DID to us) while we could not figure out the purpose, so would God sometimes allow thing to happen to us, the purpose for which we would not grasp.


If you review many of your arguments, you imply strongly that if there was a God, that you would understand him fully. I know you may call this a cop-out (because you seem to be calling alot of things "cop-outs" :wink: ) but it makes sense. If there is an omnipotent God, and you aren't him, it stands to reason that not all of his actions would make sense to you--much in the same way that not all of your actions make sense to a 1-yr old.








SK, you make some excellent points. I guess it would be comforting to think that there is some higher reason for all of the death and destruction we have here on earth. Not sure it really compares to eating spinach, but maybe so. I guess if there is an afterlife, then a lifetime of pain on this world is pretty insignificant compared to eternal happiness. At least that is on palatable explanation, although I'm not sure I buy it.

<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: The Drunken Actuary on 2001-12-27 10:58 ]</font>

[The Drunken Actuary]

On 2001-12-27 10:46, ODB@WuTang.com wrote:

One cannot simply choose to start believing in God any more than one can choose to believe that 4+4=9. If there is such a thing as a gift of faith, can you further suppose that those who do not have faith have simply not been given faith by god; ie he does not want them?


Yes. God does not want you. In all probability, he hates you.

-Love, Tyler


<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: ODB@WuTang.com on 2001-12-27 10:47 ]</font>


How clever. I hope we can start the name calling next.

[Anonymous]

DA.

Now it's your quotes that are skewed. :wink:


BTW. My answer to your original question is that there is no proof that is airtight. Something this complex, even if based on natural phenomenon alone, would defy proof. Dr. Gray can't prove how many hurricanes there will be next year, despite the fact that his predictions are pretty decent. This is the flaw in the scientific method...for complex models, rejecting the null hypothesis is almost statistically impossible.

[Holton]

I agree that you can't just wake up one day and decide to believe in God. Here is how I see the process. There are a couple of explanations to this life (where we came from, why we're here, etc.). In order to test each possiblilty one must start with a basic "belief" in the theory. If you begin by thinking it is not possible, you're never going to consider it. Then examine the available evidence and test it, if possible. When I gained my faith I went through a similar process. I was searching for something to explain this life. I took a college course on evolution. It didn't work for me. I read the Bible, but nothing really clicked. Then someone introduced me to the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. I have had many spiritual experiences that have convinced me of the truthfullness of this church. I will not go into them in this forum, they are far too personal, but I know without a doubt it is true. This doesn't help you, but I think the process does.

As far as God allowing bad things too happen, think about it this way. Not only do we learn from the difficult times in our life, but when good people are taken from this earth, they go to a better place and can be with God. As a parent, would you stop your child from experiencing a moment of pain if it meant eternal happiness with you?

[RedSoxFan]

DA: I enjoy this discussion. Continue to let me know if I fail to answer your questions.

I've stated before that the main reason I believe is NOT to find a reason for the creation of the universe. I believe for a number of reasons, one of which is the appreciation of God's creation, the earth and living creatures, as being so complex it seems like they could have only come from God. Let me also stress that I do NOT find it intellectually satisfying to "throw my hands up". I would much rather know it all. Also, I don't know that humans have proved anything regarding evolution. And just because we've observed some organisms to change doesn't mean that a single cell has changed and changed until it was a human. As I think this is very improbable, I must throw my hands up and be left to presume an omnipotent being did it. Now, I believe in Jesus, and there is an account in the Bible of God creating the universe, so I decide God must have been the omnipotent being.

Are you arguing that God should protect those who believe in him? So if someone shoots a gun at me he should stop the bullet? Remember the world is a sinful place. All men, even the most faithful believers are sinful. God cannot fully be among us because of our sin. He protects us, as you describe, once we are in Heaven. When we are on earth, we live among sin, and have choice of what we do and what we believe. Taking it a step further, if believing in God meant we were safe, then everyone would believe in God, not because of who he is and out of faith, but just for safety.

I agree, I can choose to believe anything. If I believe Saturn has no rings, lots of scientists with telescopes will think I'm crazy. To answer axjoke, I did chose to believe in God. I was presented with theory and evidence (e.g. the Bible) and chose to believe in it. Maybe I'm missing your argument, but I don't understand why I cannot choose to believe in God. I chose to believe. What's wrong with that?

[The Mad Hatter]

ln,

You are completely sure that life did not come into existence from combinations of complex chemical processes. Why? It's not that implausible and there is nothing in science to indicate that in can't happen.

On the other hand, you are sure that an Omnipotent, Omniscient and Omnibenevolent being exists and that It created man but later changed It's mind and killed everyone (well almost) and then decided that It didn't just love the Jews but Gentiles too (but only because to Jews were bad) and so made Itself into Itself's own son and then had Itself's son killed in order to forgive the humans who did nothing wrong but act in their nature (which It knew they would do) but It will still punish all those who do not believe this story with eternal infinite pain because, well they deserve it. Yeah, that's plausible.

What's so ironic about this whole thread is the many parts that remind me of the comment (I don't remember who said it - Twain or Hoffer perhaps) to the effect that men hold with the greatest vigor those beliefs for which that have the least evidence.

[loose nugget]

I am completly sure that there has never been an experiment in which the simplest single living cell has been created. Even with man making the conditions completly perfect according to his theories.

I do not think I completly understand God or can tell you why things are as they are. But I feel this thread started with a question. When people answered they were told they were irrational and false facts have been brought up to try to shoot down their beliefs.

[axjoke]

Holton.. i took the oppisite path. Was raised in the moromon church and gradually turned to atheism somewhere between 10 to 14 years old...

[The Drunken Actuary]

Lee, I thnk that Hatter has pointed out very brilliantly why I find the basis of your belief in god irrational. Thanks Hatter. Others like Obi-Wan seem to have a better thought out reason for their belief.

LN, the question that started this thread off was if anyone had anything insightful to offer. This is a discussion and a rather good one I think. Perhaps you think my questioning the roots of others beliefs is shooting them down. But in fact, I'm just trying to understand why some people believe when others do not. Anyway, as far as creating simple life in the lab, I don't know all the details, but as I said I do know there have been experiments that support the theory, and none to support the existence of god. For example, perhaps all Christians should pray for the sky to turn green one day. If it does, that would support the theory that prayer to the christian god works (but not prove it as that would require repetition. I mean what if all Shinto-ists decided to pray for the same thing on the same day by coincidence.) Anyway, you see my point: We have AN explanation that has been tested and has not been able to be disproven (yet). We have another explanation that can not be tested and seems totally implausible to many rational thinkers (even some christians etc believe in evolution)

<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: The Drunken Actuary on 2001-12-27 11:59 ]</font>

[Andy Lang]

Jack Miles is a former Jesuit and wrote the book, 'Christ: A Crisis in the Life of God'.

In it, he sees the single transformative idea of the four gospels: "The world is a great crime...and somebody has to pay for it."

Those words are as true today as they were back then.

We need God as scapegoat, because otherwise we couldnt stand the truth, which is that we are largely reponsible for the vast majority of all the bad things that happen to us---Pogo was right.

Even the occasional outlier--the endogenous major event that can destroy the planet, and if not the planet certainly us, that some claim are always unrelated to us, such as global warming to name one biggie happening faster than in the past several million years, is caused by us.

Also keep in mind that virtually all large animals that have become extinct since man first appeared have become that way due to man. And now a large part of the rest are in process of also becoming extinct--due largely to us. The genetic gene pool of life on which we depend for our life is shrinking faster now than at any other time, save perhaps for one or two those cataclysms that mark the past major extinctions, long before man first appeared. The last such extinction, the one that causes most of the dinosauers to go and some to adapt to become birds, gave rise to mammels and eventually us. Mother Nature is now saying it might be time for us to go, as we are fowling our own nest more than any other creature ever has, and her built-in self protective mechansims are now in full play. Stupid is as Stupid does.

When we have killed a sufficient number of such species, many of which took millions of years to evolve, and the tipping point is reached, we will become extinct.

The only questions remaining are whether global warming and it's massive effects--atch out fot this winter folks, Mother Nature is reacting to expunge the ones who are harming it, and it's not nice to get Mother angry--or weapons of mass destruction do it before that.

Actually, we do have a chance to reverse these--all future predictions are merely discrete deterministic subsets of a cone of stochastic possibilities with its sharp point in the present and its wide end in the future (and it's past very hazy to most, incomprehenisible to many, especially Republicans and other fundamentalists), but the hour of the midnight of our demise is very close---the downside of the cone is vastly bigger than the upside.

Simple decisions now can have huge repercussions--favorable perhaps--to which of these possibilities become realized--the butterfly effect, or chaos theory if you prefer-- but right now the future looks pretty bleak.

Happy New Year!

[Holton]

axjoke - care to give any details on what lead you down this path?

DA - I think your questioning has been reasonable and you have continued to question when your questions have not been answered. I personally enjoy these type of discussions.

[Anonymous]

Does everyone believe that Satan exists?

[The Drunken Actuary]

Andy, I agree with everything you say, but perhaps you missed the point of this discussion. It has nothing to do with global warming or mass exticntions, both subjects that concern me even more than the existence of god. Perhaps posting that message in a thread actually about those topics would be more constructive.

[Holton]

I also like to look at the stakes in this "game" we're discussing.

If the atheists are right and doesn't exist, then we all become worm food and I've spent a lot of time at church which didn't enhance my after-life experience.

BUT, if the opposite is true, then the atheists have a serious problem.

[The Drunken Actuary]

Lobster: I can't speak for everyone, but I bet Lee and Obi-Wan do. As for me, clearly no. Did you know that Heaven is hotter than hell:
Heaven's temperature: Isaiah 30:26 states: "Moreover, the light of the Moon shall be as the light of the Sun and the light of the Sun shall be sevenfold, as the light of seven days." One individual interpreted this passage as meaning that the radiation received by Heaven from the sun is 7 times 7 or 49 times as much as the earth does today. 1 Added to that is the contribution of the moon which would equal the present amount that the earth receives from the sun. Thus Heaven would receive (49 + 1) or 50 times the radiation as the earth does today. The Stefan-Boltzmann law for radiation links the temperature of an object with the amount of radiation received. It would predict that the temperature of heaven would be 498 degrees Celsius hotter than the earth is currently. Thus heaven would be about 525 °C or 977 °F.

However, this temperature would only be the "steady-state" temperature. Presumably Heaven was created shortly after Earth so that it would be ready for its first inhabitants: Abel, Adam and Eve. Revelation 21:17 says that the walls of New Jerusalem are 144 cubits thick. This is about 66 meters or 216 feet. Such a thick wall would be an effective insulator. Heaven would thus have taken many months to reach its equilibrium temperature. But it presumably has reached about 525 °C today.

Hell's Temperature: Revelations 21:8 states "But the fearful, and unbelieving ... shall have their part in the lake which burneth with fire and brimstone." Brimstone is sulphur. In order for sulphur to be molten, its temperature must be at or below 444.6 °C or 832 °F.

Thus heaven is at least 80 °C or 145 °F hotter than Hell.

[The Drunken Actuary]

On 2001-12-27 12:08, Holton wrote:
I also like to look at the stakes in this "game" we're discussing.

If the atheists are right and doesn't exist, then we all become worm food and I've spent a lot of time at church which didn't enhance my after-life experience.

BUT, if the opposite is true, then the atheists have a serious problem.


If it were that simple I would just choose to start believing and go to church every sundday. However, as we discussed, this is not a conscious choice. I mean one can choose to go to church, but one cannot sincerely believe in something that he doesn't believe in. Therefore, the conclusion that I must make is, if there is a god, he has created me in such a way that I am not currently ABLE to believe in him. If that is so, then one cannot blame me for my lack of belief, but god himself. Besides, I am a good person and do not 'sin' so if that is worhty of punishment, so be it.

[Holton]

First, I'm not ready to say you'll be severely punished (like the typical Christian fire, brimstone, etc.). That is up to THE JUDGE when the time comes and I think HE will deal with you justly.

Like I said earlier, I know you can't just change your beliefs. But you can open your heart and mind to the idea of God and really seek an answer. And not nonchalantly, but with real intent and faith that you will receive that answer.

[The Drunken Actuary]

But if I have real intent and faith that I will receive the answer, then I must necessarily already believe in god.


edit-changed belief to faith

<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: The Drunken Actuary on 2001-12-27 12:32 ]</font>

[Holton]

DA,

Not necessarily. But you do need a desire to believe and receive an answer. You basically have to become like a child again. Pretend you aren't this genius who has so much knowledge. Open up ot the possibility of a God and ask him to help you know. You may not see a great vision, but you will be touched by the Spirit in some way.

[M.]

Thank you, Holton. You have said much better what I was trying to say earlier in this thread.

[Zee]

On 2001-12-27 12:19, The Drunken Actuary wrote:
Besides, I am a good person and do not 'sin' so if that is worhty of punishment, so be it.


Don't sin, huh? We are ALL sinners, whether you are a believer or not. And this coming from someone who generally agrees with most of your arguments.

The one thing I take exception with is this:
You seem to acknowledge that if you "had the faith" (i.e. if God granted it to you), then you would be a believer. However, your original logical position would be unchanged (none of questions you have asked would be given logically supported answers once you started believing). Yet you are asking believers to provide these same logical answers. I guess the point is that the faith and logic don't necessarily have to go together for some folks, and I would doubt that you personally (or I) will ever have both.

[Intents]

From my orientation, all of the following touch on the point of view suggested, and none have a measurement in the 3-dimensional world ascribable to them (yet):

woman's intuition
feeling in my gut
a little birdie told me
gnawing feeling
angel's voice
6th sense
words of God
voice of Conscience (and it's boss for crowds, Voice of Reason)
it was a lucky guess
God spoke to me
The Great Comforter
The Holy Spirit

[Holton]

No, you can't measure or oftentimes even describe the Spirit. But I think that is what is so powerful.

[The Drunken Actuary]

Zee,
I suppose if you include things like lusting after women that I am not married to then I am a sinner. But adultry, murder, stealing, etc are the ones I was referring to. I don't think that lust is worthy of eternal punishment and reject any system that teaches otherwise. Also, I think one of the reasons that I do not have the faith is that it is not logical or rational to me to do so.

Holton, I am open to the possibility that there is a god, that is why I started this thread in the first place. Unfortunately, asking that god to give me a sign would probably be like you asking thw Wizard of Oz for a sign. You couldn;t possibly expect to get one right?

So far, the only reasons I have been given that people believe in god are (a) to explain the universe and (b) because they just know he exists. Well (a) does not work for me for the reasons outlined many times - I'm still waiting for Lee to elaborate. And (b)doesn;t either for what I think are obvious reasons.

[The Mad Hatter]

Holton wrote:
"I also like to look at the stakes in this "game" we're discussing.

If the atheists are right and doesn't exist, then we all become worm food and I've spent a lot of time at church which didn't enhance my after-life experience.

BUT, if the opposite is true, then the atheists have a serious problem"

That's known as Pascal's wager (you probably know that). I have always found it laughable. By this argument, you should always forward chain letters - just in case.
Do you worry that Islam is the one true religion and therefore you will burn in Hell? I worry about Christianity being true probably about as much as you worry about Islam being true. That is to say, I don't.

By the way, I think human progress has been harmed by people planning for the "afterlife" rather than getting about the business of make life on earth better. If I thought faith were harmless, then I wouldn't bother arguing about it now. I don't think faith is harmless, I think it is harmful. I define faith as believing something because you want to, not because you have evidence for it.

[Holton]

I thought I gave you a C.

[The Drunken Actuary]

Ditto Hatter, but faith can further be defined as believing something because you have been brain-washed from an early age to believe something and lack the intellectual courage to question it. Especially since that would mean great-grandma might not be in a better place after all. I tend to think that people would fight over other things if it weren't for religion, but it would sure be nice to find out.

BTW, does anyone have any further insights about the chemical imbalance/brain damage issue I posted earlier in this thread. I think this is a fascinating issue and wonder if anyone else does too?

[Zee]

On 2001-12-27 13:10, Hatter wrote:
I don't think faith is harmless, I think it is harmful. I define faith as believing something because you want to, not because you have evidence for it.


An inlaw of mine, a holocaust survivor, was also on a death march. He truly had no evidence that he should perservere, that he would survive; I'm glad he had the faith to continue.


Edited to remove nonsense of referring to "Bataan" with "death march".

<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: Zee on 2001-12-27 14:15 ]</font>

[Lucy]

Holton, the game isn't that simple, because according to many religions, if you believe the wrong thing you are worse off than if you believe nothing. There are people who believe that G-d has inspired them to various different versions of Christianity, to Judaism, and to incompatible versions of Islam. There are others who've been divinely inspired by Buddism, by various of the Shinto or Hindu gods, and by ineffable spirits with no organized body of worship. Some (including most of our pagan ancestors) felt the divine in every stream and tree - different divinities in each one.

This is not to dispute your religion or your faith, only to point out that the game theory arguement for belief in G-d only works if you've already decided which god is true.

[axjoke]

Holton..
i was born into the mormon church and didn't have any problems until i was about 10 and was told how blacks weren't able to hold the priesthood until the recent past. I wasn't sure how my peers couldnt' see the link between blacks gaining the priesthood and the movement for equal rights, instead i was always told they were decendants of Kane and were unworthy, but then god changed his mind. I instantly viewed this as BS and became increasily disenchanted with the mormon churh. However I attended church throughout high school and even went to seminary for 1.5 years.. getting kicked out for asking tough questions and playing the devils advacate. The more i learned in school the less i viewed genesis as a plausible story, then i began to hate the O.T. because its largely the viewpoint of savages... all my beliefs were eroded away by new information and new experiances until i reached my current state of atheism.

[Anonymous]

I suppose if you include things like lusting after women that I am not married to then I am a sinner. But adultry, murder, stealing, etc are the ones I was referring to. I don't think that lust is worthy of eternal punishment and reject any system that teaches otherwise.

Do you know WHY lust is considered wrong in some religions? This one seems obvious to me, and this is putting god aside.

First, start with the fact that adultery is wrong. I don't need there to be a God to have this belief. When you get married, you explicitly (and implicitly) commit NOT to cheat. But beyond that, you commit to love. honor and obey each other (or some similar set of verbs...you get the gist).

First. Lusting after another woman (I mean more than idle, passing thoughts) doesn't seem to honor your wife much. Of course, you wife wouldn't know--but if she did, that'd be bad, so that's something you have to keep hidden. But the thing is, you won't keep it hidden. Allowing yourself to mentally undress other women is absolutely GOING to affect your wife. Maybe you start thinking she's not so pretty. Maybe it affects your love life, and maybe it shows up in your being less affectionate.

In might show up in your calling her another name, maybe even while having sex. The thing is, you are fooling yourself if you think that thoughts don't have consequences. Where your heart goes, your feet generally follow. If you lust after a woman that is not your wife, you are cheating her, and deceiving her...unless you are so bold as to say, yes honey, I am picturing having sex with that hotty over there.

So, using pure rationalism, and with no reference to God, I can give a logical explanation for the "wrongness" of lusting. You might not accept the explanation, but did you really think the whole thing through before you concluded that no rational belief system could consider lusting wrong? Or did you start with the fact that you do it occasionally, and then try to work backwards to it being right.


<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: Shekky Tree on 2001-12-27 13:30 ]</font>

[Anonymous]

BTW...as a footnote to my post, I realize that DA used "worthy of eternal punishment"--which I interpreted as "=sin". Many churches believe that not all sin results in eternal d*mnation--some believe that no sin results in eternal d*mnation, so please forgive my confusion of the two issues, but I'll leave my post unedited. Other than to edit it for my abysmal grammar.



<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: Shekky Tree on 2001-12-27 13:31 ]</font>

[axjoke]

DA..

I remember being taught in my high school biology class about the experiments that you speak of. I thought they were able to produce amino acids which were the building blocks of protein.. but i could be wrong. Its been a while and my mind is pretty fuzzy.. I think they created the building blocks of life but not sure if "life" ever came out of it. Give them time and it will happen.. :smile:

[Anonymous]

And, my answer to why do I believe there is a God is going to drive some people over the edge...but here goes.

Because the Catholic Church says so. I accept their opinion on the matter, because I have found in the past in most matters where they taught one thing and I believed the other (the wrongness of lusting for example :wink: ) that they turned out later to have been right, and I turned out to have been misleading myself. It is very easy to believe that whatever you already think and do is right, rather than to objectively examine your life and see where you might be wrong.

Same answer applies for "why do I believe that the Bible is the inspired word of God".





<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: Shekky Tree on 2001-12-27 13:34 ]</font>

[axjoke]

SK...

Wow.. because the catholic church says so. :sad: Should they bring back the Spanish Inquisitions and silence those of us who speak out? That organization has hindered science and mankind long enough. I'm just glad the pope has lost the majority of the power they once had.

[The Drunken Actuary]

You have a relative who was in the Bataan death march (wasn't that in the phillipines?) AND was a holocaust survivor?

[The Drunken Actuary]

SK,
I think you addressed this in your follow-up, sort of, but I never said lusting was not without negative consequences, I just said I shouldn'r burn in hell forever for doing it once in a while. Besides, I think lust, or perhaps to put a better spin on it, appreciating beautiful women, is pretty natural thing for men to do. Without these urges, there would be no more people, so while it may be expected to control your actions, I think it is not reasonable to expect people not to look at other women. Why do you think porn is so prevelent? How can it be a sin if it is such basic human behavior?

[RedSoxFan]

first, for the last time, this whole creationism vs. evolution issue is NOT the only reason I believe in God. I am discussing it because you all are discussing it. Obi-Wan presented another. There are others as well. If you want me to go into more detail I can, but its not applicable to the current discussions.

In the style of Hatter, you all believe that in an instant, a living cell was created when no living cells had even existed before it. Then you believe that the cell figured out how to reproduce. It also figured out how to bond with other cells and share functions, then it figured out how to bond with many more cells. All these things just happened to happen. Eventually, these cells combined and combined until they made animals. Eventually humans gradually cropped up. You may believe this, but personally, I don't find this plausible. I find it much more plausible that some omnipotent being, which the human mind is not powerful enough to contemplate (not the nature of it nor the reasons why the being does what he does), created everything. There is no humanly explanation of it, nor any evidence. It is beyond our comprehension.

I believe not from what I was ingrained to by my parents. In fact, my family stopped going to church before I went to high school. Yet in college, I chose to believe. So I was not brain washed.

As for sin, we are all sinful. Lusting is definitely sin, whether you act on it or not. Coveting is probably the sin we commit the most. If we believe, we are forgiven of sins. We obviously should strive to avoid as much sin as possible. Now, does this mean once we believe we can sin all we want and still go to heaven? No, because whoever takes this attitude doesn't really believe.

Holton: the main question I have for your people is, since the Bible says in Revelation that nobody is to add to the Bible, and that the next communication God has with us is Jesus' second coming, how is it explained that Jesus talked to John Smith and gave him additional books to the Bible?

ST: Why does the Catholic church allow worshipping to Mary? Nowhere in the Bible does it say you can do that, and she is definitely not a member of the trinity. Worshipping Mary, it appears to me, is blasphemy.

DA: To you, I would say, give Christianity a chance. Read the Gospels, maybe a book like Mere Christianity by CS Lewis, etc. Then weigh the evidence. If you believe, thats great, if not, so be it. God does not reveal himself to us in the manner you expect: in the current day he no longer performs outright miracles, like changing the sky to green. To add another point, God does not always answer our prayers with a yes. Sometimes he says no or that he'll do it later.

I hope I addressed enough. It is hard to pay attention and work at the same time.

[Anonymous]

Wow.. because the catholic church says so. Should they bring back the Spanish Inquisitions and silence those of us who speak out? That organization has hindered science and mankind long enough. I'm just glad the pope has lost the majority of the power they once had.

1) The pope has never had as much power as he now has. Your view of power shows a pretty superficial understanding of the role of the pontiff.

2) Spanish Inquisition? What does that have to do with the price of tea in China. I didn't say that all Catholics and all Catholic Clergy were perfect, or didn't make mistakes--I said that they tended to be right in instances where I had once disagreed with them.

3) I am curious how the Catholic Church has "hindererd mankind". I am curious also if you can mention something specific to Catholicism--rather than the something like the Inquisition which was an example of the barbarous past we ALL share--for example, John Calvin and the protestants put adultresses to death in Geneva...and that was after the Inquisition. If we want to turn this thread into a litany of the wrongs committed by Churches, and in the name of religion, I am happy to do that, but that's not germane to this issue at hand.



<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: Shekky Tree on 2001-12-27 14:26 ]</font>

[Zee]

On 2001-12-27 13:54, The Drunken Actuary wrote:
You have a relative who was in the Bataan death march (wasn't that in the phillipines?) AND was a holocaust survivor?


Duh. Clearly you are correct. I will edit to "a" death march. He thought he was probably in Austria.

[M.]

Because you have a will, you can overcome your basic human nature. You can direct your thoughts and actions and reject your impulses. It is sin when we do not act to stop the negative impulses, or when we fail to do that which we know we ought.

As for the brain damage issue, I agree with whoever said earlier that THE JUDGE will be the one to decide. I believe His judgment is perfect, or as close as possible.

As for eternal judgment, isn't another reasonable interpretation "permanent" judgment? Some biblical text says that those who do not make it into heaven will be consumed by fire. So perhaps they're just burned up, and don't suffer for eternity. They're just gone.

I still say that Nature's controls are evidence of a creator, or great architect. I don't understand why natural selection would ever create such controls. Wouldn't all species just turn out like bacteria, and multiply as much as possible?

Also, why would creatures develop who had emotion? Wouldn't it be more efficient to have only creatures with none?

[Anonymous]

DA.

Appreciating a beautiful woman and lusting are two different things. Kinda like disliking someone and harboring a desire to kill them are different things.

I would submit that there is much in our nature that would lead us to do objectively wrong things. I have been angry enough to hit people...maybe angry enough to kill them. That was a basic, instinctual reaction to the situations I was in. Submitting to those urges would not be good.


As for porn, that more clearl illustrates what is wrong with lust. By buying porn, you are creating a demand for a product that can be very detrimental for the participants. How many times have you seen a condom used in a porn? That is life threatening behavior that you subsidize by buying porn. I think the basic point is that if X is wrong, then encouraging someone to do X (for your viewing pleasure for example) is likely wrong, too.

Again, I would agree that it is part of our nature, but I don't think that means that it is a good idea to give into it. THere are things in our nature that result in harm to ourselves and others is given in to.

[Anonymous]

Just my opinion Drunken, but I believe that under your current belief system, you're going to get a good helping of Hell & Satan once you pass on. You may not like what I'm saying, but it's simply my opinion that you either believe in God and get the full reward or get the other alternative. You are entitled to your opinion & I am not arrogant enough to insist that you should conform to anyone else's beliefs. Blast away if you feel moved to do so.

[axjoke]

ST..

Wonder how safe it is for the africans digging in the diamond mines?.. Yet i suppose you have or plan to at some time in your life to purchase a diamond. I'm not saying porn is moral nor am i saying that its not. But i don't think the use or lack there of of condoms should be a basis for making it right or wrong.

As for the "hindrence" stuff i look it up tonight, so as not to post false stuff. I'm sure there are good web sites out there. Off the top of my head didn't the catholic church stop Galleio from publishing his research initially?

[Flora]

Catholics do not worship Mary. Mary is asked to interceded on our behalf.

"Holy Mary, Mother of God, pray for us sinners..."

I have also asked friends to pray for me, or for another in a time of great need.


That's about all I have time for right now - I am sure one of the more educated Catholics can do a better job with this than I can.

[The Drunken Actuary]

I don't watch porn so I;m not sure if you meant condoms are used or aren't. Anyway, it is only your opinion that porn is bad. if people enjoy it and it doesn't cause anyone 'harm' to anyone, maybe it's ok.

Lee, I was waiting for someone to point out that god does not perform miricles today like he used to. Is there anywhere in the Bible where he says, "ok guys, this is my last miracle, I'm done with them, at least for a few thousand years."?

As far as cells 'figuring out how to reproduce' perhaps its a naturally occurring result of the structure of the universe? Like electrons and protons 'figuring out' how to make atoms. And perhaps if it were not a natural result, we wouldn't be here to question it in the first place.

I mean, nobody wonders how things figured out how to fall down and not up because they accept gravity as part of the way the world works. WHy can't life be the same? It seems just as likely or unlikley to me that friction, fusion, fission, gravity, light, heat, boyle's law, charles law, or any number of natural phenomona occur as it does that life exists. Maybe it's just part of the package.

[Goldfish]

Lee: Mary is very important to Catholics, and we often ask her to pray for us (which is what Flora means by "intercede"), but we do not believe she is a divinity.

[Anonymous]

Wonder how safe it is for the africans digging in the diamond mines?.. Yet i suppose you have or plan to at some time in your life to purchase a diamond. I'm not saying porn is moral nor am i saying that its not. But i don't think the use or lack there of of condoms should be a basis for making it right or wrong.

I was laying out a logical basis for considering lust wrong, to offer to DA the possibility that one could rationally come up with that. So you are pursuing me off into a tangent. What you are saying doesn't change the validity of what I am saying, so I am not going to debate the issue, apart from to say that your analogy isn't good, IMO. If you want, we can haggle the point elsewhere.

As for the "hindrence" stuff i look it up tonight, so as not to post false stuff. I'm sure there are good web sites out there. Off the top of my head didn't the catholic church stop Galleio from publishing his research initially?

I believe they made him recant originally. In the 1600s. I am pretty sure they changed their position on this. Again...I am not saying they are perfect. I am saying that they know more than I do. Given that Galileo's works are now, and have been for awhile, public knowledge, I'd say that this hindrance wasn't all that bad. I think the Church was in the wrong on this, but I don't see how it constitutes an onerous hindrance to mankind.

[The Drunken Actuary]

On 2001-12-27 14:19, CAS Space Lobster wrote:
Just my opinion Drunken, but I believe that under your current belief system, you're going to get a good helping of Hell & Satan once you pass on. You may not like what I'm saying, but it's simply my opinion that you either believe in God and get the full reward or get the other alternative. You are entitled to your opinion & I am not arrogant enough to insist that you should conform to anyone else's beliefs. Blast away if you feel moved to do so.


Thanks for your honesty. If I die today do I go to hell? But if I repent and change my ways tomorrow and then die I'm saved? So it really just depends on when I die as opposed to what type of person I am. Loving father, husband and son. Most people describe me as a nice guy. I mean when the clerk gives me too much change back, I tell her and return it. I am about as moral as anyone. Yet because I find no reason to believe in your god, you think I will suffer eternally. Nice belief system you have, where do I sign up.

<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: The Drunken Actuary on 2001-12-27 14:38 ]</font>

[axjoke]

ST..

That was one example. I'm certain i'll find more upon looking. How can you brush away the past actions of the Catholic Church? How does their past support of the Inquisitions not invalidate their current views that birth control is wrong "i think they still share this view", or any other standards they feel necessary to set? There is little reason to think the past or current popes were any more enlightend than your or I.

[RedSoxFan]

Flora & OW: That sounds perfectly fine to me. Though, I think there are people out there who pray to Mary, and ask her for salvation. I remember seeing that on a 20/20 type TV show. I thought I had heard that the Catholic church was beginning to allow that. But if all it is is asking Mary to pray for us, then it seems fine. I do have an issue with Mary being sinless. Only Jesus was sinless. Otherwise, Mary would be divine also.

DA: The last major miracles were performed by Jesus. I don't know of any of these performed after this time. Jesus was a transition to a new way of doing things.. i.e. believing in him for salvation rather than following a bunch of laws. It makes sense that they would be discontinued during a transition such as this. Next, it seems to me that gravity, friction, etc. are natural laws of the earth. There is no natural law that says "cells will learn how to evolve". Lastly, God & Jesus make it clear in the Bible you must believe to be saved. We would like to think that the nicest, most moral people would always get in. But it is made too clear in the Bible to expect those who do not believe will get in to heaven.

[M.]

A question that keeps coming up here is one that plagues many Christians: How can a kind and loving God allow bad things to happen to good people?

So far, the answer has mainly been: because it would make faith too easy for unbelievers. That is an unsatisfactory answer to DA, and was for me when I was searching.

I think one thing important to remember is that God probably has a very different perspective. He can allow terrible misery because he knows that the deserving will be in heaven for eternity, which makes our time on this earth look very short by comparison.

So why would God make faith a requirement for entry? Again, I get back to the whole pride issue. God wants us to accept Him as our sovereign. With God not showing Himself, it requires a step of humility to accept Him and to have faith. To the humble, He gives faith.

Unfortunately, many who call themselves Christians are very prideful and do a lot of stupid, arrogant things which cause Christianity to lose credibility. Telling DA he's going to hell to stay with Satan until the end of time probably doesn't help Christians look too good.

My belief system is still consistent with a kind and loving God because I believe He will admit some who did not have faith during life. There is scripture which states that those who had not been exposed to the Good News will be judged separately, based on their actions. So the whole system is still fair.

[loose nugget]

Name any group, organization, country, government, etc. that has not had someone or group of people who behaved wrongly somewhere in the past. If you use the past wrong doings of people as a way to disprove something, nothing will be left.

The Catholic and other churches have admited doing wrong actions and have even come out and apologized. But this does not mean the foundation of their beliefs is wrong.

[axjoke]

Not sure under what circumstance the church admitted or apologized. Did they really have any other choice? I agree all organizations that last any period of time will have some less than desirable actions occur. But these were in line with the actions of Hitler... and i need not an organization like that telling me what is right and wrong. I am not sure how anybody could say it hasn't in the past and isn't still today hindering the progress of science.

[The Drunken Actuary]

M: that actually makes some sense to me. Thanks.

Lee,
How do you know there is no natural law that says 'under certain conditions, cells "learn" to evolve'? Maybe there is such a law and that is why life exists on earth and nowhere else, because earth is the only place (as far as we know) where the conditions are right for life to exisit. If those conditions didn't exist, you would not be here to question it.

As far as having to believe in your god to get into heaven, if that's true that is a rather unfortunate circumstance for many people.

I mean you are so arrogant as to tell Catholics, the original church of jesus, that they cannot pray to Mary. WHy not? I was always taught that she was sinless and that is why she was chosen to be jesus's mom in the first place.

Oh and by the way, as far as the answer being no to your prayers, that is fine, but it seems to be that there is no answer. I mean if there was a booming "NO" coming from the sky I could see it, but in fact, in the days when I did pray the answer was never yes or no, there just ws no answer.

edit - I did not mean for this post to sound so rude, so please do not take it that way. I am ejoying our conversation.

<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: The Drunken Actuary on 2001-12-27 15:22 ]</font>

[Flora]

Mary was not chosen to be Jesus's mother because she was sinless, but rather she was born without sin so that she could be Jesus's mother. I think. Again, uneducated me, but that's what I think it was...

[Anonymous]

On 2001-12-27 14:38, The Drunken Actuary wrote:

Thanks for your honesty. If I die today do I go to hell? But if I repent and change my ways tomorrow and then die I'm saved? So it really just depends on when I die as opposed to what type of person I am. Loving father, husband and son. Most people describe me as a nice guy. I mean when the clerk gives me too much change back, I tell her and return it. I am about as moral as anyone. Yet because I find no reason to believe in your god, you think I will suffer eternally. Nice belief system you have, where do I sign up.


Nice actions may make you feel better, but I believe those are not enough on their own to get you to Heaven. The funny part of your argument is that once people are saved, they are "moral" & "nice". Repenting will get you into Heaven because you have to believe in God to repent.

Why do you worry about my idea of your eternal d*mnation since you don't believe in God? My system is based on that basic belief, so I don't see why you worry about it. The only thing that matters with relation to your time of death is whether or not you have been saved. The rules of the game I follow are laid out by God, so you don't have to follow the rules since you don't believe in Him. Just don't expect the rewards.

Once again, these are my opinions which I am entitled to just as you are to yours. Keep attacking me as you wish, but my viewpoint is still that you would wind up in hell if you died today.

[RedSoxFan]

DA, there could be such a "law", but the nature of it is much different than the laws of gravity and friction, etc. And, humans haven't discovered it. So you have to believe in it, much like I believe God did it all.

I'm not trying to be arrogant, I'm just discussing an issue. Through my personal inspection of the Bible, I have not seen anywhere were praying to Mary is supported. Furthermore, she is not part of the trinity, and the Bible says Jesus is the only way man can be saved. So praying to someone, like Mary, who is not God (God, Jesus, or the Holy Spirit) seems, to me, to be contrary to the Bible's teaching, and thus, blasphemous.

If you pray for a million dollars, God won't give it to you. No matter how much you pray. He won't allow his power to be tested in that way. If you pray for things like more courage, or better concentration in studying, he may grant that. If you pray your relative is cured from cancer, he may or may not. He may decide it is that person's time to die. And so on.

There has to be a rule to get into heaven. Because if it is done just on works, there's going to be a poor guy right on the dividing line, and back when he was 8 if he had just helped an old lady across the street instead of being late to the neighborhood game of tag, he would have enough points to get into heaven. The rule that God uses is a belief in Jesus. It's that simple. Those who don't believe, but are good people, yes, it is unfortunate. But they had the opportunity to believe while they were alive.

[The Drunken Actuary]

Flora,
Yeah that makes more sense. Seems like that would be someone worhty of praying to. But actually, I don;t know why you bother to pray at all, for as Lee has pointed out, god is finished with meddling on earth.

Lobster,
I don't 'worry' about what you think. I obviously do not believe that I will be eternally d*mned because I have not followed the rules of the obscure religion that you follow. I was not attacking you, I was merely trying to make you see the 'unfairness' of these rules. If it makes you feel better that billions of good people are going to hell, go for it. I can think of nothing more unjust.

I also never said that you were not entitled to your opinions. If I'm not mistaken, I asked you for them.

<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: The Drunken Actuary on 2001-12-27 15:42 ]</font>

[Flora]

I don't agree that God is done "meddling on earth."

We may not see a modern day parting of the Red Sea, but God does perform small miracles. And even when he is not performing miracles, he may be helping people gain the strength they need to deal with what they are facing in life, such as my friend.

[Anonymous]

DA, I see no unfairness in the rules. As Mr. Greenwood stated, the only requirement is to believe in Jesus as the Son of God. Nothing more complicated than that. You have your opportunity to do that now. The choice to act is yours alone.

You stated that you do not believe that you will be d*mned. Where do you think your soul will end up when you die?

[The Drunken Actuary]

Well, I do not know if he is done either but Lee seemed to think so. You have to admit that the big stuff has subsided considerably.

[The Drunken Actuary]

Lobster,
a. define soul
b. those rules are unfair for a variety of reasons, not the least of which is that many people on earth have never even heard of your god.
c. As I have said many times, I cannot simply choose to believe that which I do not believe. Could you believe in the wizard of oz if I told you it would save your soul? The challenge to me to believe in your god is the same as it would be for you to believe in WoO.

[RedSoxFan]

DA, I never said that God is done with meddling on earth. People don't like being misquoted or misinterpreted. As Flora put it, he is still with us and still performing more minor miracles.

Flora, could you provide me with a Bible verse that implies that Mary was born without sin? thanks..

[axjoke]

Lee

How is judging people on their beliefs instead of their actions just? Is it not more noble for a non-believer to not steal because they think its wrong than for a christian to not steal because they fear hell? Its like ones character..its what one does when nobody is around, when there is no chance of being caught.

Salvation based on belief can be equated to the lottory.

[RedSoxFan]

I will attempt to help Lobster..
a) the soul is what makes people different than other animals. it is the part of us that lives on in heaven when we die.
b) many people believe the Bible implies that those who do not have the opportunity to believe due to not being exposed to the Bible are considered separately. On a slightly related matter, I believe all humans who die before reaching a mature cognitive state where they can be held responsible for their beliefs get into heaven automatically, because they can't sufficiently decide for themselves whether to believe. This includes children and those of limited mental capacity.
c) If you presented me with circumstantial evidence, such as accounts by independent witnesses, and other testimony, etc. testifying that the W of Oz should be worshipped, I will consider it, and if I am convinced, then I will believe in him. For the sake of giving that which you are arguing against a fair shake, I'd encourage you to do the opposite, to listen to testimony about Christ, then make a decision whether to believe or not.

[RedSoxFan]

axjoke: one's actions will follow one's beliefs. if one really believes in Christ, his actions will represent that. Regardless of how noble something is, God has presented the rule that one must believe to get into heaven. Whether you consider that just or not, I can't help it. But that is what God has established.

[Anonymous]

On 2001-12-27 16:00, The Drunken Actuary wrote:
Lobster,
a. define soul
b. those rules are unfair for a variety of reasons, not the least of which is that many people on earth have never even heard of your god.
c. As I have said many times, I cannot simply choose to believe that which I do not believe. Could you believe in the wizard of oz if I told you it would save your soul? The challenge to me to believe in your god is the same as it would be for you to believe in WoO.


a. Soul - the part of you that will burn in hell.

b. Most of the people you speak of have their own idea of God & the afterlife. If they continue down their roads & end up in the wrong, looks like they're with you in the SOL pile.

c. This point is so stupid - I already believe in the Wizard of Oz. I play bridge every Thursday night with the Wizard, Santa Claus & the Easter Bunny. The Tooth Fairy usually fills in when one of us can't make it.

[axjoke]

I'm curious what probability does ones mind have to put on something before they can honestly believe it to be true? I've always been under the thought process that given XXXXX number of possible scenarios you by definition believe the one that you allot the highest probability, either subconsciously or unconsciously, of being correct. Does this seem reasonable? I'm just curious because most people I’ve discussed this with disagree.

Wouldn't it be a lie if you thought that there was a 95% chance that evolution was right and only 5% chance that genesis is correct, yet you state to believe in genesis. Also couldn't you only be 51% convinced that god is real but still honestly say you are a believer?

[The Drunken Actuary]

On 2001-12-27 16:09, LeeGreenwoodIsCool wrote:
I will attempt to help Lobster..
a) the soul is what makes people different than other animals. it is the part of us that lives on in heaven when we die.
b) many people believe the Bible implies that those who do not have the opportunity to believe due to not being exposed to the Bible are considered separately. On a slightly related matter, I believe all humans who die before reaching a mature cognitive state where they can be held responsible for their beliefs get into heaven automatically, because they can't sufficiently decide for themselves whether to believe. This includes children and those of limited mental capacity.
c) If you presented me with circumstantial evidence, such as accounts by independent witnesses, and other testimony, etc. testifying that the W of Oz should be worshipped, I will consider it, and if I am convinced, then I will believe in him. For the sake of giving that which you are arguing against a fair shake, I'd encourage you to do the opposite, to listen to testimony about Christ, then make a decision whether to believe or not.

You are right, I misrepresented what you said. You said major miricles. I guess little ones can still happen. OK, as for (b) I'm not sure its relevent what many people believe, what does god say on the subject?

As for (a) does that mean the soul does not go to hell as Lobster seems to think? Where is this part located now?

[The Drunken Actuary]

On 2001-12-27 16:15, axjoke wrote:
I'm curious what probability does ones mind have to put on something before they can honestly believe it to be true? I've always been under the thought process that given XXXXX number of possible scenarios you by definition believe the one that you allot the highest probability, either subconsciously or unconsciously, of being correct. Does this seem reasonable? I'm just curious because most people I’ve discussed this with disagree.

Wouldn't it be a lie if you thought that there was a 95% chance that evolution was right and only 5% chance that genesis is correct, yet you state to believe in genesis. Also couldn't you only be 51% convinced that god is real but still honestly say you are a believer?


How do you quantify that in the first place?

[Goldfish]

The Immaculate Conception and the Assumption of Mary are doctrines that the Church accepts on tradition. Some tenets of the Catholic faith come from scripture, and some from tradition. "Scripture" is the Bible as assembled by the Catholic Church centuries ago. "Tradition" includes the magisterium's (i.e. the Church hierarchy's) interpretations of Christ's life after the New Testament was written. Other examples of teachings coming from tradition are purgatory, the Mass, and the saints as "good role models who are in heaven".

You will notice that unlike most (if not all, I'm no expert) Protestant denominations which look exclusively to the Bible as a resource for guidance in issues of faith, the Catholic Church also draws on the experiences of its own past and present. Not to get into which is right/wrong, but I thought I would point out the distinction.

[axjoke]

On 2001-12-27 16:09, LeeGreenwoodIsCool wrote:
c) If you presented me with circumstantial evidence, such as accounts by independent witnesses, and other testimony, etc. testifying that the W of Oz should be worshipped, I will consider it, and if I am convinced, then I will believe in him. For the sake of giving that which you are arguing against a fair shake, I'd encourage you to do the opposite, to listen to testimony about Christ, then make a decision whether to believe or not.


Did you just say "if i'm convinced"? I think that DA and I have brought that up on multiple occasions simply to be ignored. It seems you finally came around that one doesn't choose their beliefs.. they are convinced and hence belief is a an outcome, not a choice.

Out of curiosity does the soul mature too? Start out young an naive and then gain knowledge? Does the soul stay the same regardless of the ones body? Aka.. say a believer is hit in the head and their personality is dramatically changed, are they judged based on their previous personality or their new one? Also how is it fair to judge souls when they are clearly controlled by their physical body? It would be like trying to test ones math ability by sticking them under water and seeing how high they can count before they drown. Its just not logical.

[axjoke]

DA

I didn't really mean that you quantify everything.. generally it would just be a crude hunch of what is more probable. I was just getting at can you believe something even though you think another contradictory scenario is more probable?

[Anonymous]

ax, maybe you & DA can play games together to pass the time in hell. Ping-pong would be fun if not for the ball melting all the time. Maybe you can play Fireball instead.

[Anonymous]

DA: The last major miracles were performed by Jesus. I don't know of any of these performed after this time. Jesus was a transition to a new way of doing things

In response to Lee's quote above....the Acts of the Apostles doesn't appear in your Bible, does it?

[The Drunken Actuary]

axjoke,
thank you for pointing out the 'if i'm convinced' I have been trying to drive that point home and you are the ONLY one who even acknowledges its validity. Thank you.

Also, as far as your question about the soul, if you look a few pages back I brought up the same question (ie brain damage that changes one's personality from good to evil, etc.) and it was mostly ignored. I tried to bring it up again but no one bit. The only answer I did get was 'only god can judge' which is unsatiusfactory to say the least. But i think it is a VERY important issue because it gets to the heart of what good and evil are in my opinion.

[RedSoxFan]

If one's soul does not go to heaven, then yes, it goes to hell.

I just said "am convinced" but maybe I should have put, "if after considering the evidence, I choose to believe". I know we have discussed this choice thing but maybe we should put it to rest. I don't think we'll ever agree.

The (b) issue: I have not spent very much time on this subject. So, I can't point to any specific Bible issues. I apologize for that. Hopefully someone can help me here.

OW, Flora, et.al.: The first thing I think of when I hear the claim that Mary was born free of sin, is that, her Mom was sinful, right? Furthermore, I would like to be pointed to a verse in the Bible that says anything regarding Mary and sin. All it seems to me is that Mary was chosen to deliver Christ, and thats it. She was given no special amount of holiness or worshipness. I guess if I was Catholic I'd have issues with Mary given special properties when it isn't in the Bible and the only basis is tradition.

I am not an expert in souls either, so I don't know if they mature or how they grow.

ST: You bring up a good point. I even led a Bible study on Acts. So it is apparent major miracles did continue for a short time after Jesus departed. But I think we can all agree that they no longer happen today.

[RedSoxFan]

DA, could you repost your brain damage thing? I barely have enough time due to work, etc. to post here. thanks...

[axjoke]

All those who think the major miracles occurred not, only in the past but also only in the heads of Paul, Luke, Mark and Mathew say I! .. I!!!!! :wink:

<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: axjoke on 2001-12-27 17:00 ]</font>

[The Drunken Actuary]

On 2001-12-26 13:19, The Drunken Actuary wrote:

On 2001-12-26 13:15, Holton wrote:
M,

Don't worry. Though you are correct that God knows the one correct religion, the billion of others are not "screwed". At some point in their life or after-life they will be presented with THE TRUTH and may or may not accept it. That's not to say eat, drink, and be merry in this life and rely on your later opportunities. Because you will possess the same spirit or personality at that time as you do on this earth.


Holton, that brings up a good point. What if someone is in a brain damaging accident and because of certain neurological probelms in his head, he becomes a ruthless murderer, whereas before the accident he was a rightous soul. Which personality will persist in the afterlife. Or conversly, what if someone is born with a chemical imbalance in their brain that causes them to kill, but doctors are able to treat him and he becomes a nice guy. Again, how will god judge this person in the afterlife?


Lee, here it is.

[The Drunken Actuary]

On 2001-12-27 16:58, axjoke wrote:
All those who think the major miracles occurred not, only in the past but also only in the heads of Paul, Luke, Mark and Mathew say I! .. I!!!!! :wink:

<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: axjoke on 2001-12-27 17:00 ]</font>

You assume there was a Mathew Mark Luke and John. But I say I anyway.

[Mulan]

I!

[M.]

I saw a very interesting documentary around Easter on the Shroud of Turin. For years, I thought it was a complete hoax, one of the many so-called "relics." I had previously heard that carbon-dating placed it around 1200 A.D., not 30 A.D., so it had to be fabricated by clery who were trying to recruit believers.

However, these same carbon dating methods used on fabrics from the tombs of Egypt showed them as being many hundreds of years "younger" than all other articles buried with the Pharaohs who wore them. Apparently, some natural process affects the normal carbon decay process in fabrics, so a correction has to be applied. Using the correction suggested by the tombs puts the Shroud right around the age of Christ's death.

What was even more interesting was evidence that the image in the Shroud could never have been painted, probably not even with current technology. Also, some scientists said that the way the image was burned on suggests a large, sudden radiation blast occurred directly behind the Shroud, shortly after the time of the Shroud's creation.

So, yes, there may actually be scientific evidence of a miracle, and a pretty major one at that.

Minor editing for clarification.

<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: M on 2001-12-27 17:58 ]</font>

<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: M on 2001-12-27 17:59 ]</font>

[M.]

For more on the evidence for and against the legitimacy of the Shroud, you may want to view this link: http://www.duke.edu/~adw2/shroud/

[Skippy]

On 2001-12-27 15:01, LeeGreenwoodIsCool wrote:
...it seems to me that gravity, friction, etc. are natural laws of the earth. There is no natural law that says "cells will learn how to evolve"...


I think you have a misunderstanding on the nature of evolution. Cells don't "learn" to evolve. Certain characteristics in a population will be more suited to survival in the environment and so these characteristics will become more prevalent in future generations. Existing characteristics can also be supplemented by random mutations which, in some instances, convey a survival advantage.

With respect to the natural laws, cells and the constituent proteins that make up cells, are subject to these other laws - gravity, electro-magnetism, etc. Just as the shape of a particular circuit board in a computer makes it perform a certain task, the shape of a protein, in combination with these "natural laws" makes it perform a certain task.

[The Mad Hatter]

Shroud of Turin M? Good Grief! I suppose you believe they found Noah's Ark too?

For a different view:

http://www.americanhumanist.org/skeptical/shroud.html

[Dr T Non-Fan]

Simple answer: yes, there are people in here that really believe in God.

[Zee]

Does anyone else think that the level of respect displayed toward the views of DA, axjoke, and Hatter has been, apart from CAS Space Lobster, quite high, in particular when compared to the level displayed by them?

Hatter, so what if M believes the shroud is real? He believes the evidence in support of it is real, with his belief probably already biased by his desire to believe. You are the opposite case. Good for both of you! Even though I tend to not believe in the authenticity of the shroud (or existence of the ark), I have no way to conclusively proove my beliefs. So aren't M and company entitled to some respect even if they don't agree with you? And wrt the topic at hand, all believers are not heathens or dumb mooks just because they don't follow your "stringent laws of logic". The arrogance of that kind of attitude is stunning.

[Weatherman]

On 2001-12-27 18:56, Zee wrote:
And wrt the topic at hand, all believers are not heathens or dumb mooks just because they don't follow your "stringent laws of logic". The arrogance of that kind of attitude is stunning.


If they don't use logic, they're irrational. How is that arrogant or stunning?

Belief in God isn't necessarily illogical. Dismissing evolution probably is.

[G. Ringo]

The problem is that respect for creationists is a big money issue. If creationists are worthy of respect, then they are worthy of equal rights under the First Amendment, which would preclude state sponsorship of schools that teach evolution as fact. The First Amendment does not distinguish between right and wrong speech or between right and wrong religion. The only argument against First Amendment rights is a charge of incompetence.

[The Drunken Actuary]

Zee: I think the level of respect has been pretty much equal on both sides. There are of course exceptions.

Dr T: Tnanks for chiming in on the 8th page of this thread. And with such insight, I hadn't yet realized that there were people here who believe in god (Zee, please allow me this bit of rudeness, besides you can't tell which side DrT is on anyway so he doesn't count)

Grub: Evolution is taught as fact because it is fact and has been proven and observed. We HAVE observed animals evolve. The example I cited earlier was bacteria that have evolved resisitance to antibiotics. There are other examples. Evolution occurs. To deny this shows a lack of understanding of what evolution is. Secondly and more importantly to this discussion, it is a SCIENTIFIC THEORY on the origins of man, and is usually taught that way. It is the only scientific theory on that subject.

Creationism should not be taught in a science class because it is not a scientific theory. It is a religious account not based on science. That does not mean it should not be taught in a history class or religious studies class.

[Andy Lang]

Creationism has already been snuck into PA schools--thanks to a Bob Jones rep here in PA with some stealth legislation.

A poll of biology teachers here in PA said that 40% believe we should teach it side by side with evolution--so we are.

Hey--Kansas--we gotcha--yeadi yeadi yeah!

PA is Philadelphia and Pittsberg and Alabama in between--except that Pittsberg is controlled by some Alabamans like Richard Mellon Scaiffe.

Actually, RMS has his executive office in Greensberg, which is next to Latrobe which is where St Vincent's College is--which is where I went to School, which is where three right-wing foundations, inlcuding RMS's Sarah Scaife Foundation, just set up a right-wing chair to indoctinate young kids in the fine art of being right-wing..

Am going to send the school a letter mentioning this with copies to the national press, random students, Us News and World Report, and of course Alumni.

Always did believe in transparency and accountability and democracy--how about you?

The Catholic Church never did and neither do conservatives or nice folks like RM Scaiffe.

[Dr T Non-Fan]

Hey, I had to do some research first before responding!

And, I'm not Dr T. Far from it, I'm a non-fan of her. Just write DTNF, if you have to abbrev.

<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: Dr T Non-Fan on 2001-12-27 20:59 ]</font>

[The Drunken Actuary]

Oh I get it, non fan of Dr T. What did she do to you?

<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: The Drunken Actuary on 2001-12-27 21:06 ]</font>

[Dr T Non-Fan]

There are plenty of threads that detail this.
It's the most polite name I could think of at the time.
It's a semi-friendly rivalry that will cease to exist once my only demand is met.

Now back to the topic: yes, there really are people here who believe in God. I think people are trying to be insightful. That's my only comment.

<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: Dr T Non-Fan on 2001-12-27 21:13 ]</font>

[The Drunken Actuary]

Well, unfortunately you don't offer much. What do you believe?

[The Drunken Actuary]

Wow, good one. Why waste your rapier-like wit here when there's elementary school children all over the country that would laugh out loud at your comic genius.

[The Mister]

On 2001-12-27 20:53, Andy Lang wrote:
[I] always did believe in transparency and accountability and democracy--how about you?

The Catholic Church never did and neither do conservatives or nice folks like RM Scaiffe.<font size=2>Hey A**y...

I am a conservative, and I believe in all three of those things.

Just so you know...

[RedSoxFan]

thanks, DA. In the first case, what we have is someone who committed great sin (murder) with no subsequent repentance. Regardless of any religious views prior to the murders, this person will not go to heaven. In the second case, we do have repentance, so he will get in. Regardless of how many sins you commit, or how bad they are, you can always be forgiven by Christ. But you must ask for that, and you must believe in him. I'm sure it happens many times where a murderer becomes a Christian in jail. Yes, he will go to heaven.

I also wanted to address evolution in this post. Yes, fruit flies and bacteria have evolved. I think that's great, and have no problem in that. But just because that happens doesn't mean that a single cell developed from no life, and then "evolved" into a human. So yes, evolution has been observed and proven, but nobody can prove humans developed from a single cell. There are only theories on that.


On 2001-12-27 17:07, The Drunken Actuary wrote:

On 2001-12-26 13:19, The Drunken Actuary wrote:

On 2001-12-26 13:15, Holton wrote:
M,

Don't worry. Though you are correct that God knows the one correct religion, the billion of others are not "screwed". At some point in their life or after-life they will be presented with THE TRUTH and may or may not accept it. That's not to say eat, drink, and be merry in this life and rely on your later opportunities. Because you will possess the same spirit or personality at that time as you do on this earth.


Holton, that brings up a good point. What if someone is in a brain damaging accident and because of certain neurological probelms in his head, he becomes a ruthless murderer, whereas before the accident he was a rightous soul. Which personality will persist in the afterlife. Or conversly, what if someone is born with a chemical imbalance in their brain that causes them to kill, but doctors are able to treat him and he becomes a nice guy. Again, how will god judge this person in the afterlife?


Lee, here it is.

[Anonymous]

Anybody heard from Drunkboy today? I hope he didn't die last night, cause he'd be burning today.

[The Drunken Actuary]

Lee, as far as what you said about evolution I agree 100%. I guess the only place we differ is that I can 'buy' one celled organisms evolving into humans over billions of years and I cannot 'buy' the biblical story of creation. You are the reverse. I guess we'll just have to agree to disagree.

To you first point, about the first person not getting into heaven: Someone said that you have the same personality/soul in heaven that you do on earth. Well on earth, this person had two distinct personalities. Did he have two souls?

[RedSoxFan]

DA: I would say he had one soul, which was perfectly fine before the accident, but definitely soured as he committed the murders. So he would have one soul, and his "personality" would be that of the murderer as he rests in hell.

[The Drunken Actuary]

OK, I can see that you are not as intrigued by this issue as I am so I will drop it. Thanks for your opinion.

[Hagbard Celine]

CAS Space Lobster,

Aren't you supposed to leave the judging to God?

Anybody heard from Drunkboy today? I hope he didn't die last night, cause he'd be burning today.


<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: Hagbard Celine on 2001-12-28 09:18 ]</font>

[Andy Lang]

Just so you guys know, scientists have already created life in a petrie dish--primitive but life nontheless.

And lest we forget, a significant number of scientists now believe that life is being created every day by those ocean vents.

Hey, don't any of you read Science Magazine regularly?

[The Drunken Actuary]

Hey Andy, why do you post this in the axjoke thread where it is actually the topic that is being discussed. But back it up with a website or the name of a scientist who has done this or something. Thanks.

[Anonymous]

[The Drunken Actuary]

On 2001-12-28 10:03, DNFTT wrote:




Sorry, I forgot. Thanks for reminding me.

[loose nugget]

http://www.id.ucsb.edu/fscf/READING/BeDBB.html


For those of you who just accept evolution as fact this is a good book. It might not make you believe in creationism, but it does show some of the major flaws in evolution.

[Anonymous]

On 2001-12-28 09:16, Hagbard Celine wrote:
CAS Space Lobster,

Aren't you supposed to leave the judging to God?



Christianity teaches that you must accept Christ to get to Heaven. Drunken A has stated that he does not believe in God & therefore does not believe in Jesus. Seems pretty simple that he's going to Hell unless he changes his mind.

Lobster enjoys bashing folks like Drunkboy & baiting them into confrontational posting. Sounds like you may have gotten snared on the hook as well Hagbard.

[The Drunken Actuary]

Who is Mr. Greenwood?

[axjoke]

DA..

This Atheist organization you mentioned.. would i get a discount on the darwin fish if i joined?

Actually do you have a link for it? I might be interested in joining..

[Hagbard Celine]

On 2001-12-28 10:48, CAS Space Lobster wrote:
[quote]
Lobster enjoys bashing folks like Drunkboy & baiting them into confrontational posting. Sounds like you may have gotten snared on the hook as well Hagbard.


Perhaps I did. It just annoys me when a debate over religion disintegrates into a puerile exercise of name-calling.

"You're wasting your life"
"Well you're gonna burn in Hell"

Surely everyone here is above this?

[The Drunken Actuary]

Hagbard,
do not feed the trolls.

axjoke,
I don;t remember mentioning it in this thread, but a college friend of mine is a state director. Here is their website:
http://www.atheists.org/
It's the biggest atheist organization in the US, started by Madalyn Murray Ohare who was primarily responsible for getting prayer out of school in the 60's. I myself am not a member but if you really are interested send me a private message and I can get you in touch with my friend.

[Anonymous]

Lobster feeling good after getting fed by Hagbard. Breakfast taken care of. Will Hag also provide lunch?

[M.]

We seem to be forgetting there is a third entry in the contest between evolution and creation: theistic evolution. This is what I've been promoting all along, and a few others' comments seem to suggest they believe the same. Basically, we believe that evolution did occur, but was only so well-organized due to the work of an intelligent designer.


Edited for grammar.

<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: M on 2001-12-28 11:57 ]</font>

[The Mad Hatter]

M,

I wish to apologize for my earlier crack about the Ark. I think a frank discussion allows for criticism of other people's beliefs and even ridicule of those beliefs; but I do not think it useful to ridicule people for holding those beliefs. Clearly you belief is sincere and my reaction was knee-jerk.

[M.]

I appreciate the apology, Hatter. No problem.

Actually, you kind of helped make my point about why becoming Christian requires one to swallow their pride.

[Dr T Non-Fan]

DA, I'm glad I can bother you with my most honest and factual answers.
Perhaps a more insightful question is in order, if you don't my saying so, sir?
As for your last question: NOYB, courteously.

[The Drunken Actuary]

Theistic Evolution is an interesting compromise, unfortunately it is not consistent with the teachings of Christianity or the Bible. It seems to me that if you reject the genesis story of creation in favor of theistic evolution, you can arbitrarily reject any other part of the bible in favor of something you like better. M, I do not know if you call yourslef a Christian (or muslim etc) but I would be interested in hearing from people that call themselves christian yet subscribe to theistic evolution. It seems to me that the bible was meant to be taken as an all or nothing thing.

[The Drunken Actuary]

On 2001-12-28 12:55, Dr T Non-Fan wrote:
DA, I'm glad I can bother you with my most honest and factual answers.
Perhaps a more insightful question is in order, if you don't my saying so, sir?
As for your last question: NOYB, courteously.

non fan:
Why do you persist with these pointless troll-lke posts. If you have nothing to offer the discussion then go away and bother another thread.

[M.]

DA, I think I fit the description of who you say you want to hear from.

In the first chapter of Genesis, the Hebrew word used there for "day" is not necessarily a 24-hour period. It can be used in a more general sense to describe a period of time. There is a different Hebrew word for "day" which is used in later Old Testament scripture.

My guess is that God revealed to Moses (or perhaps to a tribal ancestor of his) a visual image of the Creation. The recipient of this image could not view 4.5 billion years of history in real-time, so they probably saw a SERIOUSLY condensed "Reader's Digest" version. Trying with their human limitations to put this into words, and not knowing what exact length of time the vision showed, they used the more generic word for "day" when describing the seven time periods.

Of course, there are plenty of absolute creationists who interpret the story as meaning quite literally seven days. They may be right, but I tend to disagree with them.

[Dr T Non-Fan]

I'm bothering only you. And how do I do this? By answering your questions that you raised to all the readers, of which I'm am One?
I don't think I'll leave, but thank you for the suggestion. I've been to other threads, and I've answered your questions there as well. Even provided a source.
As long as you keep asking questions, you should expect responses. If YOU have a problem with the answers, then perhaps another, more practical, solution exists.

[axjoke]

M..

I hadn't heard the two different day theory, but had heard about the period of time idea. So when it says on the seventh day he rested, does that mean every 7th "period of time" is Sabbath and that it might last for XXXX number of years?

Also isn't there two different accounts of creation in genesis? The order of Man, Beast, Fowl, Plants.. ect is different? Also doesn't it seem a bit odd that sun was created after the plants?.. actually i believe the sun even came after the earth. And do you not find it the least bit odd that this visionary mentioned the likes of common beast but not mighty dinosaurs?

[G. Ringo]

M,

The only Hebrew word for day that I know is yom. To what two Hebrew words for day are you referring?

[The Drunken Actuary]

Ok non-fan, I guess you got me. Stick around if you want, but I'm not sure you answered any of my questions other than the original one which was 'does anyone out there really believe in god?' and you did not answer the second part which was a request for some insight into why, if so. In fact, you flat out refused to answer my question about what you believe. And thanks for the resource on Kashmir. But I think if you look through this thread you will see that I have asked many questions. You have answered only one of them and it was a one word answer.

[The Drunken Actuary]

M, you bring up some good points about the meaning of the original text. In fact, I often use disputes over translation as a reason why the bible cannot possibly be devinely inspired. WHy would god go to the trouble of telling us something only to have it be misunderstood. If the meaning of the word 'day' in genesis is anything other than a 24 hour period that all english speakers understand the word to mean, then how can we be sure any other part of the bible means what we think?

[RedSoxFan]

I'm no expert but I think the hebrew word behind the translated word "day" really means "a period of time" or something like that. Regardless, the story omits a great deal of detail. So I would think of it more like a summary rather than an exact historical account. I don't, however, feel anything is inaccurate. There are many ways to interpret it. You could probably interpret it to be consistent with theistic evolution.

I agree that the Bible should be regarded as an all or nothing deal. It is packaged in one unit, and claims to be the word of God. I don't think God would allow his truth to be in the same package as a bunch of garbage.

Lee Greenwood is a singer who sings the song "Proud to be an American". He sang right before game 4 (i think) of the world series. I started this id the next day, and he had kind of stuck in my mind.

[M.]

Axjoke-

Humans probably have a lot less endurance than God, so we need rest every 7 days, not every 7 eons. Following this practice also shows our respect for God, and allows for regular worship.

I'm not aware of two different accounts in Genesis, and one having a different order. I'll look for it this weekend.

As for plants coming before the sun: The Genesis story says that God created light on the first "day." Maybe this light was some early, messy version of our sun. The creation of the sun described in Genesis could have been the "settling down" of an enormous gaseous cloud into a more spherical shape.

By the way, there is an interesting web site that some rather intelligent creationists put together. It explains some of the bad arguments that other creationists make, giving the whole group a bad name. The link is http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/faq/dont_use.asp

[axjoke]

M..

Did god take off the seventh day because he needed rest? I didn't think an omnipotent being could get tired.

[M.]

Gregor, you've added to my weekend homework. I'll have to find out about the two Hebrew words. I've stated earlier that I'm no Biblical scholar; I'm just doing the best I can at recounting convincing arguments I've heard, combined with my own theories.

DA, the answer to your question may be disturbing. In the Gospels, Jesus is asked why He tells parables. His answer is so that only some people will understand Him. The same answer might be applied to your question.

On the positive side, scripture also says that those who seek will find. As a Christian, I am encouraged that you seem to be truly seeking truth, even though you are skeptical.

[M.]

Axjoke, I don't know if God needed the rest, or if He just felt like it. Maybe He just wanted to sit back and smell the roses He just finished making.

My question to you is, does it really matter whether He required rest? Would that detract from His greatness?


(Edited for capitalization.)

<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: M on 2001-12-28 14:27 ]</font>

[axjoke]

M...

Sure it would.. just as Jesus getting pissed and attacking the money changers tarnished his image in my eyes. Of course i don't really think god exist and Jesus’ imagine isn't any greater than that of Gandhi in my mind.

Somebody suggested yesterday that God doesn't know the future. What is your take on the subject?

[The Drunken Actuary]

Wow, this discussion has taken off again, just when I thought it had died. A few comments:

Moderator3: I think you may have misunderstood me. Certainly there are important lessons to be learned in the bible (don't kill, etc). What I meant was, if you choose to reject as fact the story of genesis because you don't buy the literal interpretation, I think you are not honest with yourself for believing any other portion of it. I do not think if there were a supreme being that he would commission the writing of the Bible but fill some of it with the truth, some with half-truths, some with misinterpretation, etc. For me, once I realized the Old Testament was too outrageous to believe, it shed doubt on the new testement as well. I don't think you can pick and choose what part to believe.

I too have read about other ancient religions who have used the virgin birth, etc. In fact, I heard a great theory that christianity HAD to incorporate these into their teachings to get converts.

How different would the world be today if Constantine had lost that battle? Makes you wonder.

M: I had never heard that quote before about the parables. Why do you think he would only want some people to understand?

<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: The Drunken Actuary on 2001-12-31 00:57 ]</font>

[bertuary]

I haven't been active in this discussion so far, just lurking, because I am far from being as scholarly on this topic as many others on this forum. However, there are a few points I feel are worth making.

I do believe in God. I do not however think that there could exist enough concrete examples to convince someone to believe based on visible/proven occurrences. In fact, the Bible itself defines faith as "the substance of things hoped for and the evidence of things not seen."

Where does my faith come from in the first place? Childhood experiences that to me indicated the Lord's presence in my life. And experiences as an adult that indicate the presence of an after-life. The stories are long so I will not write them here. If you are truly interested, e-mail me and I'll be willing to share.

I have also struggled at times in my life with the question of why God lets bad things happen. A friend gave me a book titled "Why Bad Things Happen to Good People". I don't recall the author's name off the top, but it was really helpful in answering that question. In a nutshell, the idea is that God has given us free will and as a result bad things can happen. He is also saddened when such things occur. But he is there with us to provide comfort and support.

[Intents]

Say there was a big bang. Something had to be there to bang. To my simple mind, the big bang theory is only a guess about our current state, it is not an explanation of the origin of three-dimensional paradigms.

[axjoke]

On 2001-12-28 14:28, The Drunken Actuary wrote:

I too have read about other ancient religions who have used the virgin birth, etc. In fact, I heard a great theory that christianity HAD to incorporate these into their teachings to get converts.

How different would the world be today if Constantine had lost that battle? Makes you wonder.



The first time i heard about Constantine was in Latin class. My understanding is that Easter and Christmas among other religious holidays, were both adopted by him to aid in winning over the pagan citizens. Similarly i think a lot of Pauls teaching were borrowed from the Mithralistic sp? religion to help aid in converting others.

[The Drunken Actuary]

Constantine legalized christianity is 312. Only because he prayed to the christian god on the eve of a battle. He won and the rest is history. If he had lost, christianity may have petered out.



<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: The Drunken Actuary on 2001-12-28 14:42 ]</font>

[M.]

Axjoke, I already addressed my take on the subject, but I certainly can't blame you for not remembering. It's all the way back on page 2 of this enormous thread:

"I'm not a big supporter of predestination, so I don't totally agree with some other Christians that God knows in advance the way every human is going to act in every remaining second of their life. Thus, God may not know exactly which people will have faith at the end of their lives. Then again, He probably has a much better idea than anyone else."

I'll elaborate further. Some believe that God knows everything, including every detail of the future because there is Scripture which says He knows how things will turn out in the end. I take this Scripture to mean that God knows He's going to send back Christ, and that there will be people who He takes into heaven, and others who will go to hell (although I've also stated that I think some may be consumed in the fire of hell, meaning that they'll be burned up, not necessarily suffering for all eternity.)

DA: Jesus might want only want those to understand who are willing to accept His teachings. I believe the parables were there for the intellectuals to consider, and perhaps find salvation in the process. Simpler minds may have an easier time with faith, so they didn't really need to understand the parables.

Folks, I've got to get some work done today, so I probably can't respond to any more questions until this weekend. I'll do my best at that time. I'm just stating this now so that people don't take my "silence" as giving up. I really like this type of discourse. Plus, I believe I should give an account of my faith to any who seem to genuinely seek. Wouldn't it be incredibly selfish and uncaring of me to let people miss out on heaven when I could have planted a seed, given somebody a little kernel of something to ponder, that may help them take one more step toward being saved?

[Anonymous]

Bible study to be held at Lobster's house every Tuesday night. All are invited. Bring your Bible(not required for DA since he presumably does not own one).

[Weatherman]

On 2001-12-28 14:26, axjoke wrote:
Somebody suggested yesterday that God doesn't know the future. What is your take on the subject?


There are several scriptural references that suggest God exists outside of time. This would be an odd view for a Christian to take.

[M.]

Okay, I said I needed to get some work done, but I want to reply to CAS Space Lobster:

Why in the world do you feel the need to barb DA? Is there any conceivable way that would incline him to accept Christ?

If you're not just some troll trying to get under people's skin, please take a moment to consider your motives. Christians lose credibility as being a caring people when individuals calling themselves Christians act unkindly.

[The Drunken Actuary]

Do not worry M, I think everyone has dismissed Lobster as a troll. I think he admitted it himself a few pages back. He does not hurt your credibility with me. I too have to get some work done but will be back on this weekend, perhaps late tonight as well. I am enjoying our discourse.

[Anonymous]

I've already dismissed myself as a troll - maybe M won't & he'll keep feeding me. I'm not hungry now.

[Andy Lang]

[In fact, I heard a great theory that christianity HAD to incorporate these into their teachings to get converts.]

Everything the Catholic Church does is about gaining new converts--and if they can't, elimination will make the % of Catholics increase anyway.

Check the doings of Cardinal Stepinac during WWII in Craotia/Serbia to see the end result.

Amazing misinformation campaign about him waged by Rome--but the people who know also have huge facts to support the slaughter of the Orthodox Serbs by Stepinac and many Franciscan priests and other higher clergy.

Virtually all religions are about converts but no one does it better for longer periods of time than the Church of Rome--or is it worse.

Don't worry, you will soon see when they have our taxes to help Catholic Schools seek converts.

Just who do you think gains the most with school privatization?

Falwell was just a stooge for Rome.

So is Bush.

The Great Unholy Triumvirate: Money, GOP, and Rome.

The current war wil get rid of a major rival, Islam and keep Bush going as long as the war goes--and as he says, it's going to be a very very long war.

Fascism returns. Ain't you glad? At least the trains will run on time--but if they invite you on board to a delousing ceneter or a check for weapons, explosives, or your identity card, you just might want to pass.

And you are there at the apex.

[Griffin 1]

I only skimmed through your post, but are you saying the Catholic Church regularly seeks converts? Where?

[The Drunken Actuary]

Not that I would dare speak for Andy, but being raised in the Catholic Church, I feel qualified to make the broad statement that the Catholic church is always interested in converts. Perhaps Andy will enlighten us some day with specifics.

As a side note, did anyone else see the interesting story about the Catholic Church in France getting worried about the onset of the Eruo? Apparently the one Euro coin is worth less then the one frank coin which is the one most french catholics drop into the coffer. The fear is that, out of ease, they will simply start dropping in the one Euro. (I'm not sure if I got the denominations right, it might be that 2 franks are worth less than one Euro or something, but the point remains the same). Of course their are probably some countries where the reverse is true.

[axjoke]

Shekky Tree..

You doubted that the Catholic Church has hindered mankind... do you question common thought that it was largely the catholic church that led europe into the Dark Ages? Has there ever been a larger decline in a thirst for knowledge and understanding?

[Griffin 1]

On 2001-12-29 21:52, The Drunken Actuary wrote:
Not that I would dare speak for Andy, but being raised in the Catholic Church, I feel qualified to make the broad statement that the Catholic church is always interested in converts. Perhaps Andy will enlighten us some day with specifics.

So you would say that everything they do is about seeking converts?

[Andy Lang]

Book review of popes and antisemitism in Boston Globe.

Get url and post here and then get book and read it.

I am. So should you.

Only thing I disagree with on review is statement that current environment is any different than much of 20th century and that we should not demonize Catholic Church.

Why not?

The agenda of the Pope is for the most part the agenda of Bush, and they are winning--with the help of some Protestants, the Mormons and the Jews--the right-wing of each of course.

The Mormon Church and Falwell and Robertson seem to have recently recognized that the CC does not wish them well and is a 1000 times as powerful and has 2000 years of history of perfidy behind them, whereas those three have relatively little--mere babes in the wood by comparison.

A few have awakened to that fact, but not many. All ideologues and fundamentalists tend to be dumber than doorknobs, but not as easy to turn.

[Andy Lang]

[Perhaps Andy will enlighten us some day with specifics.]

I had in mind the attmpt by the Pope in WWII, using Cardinal Stepinac and the Franciscans, with the backing of the Nazi SS, to try and convert the Serbs--Orthodox Catholics who do not recognize the authority of the Pope. A few did, therest didnt and were slaughtered.

Aside from the holocaust, it was the largest slaughter of any peoples in WWII, even surpassing the Japanese rape of Nanking, which took a mere 350,000--tops. And there even, the SS officer in Nanking sent an urgent plea to Hitler to stop the brabraic killing.

No such luck in Craotia/Serbia/Yugoslavia.

Say--why didnt the current Pope apologize for that when he recently went to that region--as opposed to aplogizing for the misdeeds of a thousdand years ago when the Orthodox split from Rome?

Maybe it is because he decided to continue to push Cardinal Stepinac's Sainthood--one of the great jokes they must laugh about every day behind the Vatican Walls--impervious as they are to democracy.

What a burden it just bne to live up to the never being wrong thingee they call Papal Infallibility.

Check into the cirumstances of that particular doctrine and you will find what you always find about the CC's most disliked and disagreed with stuff--namely that it was egregious wrong-doing and interference in the secular political affairs of government--as always.

Nothing good will ever come from the CC until they can somehow extricate themselves from that utter nonsense.

Once upon a time--not too long ago-there were two Popes that tried to change that--one was Pope John XXIII--who made some serious inroads but alas died too quickly.

The other was a Pope that was a Pope for only a very brief time, before dying. Some in the know, say he was murdered.

Can't change the power structure they say, without incurring the wrath of those who claim to answer only to God.

Who was that second Pope anyway?

Read the books I tell you to read and you will find out that and much more besides.

It is good to know how to read and to tell who has the truth and who has been naughty and who has been nice.

[Griffin 1]

On 2001-12-30 11:40, Andy Lang wrote:
[Perhaps Andy will enlighten us some day with specifics.]

I had in mind the attmpt by the Pope in WWII, using Cardinal Stepinac and the Franciscans, with the backing of the Nazi SS, to try and convert the Serbs--Orthodox Catholics who do not recognize the authority of the Pope. A few did, therest didnt and were slaughtered.

So, from "everything they do", we get an example of an attempt during WWII (you know, the Big One)?

[The Drunken Actuary]

No I would not say that. A lot of what they do concerns making people feel guilty, denying basic scientific facts, collecting money.

[Griffin 1]

So where does the part about them regularly seeking converts come in (which is what we were talking about)?

[The Drunken Actuary]

I don't know. Andy brought it up and I think it is true based on the impressions I got being raised catholic. I seem to remember learing something in CCD about nuns and missionaries in Africa and asia trying to bring jesus to the natives.

[Griffin 1]

So how does some mission work lead to everything they do being related to gaining converts?

[The Drunken Actuary]

I am not the one who asserted that that is everyhing they do. In fact, I pointed out several other things they do.

[Griffin 1]

Yes, but you kept agreeing with Andy on this point.

[The Drunken Actuary]

Andy has been silent for a while and I will leave defending his position up to him. I have stated my opinion on the topic and don't have much more to say on it.