# Proof of a Higher Power



## Scout_379 (Jul 23, 2004)

Now that I have your attention...

I have noticed through a couple of threads that we have some very well informed an intellectual religious persons using this site. Being in my teens, and raised in a religion free environment, I have become curious about my own spirituality.

And so I ask: If you beleive in a God, or like being, why? And what proof have you seen or learned of its/His existence? What makes you beleive?


----------



## Firona (Jul 24, 2004)

As a teen who grew up in a religiously thick (yet not opressive) environment I can say it's not alway easy to believe in something. My father, being a native american spiritist, and my mother, heavy into the Maharishi movement; I have had my share of experience in many religious concepts. So, as for myself, I believe in an interconnectivity. God, I think, is just a word that describes this. Through working with the martial arts I have discovered there is a certain rhythm to everything, if you will. As if the world's heart beats all at once through us. On top of that I believe that on some level, be it spiritually or scientifically based, everything has to be the same. So, I suppose that is a really vague and useless explaination for what I believe in.


----------



## heretic888 (Jul 24, 2004)

I'll bite.



> And so I ask: If you beleive in a God, or like being, why?



I don't believe in a "God" in the sense that you are probably talking about, but I most definately believe in a "Power" (can't really say its higher, since that would imply it isn't present in the lower stuff either). To me, all the major wisdom traditions and higher religions are really teaching the same thing. At their core, that is. And, it has very little to do with believing in a series of supposed historical events or believing in anyone's particular cultural interpretations of "dah troof".



> And what proof have you seen or learned of its/His existence? What makes you beleive?



I did have a peak experience a few years back, but its very hard to describe and its more than likely that I interpreted it "out of its context", so to speak.

To me, the greatest proof comes from the cross-cultural universality of certain experiences and practices --- see, for example, Adlous Huxely's "The Perennial Philosophy" and Huston Smith's "The Forgotten Truth". Some of the modern cross-cultural studies regarding religious development are also interesting.

When different people from different cultures and different time periods start reporting similar experiences and insights, it tends to make you ponder. When there's this much cross-cultural smoke, it probably indicates a fire.

Laterz.


----------



## Kane (Jul 26, 2004)

Scout_379 said:
			
		

> Now that I have your attention...
> 
> I have noticed through a couple of threads that we have some very well informed an intellectual religious persons using this site. Being in my teens, and raised in a religion free environment, I have become curious about my own spirituality.
> 
> And so I ask: If you beleive in a God, or like being, why? And what proof have you seen or learned of its/His existence? What makes you beleive?


I know exactly what you are talking about. I dont think there is any true way to know. There is less scientific proof but A LOT of historical proof for Christianity. The Bible has been proven correct in most history and other things and its accurate. There is however no real way to see whether the miracle stuff happened such as turning water into wine or other stuff that might be considered magic. But with many other things proved historically in the Bible, why doubt the supernatural in the Bible.

But in the end it all comes down to faith. However if I had to choose between whether your faith is in vain or whether your faith is correct, I would have to choose your faith being correct. The path of God seems more reasonable. What I am trying to say is not to let go of your faith, because Im a little more convinced that there is a God more than there is not a God. 

Science once told us the Earth was round. Was that ever true? No it wasnt. So there are many scientists that are full bullsh*t, so I wouldnt believe everything they say. Many stuff scientists just come up with out theories.


----------



## heretic888 (Jul 26, 2004)

> There is less scientific proof but A LOT of historical proof for Christianity. The Bible has been proven correct in most history and other things and its accurate.



This is blatantly untrue. Some "historical accounts" in the Bible (both Old and New Testament) are accurate, and some are not. Most of the more historically accurate accounts seem to be centered in certain parts of the Old Testament. Very little in the New Testament is "historical".



> But with many other things proved historically in the Bible, why doubt the supernatural in the Bible.



To use a simple analogy, if a compulsive liar tells you the truth some of the time it doesn't mean he's telling you the truth now. It could also be that some of those "supernatural" accounts (such as the Virgin Birth) are based on rather archaic scientific notions (such as women being mere "incubators" or "holding tanks" during pregnancy, and not providing genetic material to the offspring).



> Science once told us the Earth was round. Was that ever true? No it wasnt. So there are many scientists that are full bullsh*t, so I wouldnt believe everything they say. Many stuff scientists just come up with out theories.



This is also blatantly untrue. "Science" never told us the world was flat --- that was an assumption based on common understanding of the time, largely originating from religious teachings (which is why the heavens were thought to be "above", and hell was thought to be "below"). Very similar to the geocentric model that Galileo upset.

Real science bases its findings on empirical evidence. There was no evidence at the time for those claims --- just cultural assumptioons (similar, for example, of the notion of the tabula rasa or "blank slate" of the human infant's mind popular among the 1700's and 1800's).

Laterz.


----------



## PeachMonkey (Jul 26, 2004)

heretic888 said:
			
		

> This is blatantly untrue. Some "historical accounts" in the Bible (both Old and New Testament) are accurate, and some are not. Most of the more historically accurate accounts seem to be centered in certain parts of the Old Testament. Very little in the New Testament is "historical".


 Moreover, even if the historical events in the Bible were covered with high degrees of accuracy, it does not logically follow that, therefore, all supernatural accounts, including the existence of a diety and the divinity of his son, are also true.

 That's a bit like saying that because I have always given you accurate descriptions of traffic accidents that I witnessed, you should therefore believe me when I tell you that I am the Ruler of the Universe.


----------



## TigerWoman (Jul 26, 2004)

I was brought up and took catechism and confirmed as a strict Lutheran. From there I slowly got disillusioned as a Christian, mostly from all the stuff that happened in my life. Then along comes my daughter who really connects and has a relationship with God. She becomes active in the church, sings and plays flute for the worship team. She also is a blackbelt ahead of me in TKD.  Slowly over time she starts having difficulties with breathing especially during heavy workouts and sparring.  I think its just low blood sugar.  Then she has an incident at TKD where she has it bad. I schedule an dr. appointment.  He doesn't find anything.  Then she has an incident at school where she really is bad and can't find her breath.  My husband takes her to the ER and after alot of tests and a couple of docs they say its asthma.  So she goes on this regimen of steriods etc. can't remember what it was but slowly she gets worse and worse.  She can't breathe well enough to play the flute or sing at church. The doc. ups her dosage.  

I'm scared.  I get a book about reversing asthma, non medically. I go into this frenzy of cleaning her room, dusting, cleaning everything, giving her all kinds of vitamins.  She is hardly taking TKD, using her inhaler all the time.  The book warns of long term steriod use, so I am even more scared for her.  I start praying.  Alot of people of the church and friends start praying.  I don't even know how to pray, I just talk to God and plead to help her.  We have a camping trip, in a RV, I'm scared for her being outdoors now.  So she gets a allergy test - comes up negative.  She says she doesn' t want to up her dosage any more - she read the book.  After the trip, I ask her how she did on the inhaler.  

She turns to me and calmly says that she stopped all medication that weekend.  She said that God cured her.  

She has never had any further medication since before that weekend. There has never been any further evidence that she has any breathing problem.  It has been two years since that day.  I thank God for giving us a miracle.  
You can either believe this or not, but I believe it truly was a miracle and evidence of God's love and that he had a higher plan. My daughter is now a youth pastor.  TW


----------



## Feisty Mouse (Jul 26, 2004)

TigerWoman - that's amazing.  I'm truly happy for you and your daughter.  What a change it must be in her life!


----------



## TigerWoman (Jul 26, 2004)

Feisty - it was a change but not for her.  I started praying more and talking to God.  She is unchanged. Her love for God is unchanged since she was young.  She has always wanted to serve God and be a pastor. Since 6th grade, she was 11 yrs. old. The miracle was confirmation of his intention for her, I believe. TW


----------



## Flatlander (Jul 26, 2004)

Fascinating.  TW, thank you for sharing that.


----------



## heretic888 (Jul 26, 2004)

I certainly don't mean to upset or offend anyone here, and I am quite happy for your daughter's recovery and health ---- but the "power of prayer" is not necessarily "proof" of anything.

Several anecdotes, as well as scientific experiments, have been conducted to verify the healing power of prayer. Control samples and all. And, the general consensus is that prayer does have a genuine healing effect (even when the patient is unaware that he/she is being prayed for, thus ruling out the placebo effect).

Unfortunately for some, this "prayer" effect has been demonstrated by Buddhists, Hindus, Hare Krishnas, Muslims, Christians, and even atheists --- all using their own distinctive methods. The result was the same.

The evidence seems to indicate this is a human phenomena, not a divine one. Or, if it is a divine phenomena, then pehaps we should all convert to polytheism (including the "god of bleh" that atheists worship).  :asian:


----------



## TigerWoman (Jul 26, 2004)

The prayer is not what it is all about.  Do I expect God to grant my wishes through prayer.  No, I don't necessarily.  But I asked anyway. This is from a person who only prayed a few times in my life for near disasters. I had lost faith.  I still don't believe God is there for every need I have. 

But this is not about the asking--this is about the granting.  I believe God healed my daughter.  When she told me that, after the weekend was over, I had shiversI KNEW.  There was nothing else to explain it.  No act of prayer healed my daughter, God did.  I could never deny that.  This was proof to me that God was there for my daughter and perhaps incidently for me too, to show me that he was indeed THERE. Our doctor only shook his head and says it happens, these miracles.  But he also said there was no cure for her asthma and it was a severe case. I thank God that she no longer has it. I guess sometimes you have to be hit on the head with a rock before you BELIEVE. I was. TW


----------



## Feisty Mouse (Jul 26, 2004)

> Unfortunately for some, this "prayer" effect has been demonstrated by Buddhists, Hindus, Hare Krishnas, Muslims, Christians, and even atheists --- all using their own distinctive methods. The result was the same.
> 
> The evidence seems to indicate this is a human phenomena, not a divine one. Or, if it is a divine phenomena, then pehaps we should all convert to polytheism (including the "god of bleh" that atheists worship).


 I'm going to have to disagree with you there, heretic.  Just because prayer does not seem to work for only one group - the "chosen" ones or what have you - doesn't then mean that all religions - or that atheism - is "equally right", from the perspective of God (which is a mind-bogglingly bizarre perspective for any human to try to take).  Why shouldn't a benevolent God choose to heal members of various faiths?  Just because I am a member of one religion doesn't mean that there are not beneficial things in another religion - but it doesn't mean they are the same, either.


----------



## heretic888 (Jul 27, 2004)

> I'm going to have to disagree with you there, heretic. Just because prayer does not seem to work for only one group - the "chosen" ones or what have you - doesn't then mean that all religions - or that atheism - is "equally right", from the perspective of God (which is a mind-bogglingly bizarre perspective for any human to try to take). Why shouldn't a benevolent God choose to heal members of various faiths? Just because I am a member of one religion doesn't mean that there are not beneficial things in another religion - but it doesn't mean they are the same, either.



I am sorry, Feisty Mouse, but this is an attempt to privilege one religion over the others.

There have been just as many, if not more, successful prayer accounts by members of other religions --- and they do not subjectively account them to a Judeo-Christian deity, but their own. If you were to ask a fundamentalist Hindu how Christian prayers can be so effective, he would likely give a similar response that you gave ---- but interject the word "Krishna" for "God". Even secular healers like those involved in Reiki have reported similar (sometimes more phenomenal) effects, and you won't hear them mention "God" once.

Perhaps the problem here is that people are trying to think of "God" in terms they can relate to, within a conventional space-time reference --- "He" has a gender, "He" thinks like we do, "He" has intentions like we do, "He" experiences time like we do, "He" suffers like we do, etc. It all sounds to me like an attempt to make this "God" into another word for "A really big version of Me". Anthropomorphosis, its called.

The other problem here is that people are trying to claim their religion is specially privileged, and has the conceptualization of this "God" right and the others do not. Despite the fact that it is realized that this "God" is completely beyond human conceptualization to begin ("the letter killeth"). A very bizarre paradox.

The above account also ignores the _numerous_ times that "prayers" are not answered --- which far outnumber the times they are. In any religion.

You are free, of course, to believe whatever you wish --- but can't claim "prayer accounts" as anything meeting a criterion of "proof". Or, even sturdy logic, for that matter. As I mentioned in other thread, different experiences (even "spiritual" ones) are interpreted differently by people at different levels of development. That is why something like a "cross-level analysis" is so important.

Laterz.


----------



## Feisty Mouse (Jul 27, 2004)

> I am sorry, Feisty Mouse, but this is an attempt to privilege one religion over the others.


 In a way yes, and in a way, no. I'm not saying "THIS one is the best!" I'm saying that to say we know what God or whatever you want to call your higher power (assuming we're still speaking monotheistically here) is "intending" in terms of a particular religion. I don't see that just because prayer works in many faiths, that that *necessarily* means they are all "the one". That doesn't mean I think I know what "the one" is, or even that there is a "one", but it also does not mean that they are all equal to whatever higher power you are talking about. I think it's an unprovable question.

I was simply trying to address the issue you raised of prayer being a human or divine phenomenon, and how we might interpret it.  I was not making an argument that all prayers are answered.


----------



## heretic888 (Jul 27, 2004)

> In a way yes, and in a way, no. I'm not saying "THIS one is the best!" I'm saying that to say we know what God or whatever you want to call your higher power (assuming we're still speaking monotheistically here) is "intending" in terms of a particular religion. I don't see that just because prayer works in many faiths, that that necessarily means they are all "the one". That doesn't mean I think I know what "the one" is, or even that there is a "one", but it also does not mean that they are all equal to whatever higher power you are talking about. I think it's an unprovable question.



Well, dunno about any of that....

but, the point I was trying to make about the prayer documentations is that there doesn't seem to be any particular preference made out between the individual's beliefs or the deity being prayed to. Thus, it does not meet the criteria of "proof" for God one way or another.

And, regarding your other querry, I don't believe there is actually any "one religion" here. Different religious paths appeal to different people, based on both their level of development, their upbringing, and their own individual dispositions.

Besides, the "goal" of all religion is transcendent of any particular path anyway. Kinda similar to martial arts. Again.

Laterz.


----------



## TigerWoman (Jul 27, 2004)

heretic888 said:
			
		

> Well, dunno about any of that....
> 
> but, the point I was trying to make about the prayer documentations is that there doesn't seem to be any particular preference made out between the individual's beliefs or the deity being prayed to. Thus, it does not meet the criteria of "proof" for God one way or another..



And the point I was making was that it wasn't about the asking (prayer) but about the giving (God)  or who do you think actually healed my daughter--
the wishing/thoughts of a few people or a higher power that is beyond human comprehension?  TW


----------



## heretic888 (Jul 27, 2004)

> And the point I was making was that it wasn't about the asking (prayer) but about the giving (God) or who do you think actually healed my daughter--
> the wishing/thoughts of a few people or a higher power that is beyond human comprehension?



You say that as if they are mutually exclusive.

There have been accounts of Buddhist prayers healing people. There have been accounts of secular healing methods, such as Reiki, healing people. Many of which are just as extraordinary as the situation with your daughter.

The point, again, is that this anecdote is not "proof" of anything. There is far too much room for projectionism and intepretation, no matter how personally important it may be (and I am happy for your daughter's continued health).

And, I am quite open to the possibility of mind-over-matter, anyway.

Good day.  :asian:


----------



## TigerWoman (Jul 27, 2004)

Why do you want to discuss it if you are so SURE.  God has a different form to people all over the world, but he is still GOD.  TW


----------



## PeachMonkey (Jul 27, 2004)

TigerWoman said:
			
		

> Why do you want to discuss it if you are so SURE. God has a different form to people all over the world, but he is still GOD.


  If that's what you want to believe, TigerWoman, knock yourself out.  

 How does one reconcile your statement with the commonly held belief that salvation is available only to those who accept the divinity of the son of the Christian skygod?

  I'm *very* glad your daughter was healed, by the way, no matter what the source.


----------



## TigerWoman (Jul 27, 2004)

PeachMonkey said:
			
		

> If that's what you want to believe, TigerWoman, knock yourself out.
> 
> How does one reconcile your statement with the commonly held belief that salvation is available only to those who accept the divinity of the son of the Christian skygod?



People know and seek a higher power.  It seems evident to all the faiths there is one.  But they are not on the right path to get to him.  Doesn't mean God is not trying, and is not a benevolent God to those who do not believe in him.  Hey, I wasn't the best Christian, had a 30 year "lapse" in believing in anything unless I had a near disaster.  So why did he answer my prayer?  During that lapse, I didn't necessary believe Jesus Christ was our saviour. I have trouble with pure "faith".  But as I said before, a rock fell on my head.  I cannot deny it was anything but God who interfered and saved my daughter.  I can't debate Christianity. I can only report what really happened.  It is up to you whether you believe or not. And I hope that a rock doesn't have to fall on your head for that to happen. TW


----------



## Jay Bell (Jul 27, 2004)

> But they are not on the right path to get to him.



Edit:  I was going to reply to the above statement, but there was just absolutely no way that I could do it diplomatically or with kind words..


----------



## Scout_379 (Jul 27, 2004)

> But they are not on the right path to get to him.





> Edit: I was going to reply to the above statement, but there was just absolutely no way that I could do it diplomatically or with kind words..


I'll give it a try. What do you mean? how are they wrong, or what is the right path, in your opinion? NOBODY pounce on the answer if it disturbs you! please, I don't we need a religious debate, i was just asking for opinions.




> It seems evident to all the faiths there is one.


I thought buddhists denied the existence of a god. But it seems more like a philosophy rather than a faith.


----------



## Feisty Mouse (Jul 27, 2004)

> Besides, the "goal" of all religion is transcendent of any particular path anyway. Kinda similar to martial arts. Again.


 If you are speaking from personal opinion, well and good.  If you are speaking *for* various religions, I'll have to disagree.  Some faiths emphasize particular practices more than others, meaning what you do or how you do it (or what you believe) is definitionally important to that faith.


----------



## Firona (Jul 27, 2004)

Scout_379 said:
			
		

> I thought buddhists denied the existence of a god. But it seems more like a philosophy rather than a faith.


 There are three groups of religion, Monotheism, Polytheism and Atheism. Buddhism falls under the Atheistic category, they don't necessarily believe in god but it is a legitimate religion as opposed to agnostics and the like.


----------



## Flatlander (Jul 27, 2004)

Firona said:
			
		

> There are three groups of religion, Monotheism, Polytheism and Atheism. Buddhism falls under the Atheistic category, they don't necessarily believe in god but it is a legitimate religion as opposed to agnostics and the like.


Oh, I don't think that's entirely accurate.  Buddhism would fall under the Monotheistic approach.  Though their definition of God may not include anyone you can specifically point at, I believe that their idea of Oneness qualifies them as monotheist.


----------



## PeachMonkey (Jul 27, 2004)

Edit: I asked TigerWoman for a bunch of details about her miracle, when in fact she had already described it in much detail in an earlier post. Sorry about that.



			
				TigerWoman said:
			
		

> I can only report what really happened.  It is up to you whether you believe or not.


  At this point, at least, I am entirely willing to believe that you prayed, and that your daughter was saved.  

 As happy as I am about her being healed, though, nothing about your account logically proves the intervention of some supernatural being or force.  In your own account, you describe a number of, as you say, "non-medical" steps you took to improve your daughter's asthma... why isn't that as likely, or more likely, to have brought about the improvement in her health?


----------



## heretic888 (Jul 28, 2004)

> Why do you want to discuss it if you are so SURE.



A silly non-question, one that only seeks to privilege the questioner by not providing any kind of valid demand in the first place.

That's like asking a quantum physicist why he wants to discuss mathematics if he's "so SURE", or why a developmental psychologist wants to discuss levels of psychological growth is he's "so SURE".



> God has a different form to people all over the world, but he is still GOD.



Notice, again, the attempt to privilege one religious position over all others without an attempt to provide logic or evidence as support.

Apparently, "God" appears in different "forms" to different individuals --- but his "true nature" (i.e. "he is still") is the form that certain Christians adhere to. Very interesting, since Christian texts and sages themselves state that God's "true nature" is completely incomprehensible, ineffable, and "beyond forms" altogether (which is fundamentally identical to virtually all higher religions). Very interesting, indeed.

I still see the underlying arrogance: God is completely beyond understanding, but WE know what he's really like. And what he really wants, thinks, desires, etc.



> People know and seek a higher power. It seems evident to all the faiths there is one. But they are not on the right path to get to him.



I challenge you to provide empirical evidence, cross-cultural proof, or a logical basis for any of the claims you have just made. The burden of proof is on you.

I also further challenge you to demonstrate how these different religious paths are so radically incompatible with one another. You can start by comparing the Christian St. Dionysius-Areopagite with the Buddhist Nagarjuna.



> Hey, I wasn't the best Christian, had a 30 year "lapse" in believing in anything unless I had a near disaster.



Which should probably raise alarms right there in and of itself. Similar to how many Americans "rediscovered" patriotism after 9/11.



> I can't debate Christianity. I can only report what really happened.



No, you can report your _interpretation_ of what happened. As before, there is far too much room for projectionism and so forth for this anecdote to become a reliable phenomenological account.



> It is up to you whether you believe or not. And I hope that a rock doesn't have to fall on your head for that to happen.



Nah, I just grew up --- and began to strenuously apply logic to the situation. I also began seriously researching other religions, and the underlying commonalities led my away from the notion that any one is privileged enough to be "the truth" (since they all basically claim that the Truth is beyond conceptualization to begin with).



> I thought buddhists denied the existence of a god.



This is a misnomer.

There are several deities and gods (devas) within the various Buddhist sects --- for example, Fudo-Myoh of the Japanese Mikkyo traditions. In addition, there is also the Buddha Mind and Buddha Nature (Zen's True Self), which is very similar to some representations of a "One God".



> But it seems more like a philosophy rather than a faith.



Another Western misnomer. Buddhism, depending on the sect, can be construed as a faith, a philosophy, or a mystical practice.

If its not a "faith", its very interesting how all those people in Japan, Tibet, and Korea pray and provide offering to statues of various Buddhas.



> If you are speaking from personal opinion, well and good.



Try personal experience and observation, not to mention cross-cultural analysis.



> If you are speaking *for* various religions, I'll have to disagree. Some faiths emphasize particular practices more than others, meaning what you do or how you do it (or what you believe) is definitionally important to that faith.



You will note that I said the "goal" of all the higher religions and wisdom traditions is the same, not the path taken to get there.

Of course, that in itself is inaccurate ---- since all the higher religions claim that meditative practice or contemplative prayer must be pursued at some point to reach this "goal". This is, in fact, the core of all the great religions.

There are, of course, different types (and levels) of contemplative practice.



> There are three groups of religion, Monotheism, Polytheism and Atheism.



Wrong. There are several dozen more classifications beyond that --- including pantheism, panentheism, deism, qualified nondualism, nonqualified nondualism, kenotic nondualism, emanationism, henotheism, monism, and so on.



> Buddhism falls under the Atheistic category, they don't necessarily believe in god but it is a legitimate religion as opposed to agnostics and the like.



Wrong again. Buddhism holds to a conception of a "higher power" (Buddha Mind or Shunyata), as well as the devas.



> Oh, I don't think that's entirely accurate. Buddhism would fall under the Monotheistic approach. Though their definition of God may not include anyone you can specifically point at, I believe that their idea of Oneness qualifies them as monotheist.



That is not monotheism. It is a type of nondualism, depending on which sect you are referring to. Buddhism, in some of its strands, is also monistic or pantheistic.

Laterz.


----------



## Feisty Mouse (Jul 28, 2004)

> Quote:
> If you are speaking from personal opinion, well and good.
> 
> 
> ...


There are others of us out here who have both personal experience and observation, and pursue religious studies.   

Embedded in certain faiths *is* the path - that is a proscribed part of reaching the "goal".  "The journey is the destination."  I am not questioning that the goals are similar in a lot of the religions mentioned.  I think I know how people should pursue some sort of introspection and reflection - meditation, prayer, living thoughtfully - but within specific _doctrines_ there are different "routes" that are considered to be part of the journey.


----------



## heretic888 (Jul 28, 2004)

Indeed. But, this doesn't change the fact that the "ultimate goal" is the same nonetheless --- and that this "goal" is not the exclusive province of any one tradition, religion, or culture. Very similar to martial arts training, in that respect.

For example, really listen to what Christian mystics like Meister Eckhart, St. Dionysisu, or St. Ignatius say about there experiences of the Divine --- and then compare that to what Hindu sages like Shankara, Ramanuja, and Sri Ramana say about their experiences of Atman/Brahman. There are far more commonalities than differences, and the differences themselves seem to be more a product of culture than anything else. This indicates a cross-cultural, religiously universal experience that is not the "property" of any one tradition.

If you have a vendetta against both Christianity and Hinduism --- then compare mystical Judaism (from Kabbalah to the Therapeutae) and, say, Buddhism (such as Nagarjuna). Could even through mystical Islam (such as Sufism), represented by Rumi, in the mix for flavor. The end result will be the same.


Laterz.


----------



## rmcrobertson (Jul 28, 2004)

1. A theist believes in a god of some sort. An a-theist denies the existence of any god. An a-gnostic claims to have no knowledge (gnosis) of whether or not there's a god. Atheism is a "religion," only in the sense that the insight that there is no God cannot be experimentally or observationally supported. The rigorous scientific position, in fact, is agnosticism: I dunno, because I don't have evidence one way or another.

2. Buddhism is a "religion," but not in Western terms. As mentioned, these is disagreement in Buddhism on the issue of god/gods--but no gods are necessary for Buddhism. Much of the description of Buddhism I'm seeing here is the result of the projection of Western ideas elsewhere.

3. It is sloppy logic to argue that someone who claims a certain experience did not have it. One may believe that a religious vision is the result of wishful thinking; one may offer substitute explanations; one may provide psychoanalytic theories. However, we cannot know whether or not the Big Kahuna is speaking to someone, because we cannot objectively measure and evaluate such an experience or the lack thereof. By definitions, it remains outside what any science can do, and it is arrogance to claim otherwise, arrogance based upon our own views of the world. Empiricism only goes so far.

4. I suspect it's a bad idea to mix religions like paint, till you get the shade you want. However, structural studies of religion are useful.


----------



## Feisty Mouse (Jul 28, 2004)

As they ("they") say these days - Wordy McWord to you, Robert.

:inlove:


----------



## PeachMonkey (Jul 28, 2004)

rmcrobertson said:
			
		

> theism is a "religion," only in the sense that the insight that there is no God cannot be experimentally or observationally supported. The rigorous scientific position, in fact, is agnosticism


 At what point does it become necessary to prove a negative?  There is no evidence that there is a God... it is illogical to assume that any further experimentation is needed.  Many people of different faiths and cultures have experienced mystical and spiritual paths, but none of this points to the existence of a specific, or even a general, higher entity.



			
				rmcrobertson said:
			
		

> However, we cannot know whether or not the Big Kahuna is speaking to someone, because we cannot objectively measure and evaluate such an experience or the lack thereof. By definitions, it remains outside what any science can do, and it is arrogance to claim otherwise, arrogance based upon our own views of the world. Empiricism only goes so far.


 Poppycock.  If a paranoid schizophrenic or someone suffering from amphetamine psychosis claims to be communing with spirits, we can believe that they are hearing voices and still maintain an empirical skepticism about their source.  

 Discarding empiricism because people's claims are based on religious belief is commonly done because of courtesy, because of cultural history, to avoid offense, and for many other reasons.  In the end, though, maintaining skepticism about religious claims is no more "arrogant" than any other sort of healthy, intellectual, reasoned empirical standing.


----------



## heretic888 (Jul 28, 2004)

> At what point does it become necessary to prove a negative? There is no evidence that there is a God... it is illogical to assume that any further experimentation is needed. Many people of different faiths and cultures have experienced mystical and spiritual paths, but none of this points to the existence of a specific, or even a general, higher entity.



This is one of the most bizarre claims that I have ever heard skeptic-types make.

Its like saying that many people of different cultures and backgrounds have come to the same observation by employing the Pyathagorean Theorem, but none of this points to the existence a squared + b squared = c squared. Likewise, you will never come to that conclusion, perception, or observation unless you engage the mathematical paradigm to begin with.

My guess its a form of "selective science".

Also.... since when did "empiricism" = "science"?? Most of the contents of psychology, anthropology, logic, and even mathematics can't be empirically observed --- and yet their adherents are pretty damn sure what they're doing is science.

Laterz.


----------



## PeachMonkey (Jul 28, 2004)

heretic888 said:
			
		

> Its like saying that many people of different cultures and backgrounds have come to the same observation by employing the Pyathagorean Theorem, but none of this points to the existence a squared + b squared = c squared. Likewise, you will never come to that conclusion, perception, or observation unless you engage the mathematical paradigm to begin with.


 You and I have had this discussion before, but I still don't believe that simply because people across time have had "spiritual experiences", that there is, therefore, some sort of higher entity. Couldn't they all be tapping into some sort of common experiential thread in the human psyche?

 What is more likely: that all humans have the capacity for "higher-plane" behavior, and mystics/spirtualists tap into this through their disciplines, or that there is some skygod out there that mysteriously heals some, tortures others, and is indifferent to many more?



			
				heretic888 said:
			
		

> Also.... since when did "empiricism" = "science"??


 My abuse of the term was a response to a suggestion that lack of empirical demonstration of miracles did not mean that we shouldn't take miraculous claims at face value.  My apologies for waving the term around.


----------



## rmcrobertson (Jul 29, 2004)

Well, if we're gonna call old names---pish-tosh.

If we hear a paranoid schizophrenic claiming to hear God, we may very well assume that they're hallucinating. However, it is logically quite possible that they are a) nuts, b) actually hearing God. Occam's razor may suggest to us that the, "simplest hypothesis," is that they are making it all up, but this does NOT stand as proof that they are making it all up. It's simply a way of reminding us to look to the simplest, most-obvious explanations first, before we get fancy.

Moreover, the claim that there is or isn't a God simply is not a testable hypothesis. It's not something that can be settled on empirical grounds, though some peripheral claims of various religions (for example, that there was an Adam and an Eve in the Garden a few thousand years back) can pretty much be handled as empirical questions. 

I haven't at all chucked empiricism out the window. If you'll actually read what I write, you'll notice that I've repeatedly argued for empirical approaches to all sorts of questions. However, there are limits to the questions empiricism can handle--and to me, claiming that there are no such limits is indeed arrogance. 

What I never quite understand is why religious folks don't simply rest their arguments on faith, on the authority of books, and on their brands of logic. 

Oh yes. Science, philosophically speaking, is a particular type of empiricism.


----------



## pete (Jul 29, 2004)

rmcrobertson said:
			
		

> A theist believes in a god of some sort. An a-theist denies the existence of any god. An a-gnostic claims to have no knowledge (gnosis) of whether or not there's a god.



then, what do you call someone who despises the whole concept of a god, and them that hear him?  democrats?

uh oh, gotta go... i've been beckoned again...

(all in good fun kiddies...)
pete


----------



## heretic888 (Jul 29, 2004)

> You and I have had this discussion before, but I still don't believe that simply because people across time have had "spiritual experiences", that there is, therefore, some sort of higher entity. Couldn't they all be tapping into some sort of common experiential thread in the human psyche?
> 
> What is more likely: that all humans have the capacity for "higher-plane" behavior, and mystics/spirtualists tap into this through their disciplines, or that there is some skygod out there that mysteriously heals some, tortures others, and is indifferent to many more?



Ah, ok. I think you may have misinterpreted me.

This is where I think something like a "cross-level analysis" would become extremely useful. Suppose, for example, that someone at a pre-operational stage of development (say, a 7 year old child) temporarily had a "peak experience" of formal-rational cognition (and, say, temporarily "grasped" an algebraic formula like the Pythagorean Theorem). Now, this preop individual is not likely to interpret, analyze, and undestand that formal-rational cognition the same way that someone _at_ the formal-operational stage itself would. It would have been a _real_ formop "experience" --- but being interpreted and filtered by preop cognition. Thus, the preop person would have a much different interpretation of the experience than the formop person would.

This is also what happens with "spiritual" peak experiences, IMO. A person is temporarily having a peak experience of a level of cognition or whatnot FAR above their normal mode of functioning. That is why there are so many radically different types of interpretations of the same experience.

This is why, as a whole, most of the "enlightened" mystics from any religious tradition generally talk the same way and about the same thing (there are cultural differences, of course). St. Catherine of Genoa didn't talk about a skygod that was "higher" or "separate" from herself. She said, and I am paraphrasing here, that: "My very being is God, me _me_ is God!" Meister Eckhart pronounced similar notions. St. Paul of the New Testament said something akin to "No longer do I live, but Christ liveth in me." The Shakyamuni Buddha (Siddartha Gautama) reported self-annihilation, as well. We hear similar ideas from Vedantic representatives like Shankara, Ramanuja, and more modern sages like Sri Ramana and Sri Aurobindo. Mystical Islam, such as Rumi's Sufism also says similar things, also with al-Hallaj.

Of course, the usual adherents of these various traditions have VERY different interpretations of these experiences... and they constantly argue and bicker vehemently (even within the same religion). This has lad to some pretty nasty wars, among other things. But, the mystics and sages and saints of the traditions themselves (y'know, the guys that hang around monasteries and temples sitting on their butts all day meditating?) are in much more agreement with one another, and typically treat too much analyzing or philosophizing of the experiences as... well... stupid: "Think too much."

I would say the differences you see are more a matter of different "levels" of interpretation more than anything else. These kinds of practices and experiences _could_ be studied "scientifically"... but, I don't really see the point. If you want to experience what they do, meditate. Looking at pie charts, graphs, and cross-cultural comparisons is interesting but it won't help you understand what they're talking about. Which, I guess, is a much more "scientific" suggestion to begin with (direct experience).



> Oh yes. Science, philosophically speaking, is a particular type of empiricism.



Well, I guess it depends on what you mean by "empiricism", then.  :uhyeah: 

If we're going by the popular definition of a type of philosophical materialism, then that excludes a lot of disciplines from the "scientific" table --- including psychology, anthropology, linguistics, most types of mathematics, logic, and so forth. If, by "empiricism", you mean direct experience or observation, however... well, that's a bit more broad and inclusive.

Just my thoughts, anyway.  :asian:


----------



## heretic888 (Jul 29, 2004)

> then, what do you call someone who despises the whole concept of a god, and them that hear him? democrats?



Yeah, let's ignore the fact that most Democrats are devout church-goers.   

I think you are mistaking despising the concept of "God" with despising the concept of "State Religion". Heh.


----------



## pete (Jul 29, 2004)

heretic888 said:
			
		

> Yeah, let's ignore the fact that most Democrats are devout church-goers.



awh rats, i knew i shouldn't trust any club that would have me as a member.


----------



## rmcrobertson (Jul 29, 2004)

Hey, and--all in good fun--whaddya call somebody who goes to church on  Sunday, says the words, and then spends Monday screwing over his competitors in business and laying off his employees? And whaddya call a President who endlessly nags about Christianity, orders a bombing raid that kills a baby girl, and expresses no remorse whatsoever?


----------



## someguy (Jul 29, 2004)

Well I belive in a higher Power for a couple of reasons.  First consider the implications of the not being one.  God and evil really means very little.  Life is for nothing.  You live to not exist.  "im sure some one will say something about that to prove me wrong or at least  try.  
The other reason is I belive is I was raised to and I don't have any reason to doubt it enough to change my veiws.  This doesn't mean I don'tquestion them or they stay the same  just that I never can give up being a Christian with out one huge reson to do so.


----------



## heretic888 (Jul 29, 2004)

> Hey, and--all in good fun--whaddya call somebody who goes to church on Sunday, says the words, and then spends Monday screwing over his competitors in business and laying off his employees? And whaddya call a President who endlessly nags about Christianity, orders a bombing raid that kills a baby girl, and expresses no remorse whatsoever?



Uhhh.... wealthy??  :uhyeah: 

Very sad things to contemplate, though...


----------



## heretic888 (Jul 29, 2004)

> Well I belive in a higher Power for a couple of reasons. First consider the implications of the not being one. God and evil really means very little. Life is for nothing. You live to not exist.



The existence of a "Higher Power" (whatever one may mean by that) does not necessarily postulate any sort of great meaning, significance, or order to life. It just means you were created by something else... for whatever reasons.


----------



## Nightingale (Jul 30, 2004)

MT MOD NOTE

Make sure the discussion stays on topic and refrain from attacks on individuals or groups.  

Thanks!

-Nightingale-
MT MODERATOR


----------



## nukes42 (Aug 13, 2004)

[ If you beleive in a God, or like being, why? And what proof have you seen or learned of its/His existence? What makes you beleive]

now i dont belive in the normal god so to say, but i do belive that there is some thing that is out there just beyond our understanding. i mean look at the miricals of science and the universe, there are just to may questions of how is that possible and why did this happen and not that. i dont have any prof that i belive in something more powerful and wise. allthough that is the nature of faith is beliving in some thing with out having any proof.


----------



## Mark Weiser (Aug 13, 2004)

I will say again if God does not exist. We as a race aka Human Beings would need to invent him to explain those things which are out of our current realm of understanding. To give us the Motive to do charitable work for fellow man, to make laws establish outlets to vent in our times of difficulty, a place to turn when horrible things happen and unexplained, to have order in some form in our lifes and in society as a whole. 

God in any form or a higher power or force if you will is a neccessary component of being a Human Being.


----------



## RandomPhantom700 (Aug 14, 2004)

Is there some type of transcendent power that connects existence?  I'd like to think so, and think that it makes sense.  However, I doubt it's in any personified god figure, and I damn sure don't think that the Judeo-Christian ego-projection God is it.  Whatever higher power there might be, I believe it would have to be far more universal in nature then the culture-bound God that most speak of.


----------



## Flatlander (Aug 14, 2004)

nukes42, welcome to Martial Talk!  It's great to see someone jump right on in to the discussion!  Please help yourself to the various forums, they're bursting at the seams with great information.  If you have any questions, feel free to ask myself or anyone else.  Enjoy your stay, and happy posting!

Dan Bowman
 Martial Talk
-Moderator-


----------



## TonyM. (Aug 15, 2004)

Giraffes!


----------



## heretic888 (Aug 17, 2004)

> God in any form or a higher power or force if you will is a neccessary component of being a Human Being.



You might want to explain that to the thousands of atheists in the world that often act just as "human" as any true believer.

I think a "God" of some sort is necessary for most people --- in the very broad sense of "God" being any kind of ideal, activity, or belief that one adheres to in a "religious" fashion. This can range from science to art to Christianity to even a belief in atheism itself.

But, the notion that a belief in some sort of personified higher-power Uber Dude in the sky is somehow required for human beings to "be human" is the height of folly.


----------



## heretic888 (Aug 17, 2004)

By the way, welcome to MT, Nukes.  :asian:


----------



## RandomPhantom700 (Aug 17, 2004)

Mark Weiser said:
			
		

> To give us the Motive to do charitable work for fellow man, to make laws establish outlets to vent in our times of difficulty, a place to turn when horrible things happen and unexplained, to have order in some form in our lifes and in society as a whole.[\QUOTE]
> 
> So, you believe that people must believe in some deity in order to make laws?  Or believe and partake in charity?  I agree with heretic; there are plenty of people who believe in law and charity who do not believe in some God up there.  Besides, if the only reason you partake in charity or follow the law is fear of divine punishment, is that really any humane or moral reasoning?


----------



## parmandjack (Aug 21, 2004)

Well....

I've got to step in at this point and state that the arrogance pervasive throughout all the posts from heretic is making me want to vomit...

I for one Tigerwomen, support you 100%, and I will also state emphatically that you are correct in that all other religions are on the wrong paths to salvation... only through a relationship with Jesus Christ will a person be saved.

To say otherwise (ie: they are all equal etc...) would be to say that Jesus Christ was either a liar or a lunatic, because He Himself CLAIMED to be the ONLY WAY... and if I agree that other religions are equally true (inferring that Jesus lied or was a lunatic), I thereby declare that the basis of our faith was not reliable...

And by the way, all other religions claim this exclusivity also... Muslims claim only Mohammad and Allah are true... Hindu's claim that their religion is true by stating that there are many gods etc, thereby inferring that my God was not telling me the truth in His Revelation...etc... anyone that states that their way is correct (as they all do), infer exclusive knowledge of the correct "way", inferring that all other understanding other than theirs is incorrect (regardless of claims of inclusiveness).

Everyone cannot be right at the same time when the claims are polar opposites, 180 degrees diametrically opposed.. and yes heretic... Christianity IS in total disagreement with other religions... regardless of your shallow claim of knowledge of its extreme similarities... Christianity (true biblically based Christianity) claims that salvation is exclusively through Jesus Christ - other religions say its not.. how do you pretend that there is harmony in those two claims? There is none...

Either one party is right and the other wrong, or both are wrong.. but not everyone can be right.

And while TigerWomen may NOT be able to debate Christianity (as she stated) with you heretic... I CAN.

I am a biblical scholar and a student of eschatology...and YES... I CAN provide you with factual evidences supporting the historical, scientific and supernatural claims of the Bible, both Old AND New Testaments...

The greater issue though is... WILL I.... and the answer is NO... While we as Christians are commanded by God to preach His Word and to tell everyone of Jesus, we also learn that it is not us who gets you saved or moves you to believe... it is only by His Will as to whether or not you belong to Jesus... We are also told to "kick the dust from our feet" as we leave those who were not resceptive to His Truth...you my un-saved friend, are one of those... and I refuse to enter into a debate with a close-minded individual such as yourself, who instead of being willing to listen to and at the very least investigate the supporting evidences offered, instead chooses a path of confrontational antagonism neatly wrapped in a blanket of arrogant rhetoric, attempting to gain the higher moral grounds based on a misguided belief in modern huminism etc...

SO while you may be able to "Brow Beat" a wonderful loving mother newly converted through her daughters deliverance, there are those of us who would quickly have you reduced to rattling of old and overused debate items ad-nauseum....

As for your "scientific" methods... using those tools I would wager money (if I was a betting man) that you have therefore NEVER loved anyone, or felt compassion for another human being... because using the "scientific method of reasoning" your "feelings" are non-measureable and therefore non-quantifiable... and therefore by your argument, are not valid...

As for your "Logic" (notice the quote/unquote) that now gives you knowledge that feeds your arrogance... 5 honest minutes of searching the internet will give you months of data to read that will easily and quickly shatter your religious beliefs... and don't think for a second that your atheism is anything other than another form of religion...

Anyways.. my vomiting feelings are gone now... but I have had just enough of your arrogance... If you choose not to believe, I don't care... but don't belittle others...

Look at it this way...When it all ends.... If we are wrong (which we are not), we have lost nothing because there is nothing.. but if you are wrong... you have lost EVERYTHING, because there will be an eternity waiting for you.

OH AND BY THE WAY heretic...

...the onus, or burden of proof is NOT on us, but on you... you can provide "0" evidences supporting your claim that there is no God other than personal opinions based on your own morals (where did those morals come from BTW?), but I could inundate your mail server with proofs FOR HIS Existance...

My heart goes out to you heretic, as you are lost at this time, and don't even realize it

God still loves you heretic...

Jesus Christ, who is GOD, LORD, KING and SAVIOUR of the World

...may you find your way to Him.


----------



## MisterMike (Aug 21, 2004)

artyon:


----------



## TigerWoman (Aug 21, 2004)

I finally read this thread after I left it.  

Peachmonkey, no the frantic room cleaning was for nothing.  Her allergic test came back negative and showed she had no allergic reaction to dust, mites, pollen etc.   She stopped her meds during a very windy, dirty camping trip unknown to me.  She has never had any symptoms since...NONE and *immediately* went back to playing her flute full force, in a timespan from Friday having difficulty breathing to Monday being healed. God was there for her, there is NO doubt in my mind.  It was not about my prayer or the prayers of others, they just showed God how much we loved her.  

Parmandjack, well-said!
artyon:


----------



## michaeledward (Aug 21, 2004)

parmandjack said:
			
		

> ...the onus, or burden of proof is NOT on us, but on you... you can provide "0" evidences supporting your claim that there is no God other than personal opinions based on your own morals (where did those morals come from BTW?), but I could inundate your mail server with proofs FOR HIS Existance...


Spoken as one who does not understand the scientific definition of 'proof'.

Go in Peace!


----------



## donald (Aug 21, 2004)

Heretic et al,

I have to disagree with most of what you said regarding historical proofs from the Bible, both the old and new testaments. One glaring instance in the O.T., is GOD's promise to restore Israel as a nation which was fufilled after many years of naysaying in 1948. There are quite a few instances in the N.T.. Such as the destruction of Solomon's temple by Rome. The fact of the matter is as previously stated. Knowing GOD, is by faith. If our trusting in HIS exsistance(sp?) is by what we see. Then its not truly "faith". Even though GOD's word The Bible states that creation itself testifies that HE is real. In the end you either accept it, or don't. I firmly believe that Jesus Christ is LORD, and that HE spoke the absolute truth, and is still speaking through HIS word the Bible. May HE bless, and keep all who are here...
Salute in Christ


----------



## Flatlander (Aug 21, 2004)

parmandjack said:
			
		

> Well....
> 
> I've got to step in at this point and state that the arrogance pervasive throughout all the posts from heretic is making me want to vomit....


It's great to see your ability to show compassion.



> you are correct in that all other religions are on the wrong paths to salvation... only through a relationship with Jesus Christ will a person be saved.


Saved from what?



> Everyone cannot be right at the same time when the claims are polar opposites, 180 degrees diametrically opposed.. and yes heretic... Christianity IS in total disagreement with other religions... regardless of your shallow claim of knowledge of its extreme similarities... Christianity (true biblically based Christianity) claims that salvation is exclusively through Jesus Christ - other religions say its not.. how do you pretend that there is harmony in those two claims? There is none...


You claim to be a biblical scholar, so I'll assume that you have a reasonable understanding of its content.  Tell me, do you feel the value of the publication, in terms of how it relates to Christianity, is the literal translation of the original Hebrew text, or the underlying message?  Do you really believe that the underlying messages of any other positive spiritual religeons are that diametrically opposed to the message of Christianity?  

Have you studied them, or are you guessing?



> Either one party is right and the other wrong, or both are wrong.. but not everyone can be right.


Sounds to me like you focus on a lot of literal references.....

Jesus taught using the parable, why do you suppose this was?



> I am a biblical scholar and a student of eschatology...and YES... I CAN provide you with factual evidences supporting the historical, scientific and supernatural claims of the Bible, both Old AND New Testaments...
> 
> The greater issue though is... WILL I.... and the answer is NO...


Then why bring it up?  


> and I refuse to enter into a debate with a close-minded individual such as yourself,


1.  That's what the Study is for.  If you don't want to play, then don't get in the sandbox.

2.  The Study is not intended to be a place where you single out somone with whom you disagree and insult their intelligence.  Let's stop that right now.  K?

Back to the discussion...



> As for your "Logic" (notice the quote/unquote) that now gives you knowledge that feeds your arrogance... 5 honest minutes of searching the internet will give you months of data to read that will easily and quickly shatter your religious beliefs... and don't think for a second that your atheism is anything other than another form of religion...


As a biblical scholar, I presume you have developed the ability to analyze text, in order to interpret the meaning of said text.  You might think about applying that skill to more of heretic888's posts.  I don't think aethiest is an approprite interpretation.



> Anyways.. my vomiting feelings are gone now... but I have had just enough of your arrogance... If you choose not to believe, I don't care... but don't belittle others...


Matthew 7:12 



> ...the onus, or burden of proof is NOT on us, but on you...


Actually, its on everyone who posts.  Look at the thread title.


> you can provide "0" evidences supporting your claim that there is no God other than personal opinions based on your own morals (where did those morals come from BTW?), but I could inundate your mail server with proofs FOR HIS Existance...


Again, then why bring it up if you choose not to reveal your evidence?  I'm rather interested to see what evidence you can report, and how you may justify it as more reliable or sufficient than the very evidence of heretic's that you seem to refute as inapplicable to this type of knowledge.


----------



## michaeledward (Aug 21, 2004)

parmandjack said:
			
		

> you can provide "0" evidences supporting your claim that there is no God


parmandjack is exactly correct in his statement. I can provide *NO EVIDENCE* to support that a supreme being does not exist.



			
				parmandjack said:
			
		

> but I could inundate your mail server with proofs FOR HIS Existance...


But here, parmandjack, begins to get in his own way. He could certianly inundate my mail server, but he could not do it with *PROOF* of the existance of a supreme being. Anecdotal evidence in not evidence at all, a nice story perhaps, but not evidence.

If evidence actually existed to support either position, it would indeed be news, and indeed, mail servers around the world would be busy. 

They call it faith. I will not ask you to abandon your faith. Don't ask me to abandon my ability to reason. 

Mike


----------



## Melissa426 (Aug 21, 2004)

flatlander said:
			
		

> I
> 
> Saved from what?


I wasn't going to get into this debate, but since you asked...!

To be saved is to be rescued from danger or evil, which are the consequences of sin. God can take away the results of sin and restore his creation to a peaceful and righteous relationship with him. When we sin, however, we separate yourself from a relationship with God. 
Christians believe that the only way to be saved, to have that relationship restored, is thru a relationship with Jesus that is real and personal, because Jesus  bore our punishment for our sin when he died on the cross.

That is simplistic. I am not a biblical scholar. I can not convince Heretic or anyone else on this board about the reality of God and his son Jesus Christ.
I can only bear witness to what this relationship, this belief, has done for me in my life. 

Please don't ask me to get into a theological debate. I can tell you right now, I am not enough of a scholar to do it.

Peace,
Melissa


----------



## michaeledward (Aug 21, 2004)

Melissa426 said:
			
		

> To be saved is to be rescued from danger or evil, which are the consequences of sin. God can take away the results of sin and restore his creation to a peaceful and righteous relationship with him.
> Peace,
> Melissa


Melissa, if I fall out of a kayak in a raging river, my personal floatation device can 'save' me; rescue me from danger.

But what is evil? According to our President, evil is a noun. Evil can be hunted down and killed. 

What is sin?

Can you explain "sin" without the construct of God? Sin must exist, for God to exist, so that God can save me from sin. The argument you are making requires a prerequisite belief; God exists.

Now, I don't want anyone who believes to stop their beliefs. Just want to point out the difficulty in the argument.

Mike


----------



## parmandjack (Aug 21, 2004)

michaeledward said:
			
		

> They call it faith. I will not ask you to abandon your faith. Don't ask me to abandon my ability to reason.
> 
> Mike


So... and this will be my only response to this inane thread... in one persons response to my ability to disagree with heretic888 I am told not to, how was it put? "to attack someones intelligence", or something similar...

...and then what do I see contained in the very next post? You stating that everyone who has faith cannot reason? 

That seems like quite a generalization hmmm?

So basically anyone of Faith who disagrees with your belief is dumb and unable to reason out facts to a logical conclusion, because the logical conclusion to them differs from that logical conclusion which you resolve the facts to???

That is quite an intolerant belief system you have there???

Luckily though, european and western democracies were founded on the judeo/christian teachings given to us by the very God that you don't seem to feel exists or is necessary, and for whom you can thank for the latitute of rights that you have at your disposal to voice your dissent.

...and you wonder why we get tired of entering into these useless debate with people who are close-minded and not interested in facts... considering that we hear nothing but circular logic, reasoning and arguments from those of your religion...

Anyway... caio, there are people out there who are truly searching and willing to examine the facts, that need my time much more than this thread...


----------



## RandomPhantom700 (Aug 21, 2004)

And next to the definition of "hypocrite" in the dictionary, class, we find parmandjack(***)' photograph.  Can anyone tell me why?


----------



## Dronak (Aug 21, 2004)

I didn't read all the posts, but that's because the first post or two basically summed things up.  [Oops, not the *first* two; it was the first two on page 4 where I looked first using the last post link from the forum's list of threads.]  I'm a trained scientist and I believe that science can explain how things happen quite well.  We've done lots of that.  But people don't just want to know how, they want to know why and that kind of why generally isn't in the realm of science.  For example, we've got theories about how the universe began, the Big Bang being the most prevalent and AFAIK still the best overall theory.  But does it explain *why* that initial creation happened?  No.  That's why I think there has to be some higher power, some form of god, that's the why behind the how that science can figure out.  It may not be a god in the traditional religious sense, but I do think there has to be something out there.  As it looks like was noted, this does go beyond reason into faith and when you make that switch, concrete proof either way really doesn't exist (that's why it's called "faith").  My general opinion has always been that science and religion can coexist quite well if you use them each in the appropriate realms and don't try to use one to explain things in the other, out of its realm.  And I've also heard what Mark Weiser said -- that if there were no god, humans would have need to create one.  I've also heard it said that no one's an atheist on their death bed.  *shrug*  Obviously everyone will have their own opinion.  Mine is basically that there has to be some higher power that's the why behind the how that science can explain.


----------



## michaeledward (Aug 21, 2004)

parmandjack said:
			
		

> So... and this will be my only response to this inane thread... in one persons response to my ability to disagree with heretic888 I am told not to, how was it put? "to attack someones intelligence", or something similar...
> 
> ...and then what do I see contained in the very next post? *You stating that everyone who has faith cannot reason? *
> 
> ...


If you re-examine my post, I think you will find that nowhere did I state that faith and reason are mutually exclusive, nor did I state that people of faith cannot reason. 

Some of the smartest people I know are people of faith. I make no claim linking intelligence (or lack thereof) to faith.

Further ... my intolerance can be, obviously manifested in my statement



			
				michaeledward said:
			
		

> I will not ask you to abandon your faith.


And to think that the rights granted to me as a citizen of the United States only exist because the United States was founded on Judeo/Christian teachings is rather an odd statement; one of political nature, rather than faith, so I will let it pass for the moment. Except to remind you that the founders were wise enough to codify that 'Congress shall make no law' concerning the establishment of religion? Where is the Judeo Christian teachings in that First Amendment.

You state that I am close minded, but I am at a loss. I stated that I can offer no evidence that a Higher Power does not exist. I have asked that you present *EVIDENCE*, and you state that I can't see the facts. I am looking. I am waiting. For two millenia, smarter people than me have been trying to offer proof one way or the other concerning the existance of a Supreme Being.

So one last thing before you go .... 

I am a born again Christian. I am "Saved". I have served in my Catholic Church. I have served in an Assemblies of God Church. I have served in a music ministry in my youth.

I have also examined my life, and the universe around me and decided that perhaps the reason for my existance is not GOD related; perhaps God Doesn't exist. In fact, it seems to my highly unlikely. 

Of course, with folks like you, being the light of the world, is it any wonder.

Mike


----------



## MisterMike (Aug 21, 2004)

When one person tells another to prove the object of their faith exists, I think they look pretty stupid, as does this thread.


----------



## michaeledward (Aug 21, 2004)

parmandjack said:
			
		

> and I will also state emphatically that you are correct in that all other religions are on the wrong paths to salvation... only through a relationship with Jesus Christ will a person be saved.


As stupid as this thread my look, MisterMike, it was not I that stated 'emphatically' that my way is the only way.  Of course, making such statements takes all the 'discussion' out of the discussion, doesn't it? 

Suddenly, it becomes an "I'm right, You're wrong" discussion (or is it lecture).


----------



## MisterMike (Aug 21, 2004)

If a religious doctrine says that chocolate cookies are the only thing you can eat on Fridays and that all other cookies are inherently evil, why can't you let those followers just have their freedom of religion?

Of course we need discussion, but after the point where it was stated religions are based on faith and not proof I think you all could have let it die.


----------



## michaeledward (Aug 21, 2004)

MisterMike said:
			
		

> Of course we need discussion, but after the point where it was stated religions are based on faith and not proof I think you all could have let it die.


I was trying to do just that, and then was accused of saying those with Faith do not have the ability to reason.



			
				parmandjack said:
			
		

> You stating that everyone who has faith cannot reason?


Isn't there a rule somewhere in the religion about bearing false witness against thy neighbor?


----------



## MisterMike (Aug 21, 2004)

michaeledward said:
			
		

> I was trying to do just that, and then was accused of saying those with Faith do not have the ability to reason.
> 
> 
> Isn't there a rule somewhere in the religion about bearing false witness against thy neighbor?



Well, it was kinda posed as a question, but I'm not gettin into that one. I wasn't directing anything directly at you, even though my post followed yours. I just hate to see these threads get ugly as they usually do.

Also, I'll be the first to say it's one thing to discuss the elements of religion and another to force it's doctrine on another person. Just as I'm equally appolled at those who say your religion is not true.


----------



## parmandjack (Aug 22, 2004)

Ok, as you request I'll give you this one last point before I go my friend...

...Everything else you have written I am ignoring, as you are simply picking and chosing words out of context to try to argue... it would be a waste of my time ..

However this last statment you made disturbs me, and it is only due to my concern for you that I am returning to respond, despite my previous statement of departure...



			
				michaeledward said:
			
		

> So one last thing before you go ....
> 
> I am a born again Christian. I am "Saved". I have served in my Catholic Church. I have served in an Assemblies of God Church. I have served in a music ministry in my youth.
> 
> Mike


...in this thread, You have been arguing against the existance of God, especially the God of the Bible... belief in the bible and the statements of Jesus Christ being the ONLY way, and the inerrancy of the Bible and literal translation of the Bible as Gods Word... and then out of the blue make such a stunning contradictory statement above in an attempt to strengthen your position...

However, and please pay close attention those of you out there truly wondering what a "real" Christian is...

...you are most definitely NOT a Born Again Christian my friend... read the bible for yourself to see what Jesus teaches about this, not your own version (and by bible I mean one such as the New King James, not the Holy See's version or the Catholic Catechism)...

2 things...

...first of all my friend, this statement you made displays your complete lack of knowledge and total ignorance of biblical Christianity (read your bible to find out more)... so how can you debate it?

The Catholic church is an Apostate church that does not adhere to the teachings of the bible, and in fact adds to and detracts from the teachings of God... something which God strictly warns us not to do (read your bible to find out more...ie: Revelations)...

If you truly knew the bible...you would know that you are not saved by your works... so if you are assuming your salvation by what you have done, or your "works"... (ie: catholic church attendance, choir etc..) then you are not saved as you declared above...

...second point my friend...  I reiterate that you are MOST DEFINITELY NOT SAVED... and I say this not from my own personal opinion.. but from the authority of the bible itself...

You state that you are "saved"... and then continue to describe your disbelief in the very God whom you believe has "saved" you... (HUH???!?!?!?!?!)

If you were truly saved, you would be filled with the Holy Ghost, and believe wholeheartedly in Jesus Christ as your Lord and Saviour... you Would KNOW that Salvation is ONLY through Jesus Christ, and KNOW that God DOES exist, and that your existance is based solely on Him...

How can you therefore attempt to argue me or anyone else on this point, when you dont have the first clue as to what the bible teaches?

Quoting scripture verses out of context, or partial clips of my statements out of context in a post, does not support your case against Christianity, when you so obviously have no idea what it teaches!!!

You have truly astounded me my friend, and I THANK you for your last post to me, as you have only served to completely reinforce the very reasons I stated previously, as to why we get tired of having these assinine debates with people who come completely unprepared with concrete facts outside their own opinions, based on nothing more than their own flawed humanistic theories of modern morality??? (as did the person who for calls me an *** and hypocrite for stating my beliefs, when I have said nothing in this thread that contradicts my faith thereby making me a hypocrit)... so   Not only did you and you "***" calling associate do this in front of all to see, but you both highlighted again why bible believing Christians do tire of the endless mind-numbing barrage of unsubstantiated and rehashed arguments used and ranted against Jesus and the Bible, and those of us who believe in Him and the inerrancy of the Bible.

3 years ago I was an atheist... no.. I was a "devout" atheist (dare I use that word in that context???)... I was oblivious to the Truth just as you and a number of others on this thread are.... I've used and heard all the same old tired arguments you have in your pocket and believe ridicule, undermine, or weaken our faith and arguments in sort of said faith....

But now I am SAVED... by the Grace of God the Father, and through Faith in my Lord and King, Jesus Christ...now I know the Truth... and can still love you and "***" man, despite our differences and "***" mans juvenile comments.

I thank you again my friend, as I walk away shaking my head and smiling at your lastest supporting arguments... 

BUT...

My heart is truly heavy and saddened by your loss, and I truly hope you can find the God that wants to save you... truly Mike...

Jesus loves you my friend, as do all of us, and I hope we meet in Heaven one day...

Your friend...

parmandjack...


----------



## Scout_379 (Aug 22, 2004)

And it is people like you who are truly ignorant, of yourself, and of others. 

One of the things I have against the the Christian/Catholic/whatever viewpoint is that the teachings are all based on stories out of a book, and old and many times revised book too! Truth cannot be found in text, there is no single, proper way to attain peace and happiness, or be saved. I asked the original question because I wanted to know what else, other than biblical stories, makes a person believe in such a concept as god. I did not start this thread to begin what has become a pissing match over the proper way...proper way to what exactly? It does not matter.

parmandjack,

you're a smart guy it seems, but you really need a few lessons in diplomacy. You really come off as an ***hole forcing his beliefs on others, rather than listening to other people and reasoning out why you yourself believe in god!. I frequently wanted to just say in big letters: STFU already!! your posts are not helpful, and are bringing hostility and anger rather than reason. I am glad that you are going, really, but I know that you will come right on back to see the reponses to your last post, just as you did before. I will be gone for a week, and your coming response will not be heard by me, _Praise the_...wait!

It is your behavior that I find appalling in most religions. The feeling that yours is the only way, that yours is the only god, only you will be thus saved by the lord! The thing is...you cannot prove the existence of a god, nobody can yet, and there has been NO PROOF, other than text in a book that has been rightfully questioned on several occasions. dinosaurs for an easy example. 

I feel that any religion promoting an open mind, and a loving and caring nature, is good for people. But these qualities do not have to be learned in churches. I know very.. uhh....sinful church-goers and _many_ very happy and loving atheists.

one last thing, and totally unrelated...is a lifetime of sin worth an eternity of hell? I can't beleive it!

I asked why do _you_ beleive, not why others _should_ beleive.


----------



## mj-hi-yah (Aug 22, 2004)

Scout_379 said:
			
		

> Now that I have your attention...
> 
> I have noticed through a couple of threads that we have some very well informed an intellectual religious persons using this site. Being in my teens, and raised in a religion free environment, I have become curious about my own spirituality.
> 
> And so I ask: If you beleive in a God, or like being, why? And what proof have you seen or learned of its/His existence? What makes you beleive?


Scout this is an interesting thread and I am wondering have you gained anything by it? 

The question you ask - what makes us believe? I like this question because _*it addresses our own personal beliefs and in that there are no rights or wrongs.*_ It is what I choose to believe and is not better or more important or more right than what anyone else chooses for themselves. I believe that when our bodies die, we, our souls if you will, live on. Here is what I take as my proof of the existence of something greater than our living biological selves. Here are three things that have happened during my life.

When my brother-in-law was 30 years old he died in his sleep of a massive heart attack. He had a degenerative disease that went undetected and his death was a total shock to everyone who loved him. The night he died at about 2 am a lot of our family rushed to my sister's home to be by her side. He died quickly and the paramedics took him to the hospital to spare my sister of a long wait with the body in her home. We all wanted to be with her at the hospital so a kind policeman agreed to stay in the house because their not quite three year old daughter lay asleep in her crib. It was a long night and we all congregated back at my sister's home and were very sorrowful. The policeman said that my niece had not awakened all night. In the morning she came down and we were all still crying and she walked over to her mother and said "Mommy why are you crying? Don't cry Mommy...last night an angel came down and touched me on the forehead and told me everything would be ok." She didn't know her father had died...she had been asleep the whole time. We all just were amazed by her words and took great comfort in them. 

My husband and I purchased our home a year before we planned our wedding and gutted it and completely remodeled it on nights and weekends. Anyway we worked really hard on the renovations and put all of our money into the house and our wedding and had nothing left for a honeymoon, so we spent our first night together in our newly remodeled home. Just before we were about to go to sleep there was a very strange and loud zapping sound from the living room and it was accompanied by a blinding bright green light that filled the house and streamed into our room for at least a few seconds and then suddenly everything went black again with a loud zap. It was the freakiest thing I've ever seen, and we both were like _"Did that just happen?"_ The home we live in is an older home and I later found out that the previous owner had died in the house. I like to believe that that was her way of giving us her blessing to live in her home. It's like she was satisfied that we were finally living there so her energy passed onto the next realm. We've lived here for 14 years and have never seen anything like it again. 

My mother died of complications of Diabetes. She was a person who lived life to the fullest and abhorred the restrictions that being a diabetic placed on her. A few months after she passed my sisters and brother went to clean out her clothes and I put on one of her sweaters while I was cleaning. I felt something in one of the pockets of the sweater and it turned out to be candy - something a diabetic is not allowed to have. So I said out loud as a joke for my siblings to hear, "Oh Mommy you bad girl what where you doing with candy in your pocket?" About two months later my sisters and I went to see a psychic named John Edwards. He told us many amazing things about her and about ourselves that he would have had _no way_ of possibly knowing. Things that were personal. There was one thing in particular that really made me believe that my mother was still with us. He said, "Your mother wants you to know that she was very embarrassed that you found candy in her pocket!" It blew me away!

As a result of these experiences, I've made a choice to believe in the existence of something greater. I have come to believe that the signs are always there...I need only pay attention.

MJ :asian:


----------



## Melissa426 (Aug 22, 2004)

parmandjack said:
			
		

> 3 years ago I was an atheist... no.. I was a "devout" atheist (dare I use that word in that context???)... I was oblivious to the Truth just as you and a number of others on this thread are.... I've used and heard all the same old tired arguments you have in your pocket and believe ridicule, undermine, or weaken our faith and arguments in sort of said faith....


So, those of you who read Parmanjack's posts and they leave a sour taste inside you about Christianity, realize that he really is a baby, a very new Christian who has much to learn about his walk with Christ. 

 The apostle Paul talks a great deal about new Christians and sometimes they just "are not ready for solid food, they must be fed milk."  Parmandjack is apparently still being "nursed."  So consider that when you read his posts.

Peace, 
Melissa


----------



## michaeledward (Aug 22, 2004)

parmandjack said:
			
		

> Ok, as you request I'll give you this one last point before I go my friend...
> 
> ...Everything else you have written I am ignoring, as you are simply picking and chosing words out of context to try to argue... it would be a waste of my time ..
> 
> ...


How incredibly arrogant of you! 

Were you in the room when I accepted Jesus Christ as my personal Lord and Savior? 
Were you in any of the rooms in which I testified before the youth groups around New Englad with our Evangelical Music Ministry?
Did you attend any of the 'Youth' Masses held in the 'Rec Center' of our Catholic Church, which drew evangelicals from around the area, and due to the Holy Spirit (some say) was one of the most popular worship services in the area?

And yet you can state with certainty that I am this, or I am not that.

Some read the teachings of Jesus Christ to say that you must be 'Born Again' to enter the Kingdom of Heaven, one birth of the body, and one birth of the Holy Spirit. The teachings also tell us that once you are born again, there is nothing that can be done to undue that.

So, if I was 'Born Again' at 15 years old ... how is it that now I am not Born Again now? How did I become 'un-Born Again'?

Don't you remember the part about 'Free Will'? I grew up and continued to question things. And more and more those questions left me with uncertainty. And as I looked at those uncertainties, it seemed to me far more likely that God was a human construct, rather than humans being a construct of God.

I was there ... I got the T-Shirt ... It's folded in the bottom drawer of my dresser, and I would really rather not have anyone see me in it, or know I ever wore it.

Good Grief - Mike

P.S. why don't you print out both sides of our little conversation, 'my friend', and bring it to your religious teacher, and see what he has to say?


----------



## michaeledward (Aug 22, 2004)

Melissa426 said:
			
		

> So, those of you who read Parmanjack's posts and they leave a sour taste inside you about Christianity, realize that he really is a baby, a very new Christian who has much to learn about his walk with Christ.
> 
> The apostle Paul talks a great deal about new Christians and sometimes they just "are not ready for solid food, they must be fed milk." Parmandjack is apparently still being "nursed." So consider that when you read his posts.
> 
> ...


Melissa, 

parmandjack states earlier in this thread that something to the effect that he is an 'expert' in the Bible. His statements seem to indicate something very different from being 'a very new Christian'.

Thought you might want to know.

Mike



			
				parmandjack said:
			
		

> I am a biblical scholar and a student of eschatology...and YES... I CAN provide you with factual evidences supporting the historical, scientific and supernatural claims of the Bible, both Old AND New Testaments...


... but then again, maybe I am ....



			
				parmandjack said:
			
		

> as you are simply picking and chosing words out of context to try to argue.


----------



## Melissa426 (Aug 22, 2004)

michaeledward said:
			
		

> Melissa,
> 
> parmandjack states earlier in this thread that something to the effect that he is an 'expert' in the Bible. His statements seem to indicate something very different from being 'a very new Christian'.
> 
> ...


He can say what he wants to say.  But you don't go from an "devout" atheist  to being a Bible expert in 3 years.  It's like me going from white belt to Grand Master in three years.  Not going to happen!

And for the sake of argument, even if he is a Bible expert, does that make him a good Christian?  Absolutely not!   It takes more than knowing the word, you have to live it.

http://bible.gospelcom.net/cgi-bin/bible?language=english&passage=Colossians+3%3A+12-14&version=NIV

Peace,
Melissa


----------



## Flatlander (Aug 22, 2004)

Hmmmm.  I thought my last post here was pretty good, but I didn't get any response.  Peculiar.

michaeledward - good points.

MJ - awesome post.  Thank you for trying to keep the thread on topic.

RandomPhantom700 - come on man, that was a little harsh.

parmandjack - why not continue the debate?  That is what the Study is for.  Just try to keep your emotions out of it.  The point is to provide evidence of a higher power.  It doesn't *necessarily* need to be tangible, and MJ-hi-yah's post was a good example of this.

I for one have nothing noteworthy to offer in that respect.  But you claim to have something, so its better to share than be a troll....


----------



## Lisa (Aug 22, 2004)

mj-hi-yah said:
			
		

> As a result of these experiences, I've made a choice to believe in the existence of something greater. I have come to believe that the signs are always there...I need only pay attention.
> 
> MJ :asian:


MJ, Awesome post and I agree with you completely.  I was present when both of my grand parents passed away.  The first, my grandmother was when I was in my early 20's.  I had said my goodbyes and had no intention of coming back but something drew me there.  I sat in her room with my mom talking quietly.  My mom asked me to go and get her a cup of hot chocolate, I knew the vending machine was on a different floor and I also knew that it would not be a good time for me to leave.  I made an excuse not to leave, a few minutes later I saw my grandmother take her last breaths.

The same thing basically happened 15 years later when my grandfather fell ill.  I, again, was there when he took his last breaths.  I was at work when I recieved a call from my family and had an uncontrollable urge to get to the hospital as soon as possible even though my family said he was doing okay and comfortable.  No one expected him to die that day.  

On both occassions something or perhaps someone drew me to the aid of my family.  I can't explain it better then that. 

Does this prove that there is a higher power?  To most, probably not, but it makes me believe that there are things out there that I fail to yet understand.  Forces that have yet to be discovered.  If, once I die, those things finally are explained to me, then great; if they are not, then what harm has it done me to find strength in something that makes me feel secure.  No, I guess some would not call me a good christian, I don't go to church every Sunday.  I don't believe I need to prove my faith or beliefs to anyone.  You have yours and I have mine.  I can respect your opinion, my only request is that you respect mine.


----------



## TonyM. (Aug 22, 2004)

Ardvarks!


----------



## mj-hi-yah (Aug 22, 2004)

Nalia said:
			
		

> On both occassions something or perhaps someone drew me to the aid of my family. I can't explain it better then that.


You need not explain it further...it's in your heart.   I think the challenge is in being mindful of it.  I hope you take comfort in knowing that you made it for the passing of each of your two grandparents.:asian: 



> Does this prove that there is a higher power? To most, probably not, but it makes me believe that there are things out there that I fail to yet understand. Forces that have yet to be discovered. If, once I die, those things finally are explained to me, then great; if they are not, then what harm has it done me to find strength in something that makes me feel secure. No, I guess some would not call me a good christian, I don't go to church every Sunday. I don't believe I need to prove my faith or beliefs to anyone. You have yours and I have mine. I can respect your opinion, my only request is that you respect mine.


Nalia this is nicely put.  I believe religion is in the way we live our lives each and every day.  It is in how we treat people, in our actions - in what we say and what we do.


----------



## mj-hi-yah (Aug 22, 2004)

TonyM. said:
			
		

> Ardvarks!


:rofl: :rofl: :rofl:


----------



## mj-hi-yah (Aug 22, 2004)

flatlander said:
			
		

> Hmmmm. I thought my last post here was pretty good, but I didn't get any response. Peculiar.


 Dan I especially liked when you said, "Actually, its on everyone (to try and prove) who posts. Look at the thread title." It's the reason I posted. Scout is a young person searching and asking for us to share our personal beliefs _if we believe in God_ and _why_ we believe, and I think it's important to get back to that. I do however really understand the need to digress sometimes especially if you feel you are being challenged. :asian: 



> MJ - awesome post. Thank you for trying to keep the thread on topic.


:asian:


----------



## RandomPhantom700 (Aug 22, 2004)

flatlander said:
			
		

> RandomPhantom700 - come on man, that was a little harsh.


Perhaps, but he deserves just as much for everything he wrote.


----------



## Lisa (Aug 22, 2004)

mj-hi-yah said:
			
		

> You need not explain it further...it's in your heart. I think the challenge is in being mindful of it. I hope you take comfort in knowing that you made it for the passing of each of your two grandparents.:asian:


I take great comfort in being there for my grandparents and for my mom who was with me both times.  

To put a little lighter note on this serious thread, my Aunt told me she never wants me to come and visit her if she ever falls ill and ends up in the hospital.  :idunno: why?    Apparently I am considered the family grim reaper.


----------



## Melissa426 (Aug 22, 2004)

flatlander said:
			
		

> Hmmmm. I thought my last post here was pretty good, but I didn't get any response. Peculiar.


Your last post was good.
I did respond.  (top of page 5)

Or are you wondering specificallly about Parmanjack?

He actually might be a man of his word and not come back and post any more on this topic, which is what he said, at the end of his last ramblings.  I admire anyone who actually got thru all that stuff  he wrote and took the time to respond logically. I couldn't bring myself to do it.


----------



## mj-hi-yah (Aug 22, 2004)

Nalia said:
			
		

> To put a little lighter note on this serious thread, my Aunt told me she never wants me to come and visit her if she ever falls ill and ends up in the hospital. :idunno: why?  Apparently I am considered the family grim reaper.


  :boing2::bow: :boing1:


----------



## sma_book (Aug 28, 2004)

Personally, I would like to make a distinction between faith and the trappings of religion. I think that religion is the expression of faith, and not an end in itself. I consider myself to be an agnostic. I started off Catholic and just got to the point where that organized religion, and most mainstream organized religions (at least in the US) just seemed so unfair and contradictory.

Thought #1: In my work as a program manager for a software company, I work with many different people. I see too many times where people can't quite agree on the details of what was said in a meeting they just attended, never mind a meeting that happened a week, month, or year ago. Thinking of the Bible, if I allow that the prophets were truly prophets (again for the sake of argument and making this point), I truly can't believe that these revelations have been faithfully transmitted throughout the millennia without some modifications, changes, and cultural interpretations by at least one transcriber. Earlier in this thread there was a comment as to which English translation of the Bible was 'right'. Heck, considering that the meaning of a sentence in English can be changed for lack of punctuation, I can only imagine what happened as religious text went through oral, written, and translated iterations. 

Thought #2: The whole concept of one religion being right and everyone else being wrong disturbs me on so many levels. Although I really understand the desire to perceive the world in shades of black and white, doing so, especially with groups of people in terms of 'saved' vs. 'not saved', can lead to so much wrong. Think Nazis and Jews, Hutus and Tutsis, blacks vs. whites, women vs. men, gays vs. straights, 'us' and 'them'. Once people start thinking in 'us' vs. 'them' terms, it is too easy to start treating the 'thems' as inferior and to justify discrimination and worse actions. Extremism is dangerous, period.

I think Bill, Ted, and Rufus said it best: "Be excellent to each other."
(Go ahead, watch the Bill and Ted movies!)

Regards,
- Sheryl


----------



## heretic888 (Aug 31, 2004)

Sorry this took so long to reply to, guys, but I have been quite busy as of late. Now, to address the hilarity that is parmanjack's post(s)...



> I've got to step in at this point and state that the arrogance pervasive throughout all the posts from heretic is making me want to vomit...



I guess "arrogance" is the fundamanetalist way of saying "a point of view I disagree with". Thanks for the personal attack, by the way. Be sure and break a few more rules on the code of conduct while you're at it.



> I for one Tigerwomen, support you 100%, and I will also state emphatically that you are correct in that all other religions are on the wrong paths to salvation... only through a relationship with Jesus Christ will a person be saved.



I do find it _ironic_, however, that someone that emphatically claims everyone who believes differently than him is "wrong" has the temerity to call me "arrogant".



> To say otherwise (ie: they are all equal etc...) would be to say that Jesus Christ was either a liar or a lunatic



Nope. To say otherwise could also be to say that Jesus Christ was a myth and never existed. By the way, I never claimed all religions are "equal" --- only that they share a universal esoteric core. 



> because He Himself CLAIMED to be the ONLY WAY... and if I agree that other religions are equally true (inferring that Jesus lied or was a lunatic), I thereby declare that the basis of our faith was not reliable...



Correction. _You_ claim that he claimed the above. You actually have no proof that he said anything of the sort, or that he existed. What you do have is a heavily doctored, extremely old, politically charged document that cannot hardly pass as a historical text.

You may also want to re-evaluate your interpretation of the phrase in question ("I am the Way, the Life, and the Truth. No one cometh to the Father but by Me"). Both the Greek and the Aramaic versions of the text have a startingly different interpretation than the jingoistic fundamentalist take you have been handed down.



> And by the way, all other religions claim this exclusivity also... Muslims claim only Mohammad and Allah are true... Hindu's claim that their religion is true by stating that there are many gods etc, thereby inferring that my God was not telling me the truth in His Revelation...etc... anyone that states that their way is correct (as they all do), infer exclusive knowledge of the correct "way", inferring that all other understanding other than theirs is incorrect (regardless of claims of inclusiveness).



This, I'm afraid, is a lie. And a bad one, at that.

No, not all religions claim this "exlusivity". Hinduism most assuredly does not, as evidenced by the incredible diversities of religious paths under that tradition (ranging everywhere from Shaivism to Tantra to Yoga to Bhakti). Nor does Buddhism. Nor Taoism. Early Christianity didn't even contain such exclusivity, in contrast to the historically doctored perversion you hold to. Numerous strands of Islam most assuredly do not either (particularly Sufism).

Also, to correct a minor point, YHVH never actually denied the existence of other gods in the Bible (in fact, it is implicit that he accepts their existence). He simply demanded that his "people" worship him exclusively.



> Everyone cannot be right at the same time when the claims are polar opposites, 180 degrees diametrically opposed..



Uhhhh.... why not??



> and yes heretic... Christianity IS in total disagreement with other religions... regardless of your shallow claim of knowledge of its extreme similarities... Christianity (true biblically based Christianity) claims that salvation is exclusively through Jesus Christ - other religions say its not.. how do you pretend that there is harmony in those two claims? There is none...



Ok, now this is just silly.

I never, ever claimed that "Christianity" (whatever you believe that may be) is in "agreement" with other religions. I simply cited the esoteric and mystical of the religion. I related the insights, claims, and experiences of the various saints, sages, prophets, and mystics of the Judeo-Christian tradition over the centures --- and then noted the similarities they have with those of other religions. 

Not once did I make a claim for what the everyday "believer" or the political leaders of "Christianity" may say or believe. I honestly don't care about their take, to tell you the truth. Meister Eckhart and Clement of Alexandria interest me much more than Pat Robertson.

Also, beware any claim of the "true Biblically-based Christianity". Last time I checked, Christians disagree quite a lot (as evidenced by many of the less jingoistic Christians on this thread bashing your rather ill-conceived views). I would also be interested in learning _which_ Bible you believe espouses "true Christianity" --- and, furthermore, which translations.



> Either one party is right and the other wrong, or both are wrong.. but not everyone can be right.



Yet again, why not??



> And while TigerWomen may NOT be able to debate Christianity (as she stated) with you heretic... I CAN.



Yeah, ok, Mr. Humble.



> I am a biblical scholar and a student of eschatology...and YES... I CAN provide you with factual evidences supporting the historical, scientific and supernatural claims of the Bible, both Old AND New Testaments...



You cannot provide any "evidence" in the sense that I demand, which is according to the scientific method. But, I'm quite sure you've got your "prehistoric human" fossils and your "fragment of the ark" to show to everybody, too.



> The greater issue though is... WILL I.... and the answer is NO... While we as Christians are commanded by God to preach His Word and to tell everyone of Jesus, we also learn that it is not us who gets you saved or moves you to believe... it is only by His Will as to whether or not you belong to Jesus... We are also told to "kick the dust from our feet" as we leave those who were not resceptive to His Truth...you my un-saved friend, are one of those...



I was receptive at one point. Then I grew up. Part of that process of growing up was acknowledging the validity of different points of view. You might have to work on that sometime.

I was baptized (twice), I defended Christianity, I went to church every Sunday, I went to the summer church camps --- I did the whole nine yards. But, it didn't work for me. Go figure.



> and I refuse to enter into a debate with a close-minded individual such as yourself, who instead of being willing to listen to and at the very least investigate the supporting evidences offered, instead chooses a path of confrontational antagonism neatly wrapped in a blanket of arrogant rhetoric, attempting to gain the higher moral grounds based on a misguided belief in modern huminism etc...



Last time I checked, I don't base my beliefs on "huminism". Or humanism, even.

I do still find it humorously _ironic_ that someone who emphatically claims that everyone else but him is "wrong" turns around and calls my pluralistic view "close-minded". Humorous, indeed.

Also, if you are so against entering the debate --- why'd you post in the first place??

[qupte]SO while you may be able to "Brow Beat" a wonderful loving mother newly converted through her daughters deliverance, there are those of us who would quickly have you reduced to rattling of old and overused debate items ad-nauseum....[/quote]

You are aware that you're basically just assuming everything she related in her antecdote is true, correct?? I am not saying TigerWoman is lying, but you have absolutely no basis for believing anecdotal evidence like this --- and by no means does it constitute any of what we would pass as "proof".



> As for your "scientific" methods... using those tools I would wager money (if I was a betting man) that you have therefore NEVER loved anyone, or felt compassion for another human being...



Then you would lose your bet. Pascal would be proud.



> because using the "scientific method of reasoning" your "feelings" are non-measureable and therefore non-quantifiable... and therefore by your argument, are not valid...



Everything in the above quotation is completely wrong. Your knowledge of the scientific method (ever heard of a little discipline called psychology?) is clearly lacking.



> As for your "Logic" (notice the quote/unquote) that now gives you knowledge that feeds your arrogance



Ah, I see. Being able to use the quote function apparentlye "proves" I am "arrogant". 



> ... 5 honest minutes of searching the internet will give you months of data to read that will easily and quickly shatter your religious beliefs...



It hasn't yet. And nothing you have said, between your hypocritical personal attacks, jingoistic claims for epistemological exclusivity, or mindless faith in the anecdotal accounts of people you have never met, would indicate it will.

By the way, what makes you think you know what my "religious beliefs" are in the first place??



> and don't think for a second that your atheism is anything other than another form of religion...



Ok, this is even sillier.

One) I am not, nor have I ever claimed to be, an atheist. Sorry, no cigar.

Two) Preaching the choir, beau. I am well aware of the "religious" nature of atheism.



> Anyways.. my vomiting feelings are gone now... but I have had just enough of your arrogance... If you choose not to believe, I don't care... but don't belittle others...



You don't belittle others, do you?? I think Random summed you up in one try.



> Look at it this way...When it all ends.... If we are wrong (which we are not), we have lost nothing because there is nothing.. but if you are wrong... you have lost EVERYTHING, because there will be an eternity waiting for you.



Pascal's wager is a laughably flawed scenario. Don't try and boast it as some surefire logical proof.



> ...the onus, or burden of proof is NOT on us, but on you...



An intriguing lie. The burden of proof is on whoever is making a claim for authority. Which, last time I checked, wasn't me.



> you can provide "0" evidences supporting your claim that there is no God other than personal opinions based on your own morals



When did I ever say there was no "God", or that I could "prove" it??



> (where did those morals come from BTW?)



Advanced cognitive reason ontogenetically inherent (although not necessarily actualized) within a human organism. I reference Carol Giligan and Lawrence Kohlber's work on the developmental stages of human morality. 



> but I could inundate your mail server with proofs FOR HIS Existance...



Pretty sure the Bible has something about lying, doesn't it??   



> My heart goes out to you heretic, as you are lost at this time, and don't even realize it



Yep. And _I'm_ the arrogant one....

*snicker* Laterz.


----------



## Scout_379 (Aug 31, 2004)

you know... I think he really did stop reading this thread! hope it wasn't too much trouble to build that response heretic!




			
				mj-hi-yah said:
			
		

> Scout this is an interesting thread and I am wondering have you gained anything by it?


a little o this a little o that...very cool story btw!
I do feel I have gained something, but I can't place it just yet. One thought for me is that we all should find our own path, our own proof.


----------



## mj-hi-yah (Aug 31, 2004)

Scout_379 said:
			
		

> a little o this a little o that...very cool story btw!


Glad you found something in it!  


> I do feel I have gained something, but I can't place it just yet. One thought for me is that we all should find our own path, our own proof.


Scout I must say you are wise for one so young! I think you are on your way! :asian: 

MJ


----------



## someguy (Sep 1, 2004)

Sheesh Heretic that must have taken abit of your time.  I enjoyed reading it.
About Pascal's wager.  I don't think it was ever even called a proof of god or anything by Pascal.


----------



## MisterMike (Sep 1, 2004)

Well, if we take the old addage: "seeing is believing," I think a lot of us have seen something...


----------



## RandomPhantom700 (Sep 1, 2004)

MisterMike said:
			
		

> Well, if we take the old addage: "seeing is believing," I think a lot of us have seen something...


Um, and this meant what?


----------



## MisterMike (Sep 1, 2004)

Oh, hi RandomPhantom700,

Thanks for asking. It meant a lot of people have their own reasons to beleive what they do, and they do not have to prove them to the likes of heretics or athiests, etc.


----------



## RandomPhantom700 (Sep 1, 2004)

I see.  I thought by "I think alot of us have seen something", you meant that we all have seen proof of God, or something similar.  

Whether you have to prove it depends on the forum.  If you're trying to decide your own beliefs, then no, no proof to others is necessary.  But if you're trying to establish a universal truth for everyone, that's something entirely different.


----------



## MisterMike (Sep 1, 2004)

Oh, no, just some


----------



## michaeledward (Sep 1, 2004)

MisterMike said:
			
		

> Thanks for asking. It meant a lot of people have their own reasons to beleive what they do, and they do not have to prove them to the likes of heretics or athiests, etc.


Mike, is it possible for someone to have a reason to believe what they do, and then choose not to believe? 
Or is it possible for someone to believe, without having a reason?

As I am the odd man out in a discussion of 'Higher Power' (despite Alcoholics Anonymous), I certainly have never asked anyone for proof for or against the existance of such. Nor have I offered any. When claims of such evidence are made, however, I will ask to be exposed to it.

I think FAITH is the thing that makes it a higher power ... and by definition 'Faith' and 'Proof' are mutually exclusive. It seems some in the religious community have difficulty with this axiom.

Mike


----------



## MisterMike (Sep 1, 2004)

michaeledward said:
			
		

> Mike, is it possible for someone to have a reason to believe what they do, and then choose not to believe?
> Or is it possible for someone to believe, without having a reason?
> Mike



I don't see why not. But I may be missing where you are going with it.

I may have reason to see a red car, but if I choose not to believe it's there men with nets are coming for me.

I guess where I was going is proof for some may not fit what others call scientific.


----------



## michaeledward (Sep 1, 2004)

Not really going anywhere with it. Just your phrase "people have their own reasons to believe" struck me as a very self-evident statement; people aren't going to believe what they believe because of my reasons, but only their own.

Although, as I typed out the response, it occurred to me that many, perhaps, do not know why they believe what they believe. We have had the discussions before about an individual behaving one way, or another, simply because his parents behaved that way. This is often evident in religion and politics, isn't it?

But, that being said ... proof and faith really can't co-exist, can they? If you have the faith of a mustard seed, you can say to the mountain "be thou removed", but I don't see the need to change any of my topo maps too often. 

Despite the geological stability, I know that those of faith need no additional evidence of a supreme power to believe as strongly as they would in the refraction of light through a prism. Additionally, I would never ask a believe to stop believing based on my understanding. 

We all come to our beliefs through our own experiences, which, is what you said, which, is so obvious that sometimes, it needs to be said. ... you see?

<chuckle>

wow .. those are some pretty confusing sentences ... did I write all that .. .geesh.


----------



## TigerWoman (Sep 1, 2004)

What happened to me and my daughter was a rock that fell on my head. It cannot be explained by science and the doctors. The asthma was there in full force, then it was not. Dismiss it as a nice story, don't believe it really happened, it doesn't matter to me if it doesn't matter to you, your loss. I do believe that God saved her.  What would you think, if you begged God to save your child, a God that you didn't know was really there or not and then your daughter became miraculously well, completely well. It struck me to the bone, I had no doubt what had just happened.  If I had asthma or worse, do I believe God would save me. No, I can't say I would. It is up to him, and as just a mere human being, that God created, I cannot have the audacity to truly understand God. Most of who believe in him try but do not really know. Those that struggle scientifically for "proof" still have that question in their head, what if? Those that protest and argue, why is that if you are so certain? Does the loudest voice win? Because if you are not right.. What if?  TW


----------



## heretic888 (Sep 1, 2004)

> you know... I think he really did stop reading this thread! hope it wasn't too much trouble to build that response heretic!



Nope. Took about 15 or so minutes of my time.



> Sheesh Heretic that must have taken abit of your time. I enjoyed reading it.



I'm glad you enjoyed it. 



> About Pascal's wager. I don't think it was ever even called a proof of god or anything by Pascal.



No, it wasn't. But parmanjack clearly made reference to Pascal's wager (i.e., its a "better bet" to believe in God), whether intentionally or not. And, the point I was trying to make is that it is a rather flimsy argument to convince others to believe in "God" (whatever it is you view "God" to be in the first place).



> Thanks for asking. It meant a lot of people have their own reasons to beleive what they do, and they do not have to prove them to the likes of heretics or athiests, etc.



Correct. You don't "have to" do anything --- in the sense of any kind of duty of obligation to validate your beliefs.

But, remember, the title of this thread is "proof of a higher power". If you make a claim for proof, then the burden of proof is on you. If you make a claim for authority, then you must provide proof to be taken seriously. And, the criteria for proof is very, very clear and obvious (hell, it doesn't even have to be material in nature, as many have falsely claimed) --- and one person's anecdotal "evidence" is not it.



> I think FAITH is the thing that makes it a higher power ... and by definition 'Faith' and 'Proof' are mutually exclusive. It seems some in the religious community have difficulty with this axiom.



I dunno, bro. I sure have seen a lot of "rational" types that sure have a lot of "faith" in their scientific "proofs". 



> Dismiss it as a nice story, don't believe it really happened, it doesn't matter to me if it doesn't matter to you, your loss.



Its not so much a matter of "dismissing" or "disbelieving" what happened to your daughter, as it is merely discussing the nature of such anecdotal "evidence".



> Those that struggle scientifically for "proof" still have that question in their head, what if?



Really?? I certainly don't.



> Those that protest and argue, why is that if you are so certain? Does the loudest voice win? Because if you are not right.. What if?



I see a slightly more veiled reference to Pascal's wager. Again.

I notice the intriguing paradox in many arguments like this, though. Its as if they don't believe that they themselves are "protesting and arguing". Intriguing, indeed.

Laterz all.


----------



## michaeledward (Sep 1, 2004)

Tigerwoman,

I believe everything happened exactly as you describe. And I would not ask you to explain it in any other way. 



As to the 'What If' queston, as in 'What if I'm wrong, and there is a 'God'' .... well.... 

What if ... 'God' is 'Jesus', then maybe the forgiving 'God' of the New Testament will disreguard my pride, and accept me as a 'twice-born Christian' I was at 17 years old.
What if ... 'God' is the 'God' of Moses, a venegful, war-like 'God' that struck down Soddom and Gamorrah, then I shall burn in hell for all eternity.
What if ... 'God' is 'Allah', 'There is no God, but God, and Mohammed is his Prophet', then I keep holy the wrong Sabbath.
What if ... 'God is 'Yaweh', in which case, I do not have the correct bloodlines to be accepted into heaven.

This, of course, only covers a few of the descriptions of 'God' who was the creator of 'Abraham'. If we move further to the East, we begin to see different 'Gods'. The 'What if' question expands rapidly. 
Is only one of these choices correct? Did you choose correctly? Are all of these religions paths toward heaven? According to their teachings, they can't be, but could 'God' be bigger than that?

For me, the answer is agnostisism or athieism. While scientifically, the answer must be Agnostic.... faith causes me to choose athieism.

Of course, now, it is as if we see through a glass, then, we may see face-to-face.

Peace - Mike


----------



## Flatlander (Sep 1, 2004)

I cannot leave this alone.  Just need to comment here - really good post Mike.  Very well put.


----------



## TigerWoman (Sep 1, 2004)

Yes, everybody makes their choices, usually at the end. 
Peace to you all too and make God bless you, TW


----------



## RandomPhantom700 (Sep 1, 2004)

TigerWoman said:
			
		

> Yes, everybody makes their choices, usually at the end.


Ah yes, the good old "nobody's an atheist at their deathbed" claim.  Humorous.  

As for your daughter, I'm glad to hear that she is better.  But as for whether it's proof for God, all I have to say is that correlation and causation aren't the same thing.  What if she'd gotten better when you didn't pray?  Or hadn't gotten better when you did?  

But oh yeah, I forgot: what if's are bad.


----------



## michaeledward (Sep 1, 2004)

TigerWoman said:
			
		

> Yes, everybody makes their choices, usually at the end.
> Peace to you all too and make God bless you, TW


Thank you.


----------



## RandomPhantom700 (Sep 1, 2004)

> reference to Pascal's wager (i.e., its a "better bet" to believe in God)


Just to clarify, Pascal's wager was that you should believe in God because if he does exist and you don't, you're going to hell, but if you believe in him and he doesn't, you really don't lose anything, right?


----------



## someguy (Sep 2, 2004)

Thats pretty much the wager.
Glad you daughter is better.
AS to corralation and causation.  Hume talked about this right.  I think(probably am mistaken) that there was an example about if you throw something up in the air you don't really know it is going to come down.  It's all based on experience.  You could do it 100 or 10000000000000 times and its still doesn't nesseitate that it will happen.  Bah this is a bad example and said badly. 
To me God is just one big ?  I don't know much about God but I'm going to guess there is one.  I don't see a reason not to.  I would rather belive in something that nothing.
Yeah I speled horibaly becase i cant access a spell checker from this computer.


----------



## PeachMonkey (Sep 2, 2004)

TigerWoman said:
			
		

> Yes, everybody makes their choices, usually at the end. Peace to you all too and make God bless you, TW


 Doesn't it seem a little disingenuous to combine the sort of smug "when you are dying you'll realize how wrong you are" comment with a religious blessing?


----------



## michaeledward (Sep 2, 2004)

PeachMonkey said:
			
		

> Doesn't it seem a little disingenuous to combine the sort of smug "when you are dying you'll realize how wrong you are" comment with a religious blessing?


That's not the way I read her comments .. and I don't think her blessing is disingenuous at all.

The Athiest


----------



## RandomPhantom700 (Sep 2, 2004)

I gotta agree with PeachMonkey on this one.  "Yes, everybody makes their choices, usually at the end" sounds too similar to the doctrine that 'nobody's an atheist at their deathbed'.  At least that's what I got out of it when I read it.


----------



## rmcrobertson (Sep 2, 2004)

Yeah, I'd put it up there with the old, "Unless you worship as I do, my God of peace and love will condemn you to eternal hellfire, because mine is the only true religion, have a nice day," claptrap.


----------



## TigerWoman (Sep 3, 2004)

PeachMonkey said:
			
		

> Doesn't it seem a little disingenuous to combine the sort of smug "when you are dying you'll realize how wrong you are" comment with a religious blessing?



smugness: belief in one's goodness
disingenuous: lacking in frankness, insincere

I am hardly "smug" about knowing whether I will go to heaven or not. That is a personal thing.  Everybody has to make choices, if not now, then at the end when facing death.  Either you believe your life spirit will end or that there is a hereafter thru the son of God. I do not believe in other "Gods".  I believe Jesus has made it more, belief is not smugness.  I wanted God to bless everyone on this board no matter how they feel toward Him, at this moment, because I believe God loves you .  And I want nothing but blessings (good things-health, children, happiness, etc.) in your life.
Peachmonkey, need everything be argued?   TW


----------



## Feisty Mouse (Sep 3, 2004)

> That's not the way I read her comments .. and I don't think her blessing is disingenuous at all.


 Me too.  Sometimes an expression of belief is just that, and not a further comment on another's belief.


----------



## Lisa (Sep 3, 2004)

Feisty Mouse said:
			
		

> Me too. Sometimes an expression of belief is just that, and not a further comment on another's belief.


Absolutely true Feisty.  

I work in a religious institution, a religion which I am not affiliated with.  Everytime one of the priests blesses me for helping them or doing something kind just because I am not of their faith, should I question their reasons for doing this?  No, I am polite and I thank them.  For what they are bestowing on me is, in their eyes, the greatest gift they can give me and for that I am truly thankful and honored.


----------



## rmcrobertson (Sep 3, 2004)

Perhaps if you were to explain the, "usually at the end," part, it would help. 

I'll certainly take all the help and good wishes I can get, but I must say that I don't particularly care for being told that eventually, I'll see the light...especially since there are a few other choices about this whole  afterlife theory than just the two described.

After all, I doubt anybody Christian would particularly enjoy having me tell them, sincerely, "I wish you the very best in life, and I know that some day you'll grow up and see through this my-dad-is-waiting for-me-in-the-sky illusion."

So, why not have some true respect for other people's beliefs, pass on the best wishes and even blessings, and let the theological certainty go? After all, in their different ways both C.S. Lewis and martial arts are clear about keeping one's treasure hidden in this world...


----------



## RandomPhantom700 (Sep 3, 2004)

TigerWoman said:
			
		

> Either you believe your life spirit will end or that there is a hereafter thru the son of God.


Or perhaps our souls will be reincarnated, or will travel to a new plane, or return to the spirit island from which it will return to reinhabit a new body (sure wish I remembered which tribal culture that one came from).  It's hardly a choice between following God and eternal non-existent nothingness.  If you can provide some proof that eternal life through Jesus is any more valid than these other explanations, by all means, present it.  But there is a certain smugness in saying what basically breaks down to "it's either our way or nothing".


----------



## Josh (Sep 4, 2004)

ya'll. quit looking for a historical Jesus. you'll never quite understand this way. Instead, look at the sacrifice for man's sin. whether you like it or not, YOU have sinned. you become FREE when you realize this and confess these sins before God. I am going to tell you right now, that God, Loves you, but He alone already knows whether you will choose to Believe In His Truth, In His Son Yeshua which means(Jehovah saves). God has planned everything for His pleasure. Jesus is God RECONCILING people BACK TO GOD. I hope none of you think you're here for no reason. Religion sucks!! It's a waste, God doesn't WANT your religion, it doesn't help. Relgion is man TRYING to achieve what God has already FREELY GIVEN. Salvation IN JESUS CHRIST!! He died for you, it's UP TO YOU NOW TO RECEIVE HIM. I don't care if you want proof or not, even Jesus said the only "proof or sign" you'll get is when the Prophet Jonah preached to the people of the region of Ninevah(somewhere in what is now the palistinian area, in there) and they REPENTED. They repented of WHAT? There sin!! You already KNOW what your sin is. You have a CONSCIENCE. That's God speaking to you. 

When you lie, what does that tell you, you know you lied. Even ONE LITTLE LIE condemns you forever. It's not the Nature of God. People usually say "oh why would a Loving God condemn someone to hell"? That's crap, the real question is How could God who knew know sin, is Holy in All He does allow anything NOT of His Nature come into His presence? See? Jesus says i have come to Give Life. What is this life, "fulfillment"? Much more than that, Jesus says i have come to give them life and give it to the fullest. What more do you want?!?! Who but The Word of God aka Jesus Christ can BRING YOU TO GOD? Nobody deserves this, but what does Jesus say "For God so Loved the world(you) that He GAVE(sent to be sin for us and pay the ultimate price for that sin) that WHOEVER Believes in Him shall not perish, but have ETERNAL LIFE! Why pass this up? Do you want to keep living life the way it is? Your choice, but God knows your heart, God knows your choices before you make them. You can't escape.  

You can have money, friends, education, knowledge, all this, but Jesus says "what good is it that a man gains the whole world but FORFEITS his very own soul?" Jesus created you NOT to be pagan, NOT to continue in this separation from God, but to BRING YOU INTO HIS FAMILY, THE BODY OF CHRIST(Christians). God desires you more than you know, only He can fill your heart and bless you the way you long to be. I mean, again, for those who just constantly look for proof, and facts, and historical data, you're wasting your time. You'll never find it, so LET IT GO!! BELIEVE!!! You won't regret it. Jesus is the way, the truth, and the life. WHY reject Him.


----------



## RandomPhantom700 (Sep 4, 2004)

I hereby do declare the above post

:bs:


----------



## Xequat (Sep 4, 2004)

Thank you RandomPhantom700.  I haven't read all nine pages of this thread, so here's something that I hope nobody else has brought up.  Saying that Christianity is the only way is the same type of religious arrogance and extremism that makes the Middle East what it is today...and what it was 2000 years ago, because it hasn't really changed much in that time.  I'm basically a Christian, but I certainly don't think that all Muslims are going to Hell because they don't believe in Jesus.  All religions are right and all of them are wrong.  I believe that God is fair, if God is in fact a being and not a force.  I believe that it you are a Baptist and a good one, that you will go to the same place as a good Catholic, a Good Muslim, a good Buddhist, whatever.  If you believe in God, worship Him as you see best.  If not, then believe in good and evil.


----------



## Makalakumu (Sep 4, 2004)

heretic888 said:
			
		

> To me, the greatest proof comes from the cross-cultural universality of certain experiences and practices --- see, for example, Adlous Huxely's "The Perennial Philosophy" and Huston Smith's "The Forgotten Truth". Some of the modern cross-cultural studies regarding religious development are also interesting.
> 
> When different people from different cultures and different time periods start reporting similar experiences and insights, it tends to make you ponder. When there's this much cross-cultural smoke, it probably indicates a fire.



Would you consider the Jungian concept of the collective unconscious on the same level as what you indicated above?

My personal opinion is that human beings invent a god/gods/goddesses/religions/GOD based on the influence of their environment and their own biological needs.  Superficially, I can point at two things that corroborate the above statement.  One is the fact we have different religions forming in different cultural/environmental areas.  Two is that despite these differences, the purposes served and the commonalities shared between the faiths are very similar.

Good debate.  I wish I would have jumped in the pool earlier.

 :asian: 

upnorthkyosa


----------



## Makalakumu (Sep 4, 2004)

upnorthkyosa said:
			
		

> Would you consider the Jungian concept of the collective unconscious on the same level as what you indicated above?
> 
> My personal opinion is that human beings invent a god/gods/goddesses/religions/GOD based on the influence of their environment and their own biological needs.  Superficially, I can point at two things that corroborate the above statement.  One is the fact we have different religions forming in different cultural/environmental areas.  Two is that despite these differences, the purposes served and the commonalities shared between the faiths are very similar.
> 
> ...



I wanted to change a few things I said above, but I ran out of time to edit the post.  Just to clarify...

My personal opinion is that human beings invent a god/gods/goddesses/religions/GOD based on the influence of their environment and their own biological/_psychologic _ needs.  

In no way am I sure of the above statement.  I realize that it's nothing but conjecture.  At this point it's what I think...which is the hallmark of an agnostic.


----------



## michaeledward (Sep 4, 2004)

Xequat said:
			
		

> If not, then believe in good and evil.


I find it difficult to believe in 'good' and 'evil'. These two words have always been adjectives, used to describe nouns. I can believe in the nouns. I can believe the nouns can behave in ways that are accurately described as 'good' or 'evil'. But to believe (have faith) in a descriptor is foolhardy, at best, I think.

Now, with our current President, this is especially difficult, because the great linguist George constantly confuses these adjectives with nouns. Claiming we will defeat evil (and the like). You know, I have to imagine that Laura can correct these incorrect uses of the English Language ... I don't know why she hasn't.


----------



## rmcrobertson (Sep 4, 2004)

Thanks, Josh, for not only underscoring my point, but for bringing out the homoerotic subtext of some worship in a fashion scarcely equalled since Richard Crashaw.

If that offends, perhaps you'll come to an understanding of just how offensive it is for some of us to be told, again and again and again, that we have poor lives and will burn in hell afterwards unless we believe as you do.

And perhaps you'll understand why, somewhere on this thread, a poster remarked that part of the reason for their agnosticism was that there was no historical record of murderous crusades launched by armies of agnostics.


----------



## michaeledward (Sep 4, 2004)

Josh said:
			
		

> Instead, look at the sacrifice for man's sin. whether you like it or not, YOU have sinned.


Hey Josh .... I am an Athiest. I have, in my past, been a pretty ferverent Christain. Can you do me a favor.

Can you explain to me what is 'SIN'? 

I want you to explain to me the concept of sin, without invoking 'God'. I may not be too bright, but I just can't figure out how I 'Sinned', when I don't believe there is a 'God'. And without 'SIN', I can't figure out why any sacrifice had to be made by anyone.

Just curious. Mike


----------



## MisterMike (Sep 4, 2004)

Careful Josh,

If you talk about what Christianity is in the Study at Martial Talk, they come out in droves ready to burn you at the stake.

After all, Marx had more morals than Christ and pfft, some of these posters never even sinned. How darrrrrrrre you...LOL


----------



## Mark Weiser (Sep 4, 2004)

Okay let me throw in my two cents worth in 

Sin is the willful disobedience of a known moral code. if you know it is wrong and you do it then sin is the word of the day. However per another thread. Hell is not even a forethought in the minds and hearts of those whom live Judaism.


----------



## michaeledward (Sep 4, 2004)

Mark Weiser said:
			
		

> Okay let me throw in my two cents worth in
> 
> Sin is the willful disobedience of a known moral code. if you know it is wrong and you do it then sin is the word of the day. However per another thread. Hell is not even a forethought in the minds and hearts of those whom live Judaism.


 
Mark, you are saying 'Sin' and 'Immoral' behavior are synonyms?

I can understand and agree with the definition of 'immoral' as willful action against the principles of a known moral code. I can even accept that 'moral code' does not need to be divinely inspired. But if the moral code is not divinely based, would 'sin' be the approriate way to define contrary actions?

I am an avid flyfisherman. One of the moral codes of fishing is to not leave tangled mono-filament lines in the woods (pack out your trash). If I had a horrible 'birdsnest' made of my line, and I cut it and left it in on the riverbank, would 'sin' be the correct way to describe that action?


----------



## Mark Weiser (Sep 4, 2004)

Actually that is a good example if for instance you know that doing this act would violate your moral code you could use the label Sin to describe it. Sin is usually used in religious circles so this is a very broad brush lol.


----------



## Darksoul (Sep 4, 2004)

-I guess I just want to be able to make my own decisions concerning my faith, my life. If someone thinks I'm going to hell because I don't believe or practice the way they do, then so be it. Although, the minute someone tries to exert any influence over me using religion as justification, we shall have problems. My choice to believe in what I want.

A---)


----------



## rmcrobertson (Sep 5, 2004)

Way to misread, Mike. Hoorah.

Just incidentally---and relying merely on popular stereotypes---Marxists don't burn you at the stake. Christians do.

There's is that scene at the beginning of Malraux's, "Man's Fate," but that was the Kuomintang immolating marxists...and that was a rail engine furnace, oh yes...and there's Hemingway's well-deserved insults to the POUM in, "For Whom the Bell Tolls..." and there's Solzhenitsyn's "Gulag Archipelago," and," The Cancer Ward...," and Milan Kundera's, "The Book of Laughter and Forgetting," and Leo Strauss' books, and who knows how many others from China and the rest of Asia...

But hell, MM. Yawl keep hanging onto that notion that nobody but you never done heard of the ills of marxist governments....and the equally-hilarious refusal to consider the ills of capitalist governments...

Of course, in a decent society you'd have been given better books to read, better songs to sing. But hang on nonetheless.


----------



## RandomPhantom700 (Sep 5, 2004)

Way to hijack the thread, robertson.  But incidentally, when was the last time Christians, as a group, actually burned someone at the stake?


----------



## rmcrobertson (Sep 5, 2004)

Dear RPetc:

Please actually read the posts before mine.

And Christians have burned folks at the stake a lot more recently than agnostics have...actually, wait a sec!  We have no records of agnostics burning anybody at the stake because they're not agnostics!! Or launching a crusade to liberate the Holy Land from Christians!!!

Why, I'll be gosh-darned.


----------



## Melissa426 (Sep 5, 2004)

Mea culpa, mea culpa, mea maximas culpa!
(or, close to that, not sure on the spelling.)

Yes, I belong to a religion that maimed, burned, and basically killed 1000's if not millions in the name of their God. Does that mean I believe what they did was right?  Absolutely not. Someone asked if religious ever come out and admit when they were wrong.  The answer is yes. Eg., the Catholic church has admitted  they were wrong in not doing more to protect the Jews during WWII.  

There comes a time when individual responsiblity has to take prominence.
If I am pro-abortion, and get to Heaven, and find out that God really did think  that abortion is murder, I will  judged accordingly.  But I am making the choice.  No one is making it for me. To the agnostics and atheists who are reading this, all I can say is it's your life and future you are risking.  

As Christians, we are called to share God's word.  But if we encounter those   who do not welcome us or listen to our words, we are to "shake the dust off our feet and leave that home or town."  (Matthew 10:14)

Peace, 
Melissa


----------



## rmcrobertson (Sep 5, 2004)

Well, NOW I'm going to use the word, "smug."

Melissa, I appreciate the good wishes. I honestly do. However, I'm afraid I must decline the offer to accept your bullying God...you know, the one who seems to be telling you, "OK, them heathen don't have to believe, but it's gonna be their *** later."

You really think that some Big Guy sits up there like John Gotti, keeping score  and getting even? How petty. How small.

Then there's the tangle of misrepresentations and bad history. Nobody's, "pro-abortion;" the Catholic Church did a little more than merely remain idle while millions were murdered during WWII; Protestants also have a little to answer for, historically speaking.

And then there's the bad theology. Strictly speaking, salvation is generally classified by Christians as a gift from God--which is one of the reasons that it is generally thought, in Christianity, to be extremely presumptuous to be absolutely certain of anybody's damnation.

I wish you all the best. I honestly do. I just don't feel any particular need to threaten you with hellfire and brimstone, or burning copies of Robert Ingersoll's lectures.


----------



## Josh (Sep 5, 2004)

hey everyone. hehe, of course you don't want to go to hell. SO CHOOSE JESUS!! He won't let you just choose Him and NEVER show up in your life. You start showing your FRUIT. Fruit of the Spirit of God in you is Love, Joy, Peace, Patience, Kindness, Goodness, Gentleness, Self Control. You will always have something missing in your life without God. SEE? WITHOUT GOD!! God doesn't SIT AROUND ON SOME CHAIR in Heaven and just watch the world go by. He is HERE NOW. He KNOWS YOUR HEART. He WANTS to be a part of your life. You don't know how much you're LOVED by God do you? 

And WHAT?!? You don't know what sin is? Read a Bible. It tells you exactly what sin is. You know the Ten Commandments, to break ONE is to break them all and you NOW stand CONDEMNED, NOW, not when you die, NOW. That is WHY Jesus is our sacrifice. For God Loved YOU so much, that sin had to be paid for, and only the Lamb of God(Jesus) can WASH YOUR SINS away!! The Bible says whatever is NOT IN FAITH, is sin. Not everyone has faith, not everyone will CHOOSE to live for Jesus, what will you choose? God cares NOTHING about "religion". It's a RELATIONSHIP with God, like you have with a spouse or a friend or other relatives. You don't want to be religous with them, you want to be with them. Jesus satisfies that. The Bible says whoever calls upon the name of the Lord shall be saved. Do you want to be saved? Unbelief is sin. Because how can you Worship God when you don't even think He is there? I know you don't like to be called bad or a sinner, but Jesus explained that the world hates Him because He tells the world that its ways are bad. 

Why do you think Christians are hated so much? Why do you think they're made fun of so much nowadays? Jesus says this WILL happen. Jesus says that if the world hates you(the christian), keep in mind that it hated me first. But Jesus DESERVES Praise. He CREATED YOU. He wants to KNOW YOU. But you'll never enter the kingdom of God if you don't receive it like a littel child by SIMPLE FAITH. Like you would trust your parents for something when you were older, TRUST that Jesus has ALREADY PAID the PRICE for sin ON THE CROSS. The Bible says that THIS is how Jesus would die. YEARS BEFORE Jesus was born, many prophecies were made about Him, His Birth, Life, the fact that He would teach in Parables, His betrayal by a close friend for thirty coins, His death, the WAY He would die, His Ressurection. ALL FOR YOU, FOR LOVE!! He CHOSE to obey His Father's command. He CAME FROM GOD. He was with God in the beginning.  

For those who "used" to be Christians. I mean, what happened? How can you be a TRUE CHRISTIAN and then fall away? Are you gonna let your heart be hardened until you don't even care about God anymore? 

Proverbs 14
12 There is a way that seems right to a man, 
but in the end it leads to death

What death? Separation FROM YOUR CREATOR. Who LOVES YOU. Does that mean anything to you? Remember, your CHOICE. You CAN BE FREE from Punishment. You don't have to burn, but must be willing to REPENT(turn from) of your sins and TRUST Jesus Christ as your MASTER, Lord, Savior. Then it will no longer be YOU who God sees when you sin, but JESUS. Jesus will be your MEDIATOR. When you sin, Jesus will go before God and be in your "defense". And it's so good, Jesus is coming back to reign on earth sometime in the future. Don't doubt that, BELIEVE it, why pass it up? 

Confess with your mouth that Jesus is Lord and BELIEVE IN YOUR HEART that He has been RAISED from death, and YOU WILL BE SAVED!! Jesus says whoever confesses me before men, i too will confess before my Father. Trust!! Ask Jesus to come into your heart, He will if you want Him to.


----------



## Scout_379 (Sep 5, 2004)

I didn't even bother reading the post, I encourage others to do the same.

the constant use of the caps-lock hurts my brain a little bit.  

Josh,
If you beleive in a God, or like being, why? And what proof have you seen or learned of its/His existence? What makes _you_ beleive?


----------



## Melissa426 (Sep 5, 2004)

rmcrobertson said:
			
		

> Well, NOW I'm going to use the word, "smug."
> 
> You really think that some Big Guy sits up there like John Gotti, keeping score and getting even? How petty. How small.
> 
> ...


I think you are misinterpreting my position.

I am not certain of your damnation.
I am not even certain of my own future.

My God is not a "bully." He is not keeping score. Does a parent stop loving a child or forbid him food, water, shelter, because the child is disobedient?   
Of course not!

"Only those who do the will of the Father will enter the kingdom of heaven.  .... Many will say, Lord, Lord, did we not [do all these things] in your name?  And I will tell them plainly, "I never knew you.  Away from me you evildoers.' "  
That's not my opinion. 
That is scriptural. 
I am not saying I am right  , only what I believe.

For all I know, you may be right.  I might die and be nothing more that worm food. Greasy and too many carbs worm food, but worm food none the less.
But I have greater hope than that.

As for history, yeah, you are probably right.  It's not my strongest suit.  I probably did oversimplify things. But this is not a history lesson.

Peace, 
Melissa


----------



## Scout_379 (Sep 5, 2004)

Also, since there are so many different opinions here,

If you are agnostic, or atheist, what makes you question religion, and the existence of god, or like beings?


----------



## Jay Bell (Sep 5, 2004)

> If you are agnostic, or atheist, what makes you question religion, and the existence of god, or like beings?



Because nothing I have ever seen, researched or discussed has proven anything beyond the Bible being a fictional storybook...albeit, a great one.


----------



## RandomPhantom700 (Sep 5, 2004)

Scout_379 said:
			
		

> Also, since there are so many different opinions here,
> 
> If you are agnostic, or atheist, what makes you question religion, and the existence of god, or like beings?


I no longer really question religion because I now understand it to be a frame of mind, rather than any specific set of doctrines.  Religion, after all, doesn't have to be about the afterlife; you can be "religious", or should I say religiously believe in, just about any subject (politics, music, women, you name it).  

As for the existence of God or like deities, I don't really believe in them (note, I didn't say that I belive they don't exist) because the only arguments for them are circular ones that are based on religious beliefs and nothing more.  There's no proof or rationale behind saying that the universe is controlled by God as opposed to Allah, or the Buddha, or a great emptiness, or whatever.  Every argument for God existence, for example, could easily argue for the existence of any other deity by simply replacing their names in the sentences.  It's all dogma, in other words.


----------



## Scout_379 (Sep 5, 2004)

Which is exactly why I asked why specific people believe. Their personal experiences, not what has been told or read.


----------



## RandomPhantom700 (Sep 5, 2004)

rmcrobertson said:
			
		

> Dear RPetc:


*chuckles*



> Please actually read the posts before mine.


I did. 



> And Christians have burned folks at the stake a lot more recently than agnostics have...actually, wait a sec! We have no records of agnostics burning anybody at the stake because they're not agnostics!! Or launching a crusade to liberate the Holy Land from Christians!!!


Ah, so you mean the literal stake-burnings, as opposed to the metaphorical ones MM was referring to in the current discourse, and these happened how long ago? 

Well, some more modern examples might be abortion-clinic bombings, you might say, and valid enough. But some other modern examples, certainly more recent than the $&*!ing Crusades or Inquisition, might include the murder of how many thousands during Stalin's rule in the secular Soviet Union? Or on this side of the pond, there's the Rosenberg (did I get their name right?) executions, killed for espousing communist views. 

In short, killing people for not believing the same as you is hardly restricted to just Christian beliefs. We could make arguments about what dogmas have the highest kill count, but I think my point still stands. 



> Why, I'll be gosh-darned.


Quite.


----------



## michaeledward (Sep 5, 2004)

Josh said:
			
		

> hey everyone. hehe, of course you don't want to go to hell. SO CHOOSE JESUS!! He won't let you just choose Him and NEVER show up in your life. You start showing your FRUIT.  . . . .
> 
> BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH
> 
> . . .been RAISED from death, and YOU WILL BE SAVED!! Jesus says whoever confesses me before men, i too will confess before my Father. Trust!! Ask Jesus to come into your heart, He will if you want Him to.


Josh, I am going to quote myself now ... try reading carefully, because this is what I asked you to do.



			
				michaeledward said:
			
		

> I want you to explain to me the concept of sin, without invoking 'God'.


Now, Josh .. you missed. You completely missed. I am truly not interested in your prostelytizing. I asked a simple question, offering you the chance to speak to me in a language that I understand. Instead, you rant on like someone in a foreign country who believes that by speaking louder, your language will be understood. From this, I can only draw an interpretation of your intelligence, or lack thereof.

Well, let me say this about your post ... you're right ... God has shown me the "FRUIT".

Have a wonderful day. Mike


----------



## Scout_379 (Sep 5, 2004)

This is hopeless, can't you guys see that? What do you think you will gain from this?


----------



## michaeledward (Sep 5, 2004)

Scout_379 said:
			
		

> If you are agnostic, or atheist, what makes you question religion, and the existence of god, or like beings?


I don't know who originally turned the statement on its head, but after hearing the statement "Man creates God in his own Image", and learning a bit about the different faiths around the world, and the societies from which they sprung, the statement certainly seems axiomatic.

Also, studying the scientific knowledge of the universe, and the rise of mankind, it just seems like an incredibly far-reaching stretch to think that God created the Universe 14+ Billion years ago, so that in the last 2000 years mankind can be taught the purpose of "His Will". 

Compartively, someone has argued the purpose of the universe is equivelent to  layer of paint at the very apex of the Effiel Tower. All the structure, is irrelevant, just the paint at the top.


----------



## michaeledward (Sep 5, 2004)

Scout_379 said:
			
		

> This is hopeless, can't you guys see that? What do you think you will gain from this?


Yes, Scout .. I can see that ... and that is what my last post to Josh indicated. I understand that he is incapable of hearing me. 

Now, you may say, that I am not better, because I responded to him. I am not trying to convert him away from his beliefs, I am trying to get him to tell me about his beliefs in a way that I can understand.

"First Seek to Understand, then to be Understood." 

I don't know who said that ... but, I've heard it somewhere before.   

Mike


----------



## Josh (Sep 5, 2004)

you CAN be sure of Salvation. if you turn from sin, shun evil, and make every effort and take up your cross and walk everyday receiving Jesus as your MASTER, showing others what Jesus has done for you, you will be saved.

and how can you explain sin without talking about God, sin is the OPPOSITE of everything Christlike and Godly. I told you have a CONSCIENCE. God gave you a CONSCIENCE so you know what's right and wrong. That leads to guilt, a need for repentance and Jesus as your comeplete SUBSTITUTE on the Cross.

satan LOVES it that you don't believe. why give satan your ENEMY that benefeit, if you're NOT FOR GOD, you're AGAINST, NO IN BETWEEN.


----------



## Mark Weiser (Sep 5, 2004)

Maybe someday I will explain my life experiences in the following areas. It is related to this topic. 


Ordained Minister for about 15 years 
Converted over to Judaism as a Rightesous Gentile
So I have a unique perspective on this topic. The problem within the human condition is the need to belong a sense of being whole if you chose to fill that gap with organized religion then more power to you. Some fill the need by social groups, Education, Work, Sex, Family, etc..... 

The key is that we all will die someday and the key is how we lived our lifes and made this world a better place since we were born. In Judaism we have a saying "To heal the world"  We have responsibilities to each other and to ourselves to be our best and give our best. If we save one life and make the person better we have saved the World.


----------



## Jay Bell (Sep 5, 2004)

Good post, Mark


----------



## kenpo tiger (Sep 5, 2004)

It is the extremists in ALL religions (my apologies for the caps) who are the ones that need to be saved - from themselves.

Those who believe (or not) don't have to tell the world how they believe, or why, or not.  KT


----------



## Josh (Sep 5, 2004)

yea, i know what ya'll mean. but one day, many think in the near future, Christians aren't gonna be tolerated anymore. i'm sure ya'll have heard of the antichrist or whatever, but what some of ya'll don't know is that people are gonna be deceived into beleiving that he's the Messiah. he will stand in the temple of God in Jerusalem and sacrifice a pig and claim that he is God. he'll be what you could say the president of the world. requiring that all people receive a mark in their right hand or forehead, but God promises that those who do take this mark will be tormented with God's judgements and won't receive the awesome salvation of Jesus Christ. are you gonna be deceived? you don't have to be, do you think Jesus doesn't know your heart and mind? even your thoughts He knows. 

CHOOSE Him, like i said, He already knows what you'll choose. So if you DO, willingly, admitting your sin, and REPENT of it, and Trust Jesus AS God's only begotten Son!! What, do you think He wants to hurt you that you are just so unwilling to accept Him. God cuts off those branches in Christ that don't bear fruit and are thrown into the fire. I know you feel that this is unfair, but God doesn't WANT you to go to hell. i keep talking about hell in order to motivate you. There is a world system in power as of now. All unrighteoussnes can be clensed if you CONFESS your sins to God. God is GOOD. If you realize that, that Truth SETS YOU FREE.


----------



## rmcrobertson (Sep 5, 2004)

Beyond my agreement about fanaticism, I'd suggest that Josh would do well to read a little more of his Bible and a little less of the, "Left Behind," series.


----------



## Mark Weiser (Sep 5, 2004)

It would be so easy to get off Topic here lol!

Keeping my tougue in check!!


----------



## Scout_379 (Sep 5, 2004)

yet again....josh

...why do you believe...​?​ 
What is your _personal _evidence for the existence of God.

I can read a bible all by myself


----------



## Josh (Sep 6, 2004)

http://www.matthewmcgee.org/prophesy.html

check that site out, explains much that you need to know. But another thing, which is amazing, ya'll ever heard of hellen keller, she is quoted in expressing that although she could not see, could not hear, she still knew that God was there. 

Look at the stars, the moon, the sun, sky, all of CREATION!! How wonderfully made we are! 

Are you satisfied with "oh, we came from a monkeys"? That would mean Jesus too came from a monkey, meaning God wanted the descendent of a monkey to save us from our sins. Hahahaha!


----------



## Mark Weiser (Sep 6, 2004)

Josh said:
			
		

> http://www.matthewmcgee.org/prophesy.html
> 
> check that site out, explains much that you need to know. But another thing, which is amazing, ya'll ever heard of hellen keller, she is quoted in expressing that although she could not see, could not hear, she still knew that God was there.
> 
> ...


You are or have assumed that this Jesus is the saviour of the world and is the so called Son of God. In debate classes or forensics classes most Chiristians would be hard pressed to come up with the needed evidence to convince another that this Jesus is the Son of God. In most cases evidence is required from at least three sources in order to be established as a fact. The only evidence that Jesus even existed is only in the Bible. There are no secular sources from Muslim, Jewish or Christian sources such Flavius Josephus,Herodotus,Livy,Tacitus all whom lived in Greece, Rome, Israel during or within 20-30 years after the time of Jesus whom never mention him once in all the writings they have written. 

Just stating this for an interesting debate.


----------



## rmcrobertson (Sep 6, 2004)

Josh, you might also do well to read some of Darwin's great work, "The Origin of Species and the Descent of Man," as well as some of Stephen Jay Gould's writing, so that you'll have a little more ammo than fourth-hand, radically-ignorant, grossly-inaccurate interpretations of evolutionary theory.

Among other things, evolution does not at any point claim that human beings descended from apes or monkeys.

As always, I wonder why folks are so frightened of the immense, beautiful universe that they live in, that they cannot even actually look at what it contains. And I wonder why folks are so angry at the long chain of men and women who have labored, over so long, to see that universe for what it is, and to teach others how to do the same. 

Three smacks with a copy of Twain's, "Extract from Cap'n Stormfield's Visit to Heaven."


----------



## Makalakumu (Sep 6, 2004)

Nice Post, Robert.   :asian: 

upnorthkyosa


----------



## MisterMike (Sep 6, 2004)

We know what it is. It is God's creation.


----------



## RandomPhantom700 (Sep 6, 2004)

We as in every rational being or we as in yourself and the other Good and Chosen people?


----------



## SMP (Sep 6, 2004)

It takes a lot of faith to believe that all of the order in the universe was the result of chance.  Correct me if I am wrong but was it Einstien who said that mathmatics was the language of God?


----------



## SMP (Sep 6, 2004)

Mark Weiser said:
			
		

> The only evidence that Jesus even existed is only in the Bible. There are no secular sources from Muslim, Jewish or Christian sources such Flavius Josephus,Herodotus,Livy,Tacitus all whom lived in Greece, Rome, Israel during or within 20-30 years after the time of Jesus whom never mention him once in all the writings they have written.
> 
> Just stating this for an interesting debate.


The Muslim faith also recognizes Jesus as a prophet and there is a small branch of Judaism that recognizes Jesus as the son of God, or Messiah.


----------



## Flatlander (Sep 6, 2004)

====================
Mod. Note. 
Please, keep the conversation on topic..

-Dan Bowman-
-MT Moderator-
====================


----------



## michaeledward (Sep 6, 2004)

SMP said:
			
		

> there is a small branch of Judaism that recognizes Jesus as the son of God,


It's called Christianity.


----------



## Mark Weiser (Sep 6, 2004)

LOL!!! High Five


----------



## kenpo tiger (Sep 6, 2004)

michaeledward said:
			
		

> It's called Christianity.


Good answer.

And - you GO Robertson.  KT


----------



## auxprix (Sep 6, 2004)

Josh said:
			
		

> you CAN be sure of Salvation. if you turn from sin, shun evil, and make every effort and take up your cross and walk everyday receiving Jesus as your MASTER, showing others what Jesus has done for you, you will be saved.
> 
> and how can you explain sin without talking about God, sin is the OPPOSITE of everything Christlike and Godly. I told you have a CONSCIENCE. God gave you a CONSCIENCE so you know what's right and wrong. That leads to guilt, a need for repentance and Jesus as your comeplete SUBSTITUTE on the Cross.
> 
> satan LOVES it that you don't believe. why give satan your ENEMY that benefeit, if you're NOT FOR GOD, you're AGAINST, NO IN BETWEEN.


Oh, yes, SATAN. The uninformed christian's greatest weapon.

If there is only one god, how can Satan exist? Satan is, after all, a deity in himself. In the christian Tradition, satan is the enemy of god and humanity. We are accepting that he is supernatural, and his will is contradictory to god's plan. Therefore, Satan is another god in in your monotheistic religion. How does that work?

Also, since you are christian, you observe the old testiment. In Jewish tradition, satan is an angel within god's circle. The name comes from the word 'enemy' in some language (I assume hebrew). But he is called satan because he is the enemy of humans, not God. He is god's tester (read your Job). Now that's a huge contradiction within your sole piece of evidence, the Holy Bible (and, no, you cannot use the Left Behind series).

It doesn't matter though, because the concept of angels, and ESPECIALLY Satan, is actually lifted from the Pagan religion of Zorro-Astrianism. You should research this, it's very interesting how they can tie the Zorro deities to the angels in personality, appearance, and sometimes even name. So how can the bible be both Pagan and condemn Paganism?

I know that, if this gets a response, it won't be anything different than what you've posted before. I challenge you to not just spout out fire and brimstone rhetoric, but to address this post directly.


----------



## bignick (Sep 6, 2004)

Satan is not a god if you don't worship him.  Anything can become a false idol if it becomes more important than your relationship to God.

I was unaware of Zorro-Astrianism's link to angels...but there are the views that this is where Christianity borrowed it's concepts of heaven and hell


----------



## MisterMike (Sep 7, 2004)

RandomPhantom700 said:
			
		

> We as in every rational being or we as in yourself and the other Good and Chosen people?



Everyone's, of course.


----------



## Melissa426 (Sep 7, 2004)

michaeledward said:
			
		

> It's called Christianity.


Cute.

He's referring to Messianic Jews (eg. Jews for Jesus).
Look up more about them at www.mjaa.org if you are interested.

Although I'll give you props for knowing that Christianity was originally was seen as a sect of Judaisim,  I'd hardly characterize it as a "small" branch now.

Peace,
Melissa


----------



## Flatlander (Sep 7, 2004)

So far, I have seen a few attempts at a proof of a higher power, but not many given the length of this thread... does any one else have any substance to contribute?


----------



## Mark Weiser (Sep 7, 2004)

okay I hope I will not start a big brawl here but being a Former Leader in the Messianic Movement. This can be verified if needed. 

There is no such thing as a Messianic Jew if you wish for me to explain in detail please call me or write me due to not wishing to hijack this thread. 

Sincerely,
Mark E. Weiser


----------



## mj-hi-yah (Sep 7, 2004)

How's this Dan?


----------



## Melissa426 (Sep 7, 2004)

Prove to me you love your wife (husband, kids.)
Just because you say you do, is that proof?

It's the same with belief in God. 
It's a matter of the heart, the soul, and the spirit. 

People without a real relationship with God will be spiritually hungry, restless, always searching and looking for something to fill the void.  


I CAN offer proof that the devil exists....
Krispy Kremes. :uhyeah:


----------



## bignick (Sep 7, 2004)

it is impossible to prove the existence of a higher power...just as it is impossible to disprove it...



thats why it's called faith


----------



## RandomPhantom700 (Sep 7, 2004)

MisterMike said:
			
		

> Everyone's, of course.


Well, that's pretty arrogant to claim, considering that it's a lie.  I know plenty of people, myself included, who don't know existence to be God's creation.  

As for providing a proof of God, or any other higher power (I'm surprised by how many posts here speak of the Christian God as the only proposed supernatural deity), I agree that it cannot be done, and any understanding of any God-concept is a matter of faith.  However, I will dissent by refusing to say that, therefore, faith in the Lord is superior to proof and reason.


----------



## bignick (Sep 7, 2004)

"I do not feel obliged to believe that the same God who has endowed us with sense, reason, and intellect has intended us to forgo their use." 
- Galileo Galilei 

posted this in another thread....it's a good thought


----------



## MisterMike (Sep 7, 2004)

RandomPhantom700 said:
			
		

> Well, that's pretty arrogant to claim, considering that it's a lie.



A lie? I thought it was faith?


----------



## kenpo tiger (Sep 7, 2004)

RandomPhantom700 said:
			
		

> Well, that's pretty arrogant to claim, considering that it's a lie. I know plenty of people, myself included, who don't know existence to be God's creation.
> 
> As for providing a proof of God, or any other higher power (I'm surprised by how many posts here speak of the Christian God as the only proposed supernatural deity), I agree that it cannot be done, and any understanding of any God-concept is a matter of faith. However, I will dissent by refusing to say that, therefore, faith in the Lord is superior to proof and reason.


How do you know that existence is or isn't G-d's creation? Because you have faith that we came into being one way or the other -- two different types of faith, but faith in the unknowable nonetheless.

Do you get on airplanes to fly? Do you know - for sure - exactly how it works? Or that it won't fall spontaneously out of the sky? It's an act of faith because most of us do not understand the engineering or physics involved.  We see proof in that there are hundreds of flights every day and people get off airplanes to go about their business.  Very matter of fact, considering.

One suspends certain 'logic' in order to believe the unknowable. You choose how you interpret it - i.e., your religious beliefs in the case of believing in an omniscient, omnipotent being as the source of all life.

Jews believe that G-d exists in us all and does not have another (human) form. That's why there are no images of a deity in our synagogues. That's also why we believe that one doesn't have to pray in a synagogue for G-d to hear.


----------



## bignick (Sep 7, 2004)

kenpo tiger said:
			
		

> Do you get on airplanes to fly? Do you know - for sure - exactly how it works?



yep


----------



## Mark Weiser (Sep 7, 2004)

Okay the question I have about airplanes is this

Which end does the gas go in and do you get a free oil change with every other fill up? lol


----------



## bignick (Sep 8, 2004)

i'd like to explain my last comment...i wasn't trying to be smart-mouth...kenpo tiger asked what i'm assuming was supposed to be a rhetorical question...the problem is that it's not really a good one because we're dealing with things here that have little to no scientific proof and are hard to discuss without getting emotionally/personally involved because our beliefs are important to us.  How an airplane flies is based on sound science and can be easily explained and proven.  There are probably quite a few people on this board that know at least the basic theory behind it (Bernoulli's Principle)

I just chose to go about explaining myself in my usual smart-mouth way


----------



## RandomPhantom700 (Sep 8, 2004)

MisterMike said:
			
		

> A lie? I thought it was faith?


The claim that everyone really knows that all existence is God's creation is the lie.  Not everyone knows that; it's arguable that nobody knows, depending on what meaning you're applying to the word.


----------



## RandomPhantom700 (Sep 8, 2004)

kenpo tiger said:
			
		

> How do you know that existence is or isn't G-d's creation?


I don't know that existence is or isn't G*o*d's creation, never said that I did. 



> Because you have faith that we came into being one way or the other -- two different types of faith, but faith in the unknowable nonetheless.


Thank you for your presumption about my beliefs. Consequently, how is saying "I don't know how we came about" an act of faith? 



> Do you get on airplanes to fly?


Nah, I get on them to swim. 



> Do you know - for sure - exactly how it works? Or that it won't fall spontaneously out of the sky?


Nope, that's what they have pilots and engineers for. 



> It's an act of faith because most of us do not understand the engineering or physics involved. We see proof in that there are hundreds of flights every day and people get off airplanes to go about their business. Very matter of fact, considering.


I don't think that such things are a matter of faith, and I'll tell you why. If I decided to do so, I could read up on aerodynamics, study the construct of the airplane, and, after quite some time and study, establish for a fact that an airplane that fits these specifications will be able to fly. Besides, it was, after all, a human who designed such things as airplanes, so the concepts are not beyond true knowledge. Such things are not a matter of faith because, should one desire to, one could study and understand objectively how an airplane works. The same cannot be said for the existence of God; all arguments for (and I'll tentatively say against) his truth or falsity are based on subjective desires for him to exist or not to. That's the difference between knowledge of airplanes and faith in God. 



> One suspends certain 'logic' in order to believe the unknowable. You choose how you interpret it - i.e., your religious beliefs in the case of believing in an omniscient, omnipotent being as the source of all life.


Am I to understand your argument to be that since everyone must make a leap of faith on the issue, then all leaps of faith are true/valid? Just want to make sure that I'm on the same page.



> Jews believe that G-d exists in us all and does not have another (human) form. That's why there are no images of a deity in our synagogues. That's also why we believe that one doesn't have to pray in a synagogue for G-d to hear.


Kudos for them. What does this have to do with proof for God?


----------



## Flatlander (Sep 8, 2004)

I believe KT was trying to say that though there can be no specific proof of a higher power at this point, that is irrelevant to those who have faith that there is one.  It is their faith that is the mechanism of validity - a faith grounded in the understanding of the teachings, and in the personal experiences that they've had which relate to those teachings.

So you suppose it's fair to say that because there is no proof of something that it does not exist?  Do you have proof that there is no proof?  Do we define proof the same way?

Can you prove your existence to me?  Should you need to in order to exist?

Has anyone yet tried to define "higher power" in this thread?  If I were to define it as "higher than we, the human species", than would not all around us be evidence of that?  There is and infinite universe all around us filled with countless items and phenomena to stretch our imaginations beyond where anyone has ever thought they could go.  All of it began somewhere, somehow... sounds like _something_ pretty powerful was involved.  

Does love exist?  Do you love your spouse?  Your children?  Your family?  Why?  Is it necessary to love in order to survive?  What reason do we have for love?  Does not the Bible say "God is love"?  If so, is that good enough to prove God exists?


----------



## donald (Sep 8, 2004)

Xequat said:
			
		

> Thank you RandomPhantom700.  I haven't read all nine pages of this thread, so here's something that I hope nobody else has brought up.  Saying that Christianity is the only way is the same type of religious arrogance and extremism that makes the Middle East what it is today...and what it was 2000 years ago, because it hasn't really changed much in that time.  I'm basically a Christian, but I certainly don't think that all Muslims are going to Hell because they don't believe in Jesus.  All religions are right and all of them are wrong.  I believe that God is fair, if God is in fact a being and not a force.  I believe that it you are a Baptist and a good one, that you will go to the same place as a good Catholic, a Good Muslim, a good Buddhist, whatever.  If you believe in God, worship Him as you see best.  If not, then believe in good and evil.


 If you are a believing christian, and make a statement saying Jesus Christ is not the only way. You, by that staement alone disassociate yourself from Him.  In the Gospel of John, The LORD JESUS, is qouted as saying, "I am the way the truth, and the life. No one can come to,The Father, except through me" . That statement alone disproves the, there are many roads to heaven teachings. As has already been said in some previous post. Believing that Jesus Christ is real, that The Bible is THE Truth is a matter of the heart.


----------



## RandomPhantom700 (Sep 8, 2004)

flatlander said:
			
		

> It is their faith that is the mechanism of validity - a faith grounded in the understanding of the teachings, and in the personal experiences that they've had which relate to those teachings.


These factors may explain well why they believe in a deity for themselves, but it by far does not validate that deity's existence for everyone else.  To do that, I'm sorry, but proof is necessary.



> So you suppose it's fair to say that because there is no proof of something that it does not exist? Do you have proof that there is no proof? Do we define proof the same way?


Nope.  For all I know, God really is up there, allowing those who kiss his butt well enough into heaven while sending those who don't into Hell, all while proclaiming love for all.  That's why I'm agnostic, for now.



> Can you prove your existence to me? Should you need to in order to exist?


Well, the fact that we're having this conversation should prove that.  Computers don't generate thought.  And no, proof is not necessary for something to exist, but it is necessary to say, or to know, that something does, factually, exist.


----------



## kenpo tiger (Sep 8, 2004)

bignick said:
			
		

> i'd like to explain my last comment...i wasn't trying to be smart-mouth...kenpo tiger asked what i'm assuming was supposed to be a rhetorical question...the problem is that it's not really a good one because we're dealing with things here that have little to no scientific proof and are hard to discuss without getting emotionally/personally involved because our beliefs are important to us. How an airplane flies is based on sound science and can be easily explained and proven. There are probably quite a few people on this board that know at least the basic theory behind it (Bernoulli's Principle)
> 
> I just chose to go about explaining myself in my usual smart-mouth way


And I qualified my statement by saying most of us.  Of course there are people who understand it.  Just not all of us.

But you're right about scientific proof.  I'm talking about taking it on faith when you CAN'T prove it scientifically due to ignorance - i.e., simply not knowing the science behind it.

A laugh at my expense is okay.  As with any of us, wouldn't be the first, or last, time.


----------



## kenpo tiger (Sep 8, 2004)

_Kudos for them. What does this have to do with proof for God?_

Nothing at all, and that's the point. We don't need proof of G-d's existence (and I spell it that way for my own reasons - don't think I didn't notice your added emphasis on the 'o' - I respect your position, you might return the favor) precisely because of what I said prior to that statement about G-d existing in us all and our belief that G-d exists without human form.

That's not to say that I don't question the existence of G-d from time to time.  There are things which occur that, to my way of thinking, should not if there is a beneficent being who created us and watches over us.  But that's another argument, possibly that G-d DOESN'T exist...


----------



## Flatlander (Sep 8, 2004)

From the first post in the thread:


			
				Scout_379 said:
			
		

> And so I ask: If you beleive in a God, or like being, why? And what proof have you seen or learned of its/His existence? What makes you beleive?


subsequently, 


			
				RandomPhantom700 said:
			
		

> These factors may explain well why they believe in a deity for themselves, but it by far does not validate that deity's existence for everyone else. To do that, I'm sorry, but proof is necessary.


which, unfortunately, is not pertinent to the question. The question of how one of faith in a higher power can logically transmit the knowledge of the existence of that power to you, the skeptic, is for another thread. 



			
				RandomPhantom700 said:
			
		

> Well, the fact that we're having this conversation should prove that. Computers don't generate thought. And no, proof is not necessary for something to exist, but it is necessary to say, or to know, that something does, factually, exist.


This does not account for the possiblity that I am insane, and I am conversing with myself, or imagining the entire conversation. Or from another point of view, presupposing that you exist does not prove that you do, as per the fallacy of Decartes' "cogito ergo sum".


----------



## RandomPhantom700 (Sep 8, 2004)

flatlander said:
			
		

> which, unfortunately, is not pertinent to the question. The question of how one of faith in a higher power can logically transmit the knowledge of the existence of that power to you, the skeptic, is for another thread.


Really? Well, forgive me, I thought the question of "And what proof have you seen or learned of its/His existence?" would involve logical transmission. Unless "God's real because I said so" is sufficient proof for everyone.


----------



## kenpo tiger (Sep 8, 2004)

RandomPhantom700 said:
			
		

> Really? Well, forgive me, I thought the question of "And what proof have you seen or learned of its/His existence?" would involve logical transmission. Unless "God's real because I said so" is sufficient proof for everyone.


I hardly think that's the case.  The CONCEPT of G-d is real to many.  Whether there is a living, breathing entity is another thing entirely.

So, do you agree that the concept of a g-d is real?  It does not imply your personal belief in the concept, just that it exists.


----------



## RandomPhantom700 (Sep 8, 2004)

kenpo tiger said:
			
		

> (and I spell it that way for my own reasons - don't think I didn't notice your added emphasis on the 'o' - I respect your position, you might return the favor)


So what is the big deal with fully spelling out God?  I've always been curious about this insistence.


----------



## bignick (Sep 8, 2004)

i don't know, but perhaps it has something to do with taking His namein vain...


----------



## kenpo tiger (Sep 8, 2004)

RandomPhantom700 said:
			
		

> So what is the big deal with fully spelling out God? I've always been curious about this insistence.


It is a superstition held by many that one doesn't spell The Name so that it cannot be erased or eradicated in any way.  Similarly, there are many abbreviations for the name of G-d in the Torah which are not read as written, simply said as Adonai, because one is not supposed to address G-d by certain names or in certain ways.  The name is never said out loud. That isn't superstition -- it's the way it has been passed down.  Mark, any input?

I am not a religious person, I believe in and practice my religion in a secular manner.  However, for other, more personal, reasons which have absolutely no bearing on this discussion, that's why I abbreviate.


----------



## Flatlander (Sep 8, 2004)

The fact that there are many different religeous variations and definitions of God suggests to me that one's definition of God and proof of such must be a very personal and subjective thing.  I can tell you what proof I have of the existence of a higher power, but that doesn't necessarily mean that others must accept that proof.

For example, let's take KT's previous story regarding her prayer for her daughter, and her daughter's subsequent healing.  This was sufficient to give KT evidence of the existence of a higher power.  But the skeptic may say "how can you be certain that there was intervention by a higher power?"  Why must there be transmittable certainty?  If the conditions were sufficient evidence for her, and her relationship with that power is subjective in nature, what necessitates the transmittability of proof?  

There are different types of proof.  It would be silly for me to say "It is true that the Earth is flat because I said so", as anyone could go off and prove differently to me.  But would it be fair to say "I love my wife because I said so"?  Could anyone prove me wrong?  The proof would be in the analysis of my behaviour toward her.

Is everyone here aware that particle physics is showing that all material phenomena tends to exist because we observe it as we do?  That particles manifest in different ways depending upon how we observe them?  In this context, how does your definition of evidence with respect to the proof of a higher power change?

It's all relative to your frame of reference, to your opinions and experiences.  It depends upon how you have chosen to observe your reality.


----------



## RandomPhantom700 (Sep 8, 2004)

I see your point.  All I was saying is that it's not possible to prove God, flat out.  It's not necessary to believe in him, obviously.  But proof does require transmittability to others, and something such as belief in God, which is so subjective, can't be so transmitted.


----------



## Flatlander (Sep 8, 2004)

*shaking hands*

Yup, I agree. :asian:


----------



## bignick (Sep 8, 2004)

it's impossible to prove the existence of God...that's why it's called faith...


----------



## MisterMike (Sep 8, 2004)

Can somebody prove reincarnation? I'd REALLY like to see that one too. Perhaps food for another thread, eh?

Or is it more fun to poke the Christians?


----------



## RandomPhantom700 (Sep 8, 2004)

I've heard about some studies from a friend of mine that produced evidence for reincarnation.  If you'd like, I can ask him what the references were, and a more detailed explanation of the study then my foggy memory could provide.


----------



## RandomPhantom700 (Sep 8, 2004)

kenpo tiger said:
			
		

> I hardly think that's the case. The CONCEPT of G-d is real to many. Whether there is a living, breathing entity is another thing entirely.
> 
> So, do you agree that the concept of a g-d is real? It does not imply your personal belief in the concept, just that it exists.


Sorry, just noticed this post.  Yes, the concept of God exists, as much as the concept of the perfect circle, or any other concept.  But last time I checked, the thread was about proving the existence of a God, not the concept of it.


----------



## bignick (Sep 8, 2004)

i think it was said best earlier that the "proof" of God can only be accepted from within...there's no conclusive proof one way or the other...there are actually valid scientific arguments from both sides...only you can judge for yourself which way the evidence tips the scales..


----------



## someguy (Sep 9, 2004)

Here is one prove to me I exist.  Prove to me You exist.  If you prove it I may prove God exists.  OK I won't but still prove you exist.


----------



## bignick (Sep 9, 2004)

this reminds me of a guy that lived on my floor last year...everyone just called him roommate...and he never left and did anything...a real contributor to society...and one day i was talking with some friends and realized there was no way we could prove to the outside world that roommate existed, the only people that knew about him were the people on the floor...and we could have been having a mass hallucination....

people like to use evolution as one of the weapons against creationism...well...one of the few things i remember from high school biology is the law that states only life can create life...sure, chemical processes can creat the building blocks of life...but going from an inanimate object to a living creature is something that science has never been able to really explain...

also, all current theories on the creation of the universe, big bang, membrane theory, foam...what existed the instant before the universe was created...where did this matter come from...yes energy and matter can be transformed from one to the other, but then where did the energy come from...one more mystery that science is likely never going to solve, since there is no sure way of knowing what was before...


----------



## Scout_379 (Sep 9, 2004)

OFF TOPIC - I am too busy right now to post much, or create new threads

Someone asked about reincarnation?
found this awhile ago

http://www.buddhanet.net/ans30.htm
http://www.buddhanet.net/3-gqga.htm

No quoted sources i'm afraid.
Maybe a little biased too.


----------



## Mark Weiser (Sep 9, 2004)

Sorry be offline for a few days fighting a sinus cold and working 12 hour shifts. 

In reference to HaShem's name (this is one way the Jewish People address the Creator of the Universe). It is forbidden to say his real name in any manner either in private of public places. The reason is the scared honor due to his position and charactertiscs. Another word to use in our english language would be awe or reverence. It is a Tradition that has been passed down for 1000's of years. So we keep that practice due to the honor that is due to our Creator. 

Sincerely,
Mark E. Weiser


----------



## MisterMike (Sep 9, 2004)

Scout_379 said:
			
		

> OFF TOPIC - I am too busy right now to post much, or create new threads
> 
> Someone asked about reincarnation?
> found this awhile ago
> ...




Thanks Scout, that was me.


----------



## kenpo tiger (Sep 10, 2004)

Mark Weiser said:
			
		

> Sorry be offline for a few days fighting a sinus cold and working 12 hour shifts.
> 
> In reference to HaShem's name (this is one way the Jewish People address the Creator of the Universe). It is forbidden to say his real name in any manner either in private of public places. The reason is the scared honor due to his position and charactertiscs. Another word to use in our english language would be awe or reverence. It is a Tradition that has been passed down for 1000's of years. So we keep that practice due to the honor that is due to our Creator.
> 
> ...


Thanks for the backup.  Feel better - and take a break!


----------



## nlmantis (Sep 10, 2004)

Mark Weiser said:
			
		

> In reference to HaShem's name (this is one way the Jewish People address the Creator of the Universe).
> Mark E. Weiser


I read somewhere that the word "Adonai" was introduced after centuries of using the name "Yahweh" from the name "YHWH" inscribed in the Ten Commandments. In the 5th century the Masoretes inserted the vowel marks to make sure "Adonai" was used as all of a sudden the real name "Yahweh" was too holy to pronounce. Strange since according to Genesis 12:8 26:25 and 28:13 his name was known to at least Abraham, Isaac and Yaacob and later Mosheh and all the children of Israyl (Ex. 3:15, 34:4). They were instructed to use this name exclusively and freely. Then check out Psalms 83 (16-18).. Makes you wonder.


----------



## kenpo tiger (Sep 10, 2004)

If it's G-d's prerogative to change his mind, maybe he's a she!


Prove it's not so.


----------



## nlmantis (Sep 10, 2004)

kenpo tiger said:
			
		

> If it's G-d's prerogative to change his mind, maybe he's a she!
> 
> 
> Prove it's not so.


Well the Creator would surely would not need to be male or female.. some would consider it blasphemy just to bring up the point. (not me)


----------



## kenpo tiger (Sep 10, 2004)

nlmantis said:
			
		

> Well the Creator would surely would not need to be male or female.. some would consider it blasphemy just to bring up the point. (not me)


To question the very existence of a deity isn't blasphemy but to question the gender is... hmmm.  I'd think it'd be the other way around.


----------



## Mark Weiser (Sep 10, 2004)

Actually that is a good debate point. There are Rabbis that say it is blasphemy to give G_d human traits or charactericstics. On the other hand we are encouraged to reason and debate what is the truth and to use the intellect that He or She has given us.


----------



## parmandjack (Sep 10, 2004)

kenpo tiger said:
			
		

> If it's G-d's prerogative to change his mind, maybe he's a she!
> 
> 
> Prove it's not so.


...OK....

The Holy Bible clearly declares that God does not change:_Mal 3:6_

He does not change his mind: _Num 23:19 and 1 Sam 15:29_

Jesus also doesn't change and is the same at all times: _Heb 13:8_

_.... just a few for you..._

_Oh and by the way, God presented Himself throughout the Scriptures as a "male" figure, not a female, so that kinda proves He is not a she...but don't believe me, read the Bible._


----------



## kenpo tiger (Sep 10, 2004)

parmandjack said:
			
		

> ...OK....
> 
> The Holy Bible clearly declares that God does not change:_Mal 3:6_
> 
> ...


Just for the sake of debate:

Who wrote the Bible(s) and their stories?  Men, so of course it would be a masculine reference.  Also, in the English language, the tense used to speak of a something without gender or an unknown individual is usually masculine, is it not?


----------



## Scout_379 (Sep 10, 2004)

Jack is back!  
I have to say, i thought you were done!

The bible is an old book, gender equality is just a very recent development in human history. And I cannot believe anything to be totally static in nature.



> God does not change
> 
> Jesus also doesn't change


change in what ways?

You said you were recently converted, what changed your mind from atheism? If you don't mind me asking.


----------



## SenseiBear (Sep 10, 2004)

MisterMike said:
			
		

> Can somebody prove reincarnation? I'd REALLY like to see that one too. Perhaps food for another thread, eh?
> 
> Or is it more fun to poke the Christians?




Oooo, ooo, I can, I can!

Jesus said "...I say unto thee, Except a man be born again, he cannot see the kingdom of God." -John 3:3 (KJV)

See, Jesus believed in re-incarnation 
(women of course can make it on the first try)


----------



## rmcrobertson (Sep 10, 2004)

Some of yawl on this thread have done earned slaps upside each side of the punim, like flippers on an old-fashioned pinball machine, with Elaine Pagels and Mieke Bal as your Scylla and Charybdis...

One wishes that the Big Guy existed, and was indeed a combo of Bud Cort and Alanis Morisette...

Alas.

"Old Nobodaddy aloft
Farted and belched & coughed
And said, 'I love hanging & drawing and quartering
Every bit as much as slaying and slaughtering.'"


----------



## parmandjack (Sep 10, 2004)

kenpo tiger said:
			
		

> Just for the sake of debate:
> 
> Who wrote the Bible(s) and their stories? Men, so of course it would be a masculine reference. Also, in the English language, the tense used to speak of a something without gender or an unknown individual is usually masculine, is it not?


Hey Kenpo,

I'll address this in the new thread, (fulfilled prophecies etc..), and when I get to it, if you like, i'll come back and post it here...


----------



## rmcrobertson (Sep 10, 2004)

In other words, why aren't you barefoot, pregnant, and in the kitchen?

Promise Keepers want to know...


----------



## Mark Weiser (Sep 11, 2004)

The ole group is still around lol!!


----------



## parmandjack (Sep 11, 2004)

Scout_379 said:
			
		

> Jack is back!
> I have to say, i thought you were done!


  figured it was time I came back and had a look at what was going on



			
				Scout_379 said:
			
		

> Quote:
> God does not change
> 
> Jesus also doesn't change
> ...


exactly... He doesn't



			
				Scout_379 said:
			
		

> You said you were recently converted, what changed your mind from atheism? If you don't mind me asking.


... I had a response already to go for you on this one.. then I had to go change a diaper and make some toast, and while doing that, my kid turned off my computer.. have to try to re-organize my thoughts now...

No I dont mind you asking this question at all Scout.

I used to be on your team... I used to debate those who professed christianity (or any god for that matter), and shoot down their proofs, and besides that, christians couldn't even agree within their own ranks as to what the bible said etc... I have always been technically minded, coming from a family of engineers and having a degree in computer science myself... and I had so many questions...like where did we come from, why are we here, where are we going... etc.. you know.. all the big ones that we all have... so naturally I turned to science for the answers... but what I found over the years was that science couldn't provide any answers.

I am in the computer industry, and have moved all over the continent... at one place i worked, i sat beside a born again christian. We had some terrific debates, which I always thought I had won (i thought)... over time, she got me thinking, and i finally accepted Jesus roughly 10 years ago (or so i thought). Over time though, i realized that after stating that I was "saved", nothign about me changed... my thoughts, my words, my actions, my preconceived notions.. nothing... nothing had changed... now at this same time I had moved to minneapolis, then to raleigh, then auburn alabama, then houston. During this time of reflection, I realized that I wasn't saved before as I thought, and that I had experienced a false conversion.

Gradually, during the moves, I felt this...hmm.. I can only describe it as a "tugging" at/in my chest/heart towards God, where I experienced a "need" to know Him... i fought this urge for a long time while questioning it, and eventually, in Houston, fell to my knees and accepted Jesus, this time for real...

But wait a minute... I considered myself a pretty smart guy... not the brightest bulb or sharpest tack in the box, but smart enough, and very logical, I have to be in the industry I am in, everything is black and white, one's and zero's, etc...... so how do I begin to explain to people my new found salvation, people who i knew would laugh and argue against it? well.. study... I delved into everything I could find, and still do to this day... as an atheist I debated against the bible, god, etc...but during that time of debating, I began studying religions, simply so I could argue against them. Now, 3+ years after my true acceptance of Jesus, I have done nothing accept study the bible.. and I mean really study... as well as all the evidences for it and in support of its claims, as well as other religions. In that time, I have become a bible scholar and a student of eschatology, and am working towards paper to validate such for the secular masses.

Anyway, I mention the above only to highlight a point, the point is that everything i have found and studied and researched, has only reinforced my belief in the accuracy and inerrancy of the bible. After 30+ years of disbelief, and 7 years of uninvolved false conversion, 3+ years later and I am truly convinced by both faith in Jesus, but also because of the solid proofs supporting the bibles accuracy, which in turn supports the claims that Jesus is the only way... but sadly, this is where christians start to argue. Many christians profess faith in Jesus, but argue against the bibles inerrancy etc... but that raises a valid argument for the skeptics and atheists.. and that is this... if a person claims to be a christian, but then argues against the documents that their faith is based on, doesnt that make them hypocrits? You can then ask what part of the bible they believe to be true, and base their faith on it... then you can ask, well what convinces them that that part is true while another part is false? taking it further, you can then state validly that if one part is false, then the whole christian faith crumbles because the very book that the faith is built on is not valid or true or reliable... and this is where being born again becomes important... if you are truly saved, not a false conversion, then you truly accept Jesus into your life.. once this is done, it is impossible to then, not be a christian anymore at some later date due to changed opinions or doubts etc... because once saved, you are His forever, given that you were truly saved in the first place (i hadnt been)... and this is called fundamentalism... being born again, you follow Jesus' teachings, and the fundamentals of the religion, as they are presented in the bible, and not some other source. This then produces changes in your life, which turn into good works, you are not saved by your deeds or works or actions etc...but only through Jesus, adn once that is accomplished, He then begins to make changes in your life which produces deeds that show Him.

It is true that the bible teaches that new christians are like babes, and are to be fed milk, and only given meat when they are mature enough to handle it... however, this scriptural teaching is not referring to how long you've claimed to be a christian, it is referring to spiritual maturity. It teaches that a mature christian can read and understand the scriptures, much more so than an immature christian...  therefore, a person who has claimed christianity for 50 years, is not necessary more educated and/or spiritually more mature than someone with 3 years....

I'm sorry, I think I went on a tangent there, but I was attempting to explain the path that i went on since my true conversion from atheism, and why I belive completely, He becomes your life, and you(I) experince and feel the changes He makes in me, thereby further solidifying my belief ...

But listen...I have started another thread labelled 'fulfilled prophecies prove the bible', or something to that effect...i'm attempting to answer questions there...

I hope this wasn't too long winded an answer Scout, to your question of why I changed sides, and i hope I managed to express to you what I was actually thinking...


----------



## michaeledward (Sep 11, 2004)

parmandjack said:
			
		

> I'm sorry, I think I went on a tangent there, but I was attempting to explain the path that i went on since my true conversion from atheism, and why I belive completely, He becomes your life, and you(I) experince and feel the changes He makes in me, thereby further solidifying my belief ...


Actually, that was the most thoughtful post you have made on the subject, it was not a tangent.

While you continue to be judgemental about other people's lives, it is kind of nice to see the tone turned down. And I still disagree.

Mike


----------



## Makalakumu (Sep 11, 2004)

Very thoughtful post, Jack.  :asian:


----------



## kenpo tiger (Sep 11, 2004)

michaeledward said:
			
		

> Actually, that was the most thoughtful post you have made on the subject, it was not a tangent.
> 
> While you continue to be judgemental about other people's lives, it is kind of nice to see the tone turned down. And I still disagree.
> 
> Mike


What he said.

I personally believe in free will, and that I am responsible for my actions toward others, no one else.  But that's a thread gank, and maybe, just maybe, we can discuss it elsewhere.


----------



## heretic888 (Sep 13, 2004)

Whew!! Finally got my **** back to a computer. Y'know, Hurricane Frances and all. Had a few more problems to worry about than chattin' online.

Well, anyways, I just wanted to address a few major points that piqued my interest in the last 6 or 7 pages of the thread (yikes, guys):

*1. Would you consider the Jungian concept of the collective unconscious on the same level as what you indicated above (re: perennial philosophy)?*

Well.... somewhat. I would concede that there is clearly a cross-cultural basis for the archetypes that Jung and Campbell talked about. I would agree that the two are on the "same level" if you are referring to a human commonality.

I do not, however, feel most of the Jungian archetypes are on the same cognitive or "spiritual" level as the insights and experiences of the world's mystics (which is the basis for the perennial philosophy). Most are extremely prerational, not transrational, and have more to do with early survival drives. The mother archetype Jung talked about, for example, has less to do with a nirvanic cessation or a type of Platonic deity mysticism --- and more to do with organizing the experiences of human infants in regards to a preverbial "mother".

Now, granted, some of the archetypes are genuinely transrational. Most, however, are not.

*2. My personal opinion is that human beings invent a god/gods/goddesses/religions/GOD based on the influence of their environment and their own biological/psychologic needs.*

I would basically agree with this. The creation of a particular religion or deity could involve a lot of different elements --- everything from cultural worldviews, linguistic stylisms, socioeconomic modes of production and institutions, and (most importantly) individual experiences and observations. 

We can see this, for example, in the parallels between many Hellenistic philosophers of the Meditarranean in contrast to the Vedanta and Mahayana philosophers of the East. Plato is clearly talking about many of the same concepts and principles as Nagarjuna and Shankara, but it is "clothed" in very different cultural guises.

*3. Despite their differences, the purposes served and the commonalities shared between the faiths are very similar.*

True enough. But, the particular points I was referencing in regards to the perennial philosophy have to do with the raw experiences that many mystics in sages have reported. I am not simply referring to similar worldviews or shared values, but actual commonalities in mystical experience (Rumi, Johannes Eckhart, Catherine of Genoa, Shankara, Nagarjuna, Plotinus, etc.)

*4. Marxists don't burn people at the stake, Christians do.*

Errr.... might want to rethink this claim, methinks. People who claimed to be following the "Marxist vision" have done some pretty horrid and brutal things. The "cultural revolution" of Maoist China comes to mind, as does the invasion of Tibet. Let's not forget the yumminess that was state-enforced atheism under Stalin's rule, either.

The point is that this stuff is not in any way unique to "religions" in the formal sense, but underly any real jingoism, ethnocentrism, xenophobia, and fanaticism in general --- including the atheistic variety.

*5. Jesus is the ONLY WAY, so sayeth the Bible.*

Ugh. This again. 

The problem here is that people are taking a particular verse from the New Testament ("I am the Way, the Life, and the Truth. No one goes to the Father but by Me.") completely out of context. I have already discussed this with someone via PM, so I'll just copy-and-paste my reply to him:

Contrary to popular belief, the gospels of the New Testament are not freely interchangeable works. What is said, for example, in the Gospel of John may not necessarily "fit" or apply to what is said in the Synoptics.

It is relevant that the verse in question is found in the Gospel of John. At the very beginning, the author of the text (who most definately is not "John") identifies the character Jesus (whom he may or may not have believed existed in a literal-historical sense) with the Logos (which is translated rather poorly as 'Word'). The Logos is a very old Greek philosophical principle that was first formally put forth by Heraclitus in the 6th century BCE. Philo Judaeus (circa 15 CE) of Alexandria was probably the one that was responsible for the popularization of the concept among Jewish circles.

Anyways, the Jesus of John's Gospel is clearly making reference to the Logos (which would probably be more accurately translated as 'Reason' in the Hegelian, not Aristotlean, sense) during his many "I Am" speeches. This is evident, for example, when he claims, "Before Abraham was, I am". The "I" that Jesus is referencing here throughout John's Gospel is clearly not some individual person that lived 2,000 years ago. This is also evident in the, "No one comes to the Father but by Me". If we took this statement literally about a historical personality that lived 2,000 years ago --- and not the Logos itself --- then this means that no one had "come to the Father" before Jesus was born in Bethlehem. That, to me, is a very arrogant and jingoistic statement.

Also, an Aramaic interpretation of the text also makes it evident that John's Jesus is referring to the "I AM" that was revealed to Moses in Exodus. 

I think both of those interpretations, of the "I" in John referring to both the Logos and "I AM", are more accurate than the common fundamentalistic interpretations.

*6. One day soon, Christians will be persecuted by the world!!*

Okay, claims like this are just silly. Stop reading "Left Behind" and start reading the news once in a while. Christians are not in any way being formally persecuted by anyone.

Ideas like this propagate, once again, when Biblical texts are read out of their proper contexts. The Revelation of John is an intertestamental Jewish apocalypse that Christian scribes edited slightly to give it a "Christian" face. The great evil being referenced is the Roman Empire, and it was most likely written around the time that the temple in Jerusalem was destroyed (70 CE). Stuff like this was a dime a dozen back then --- apocalypses were very popular in the intertestamental Jewish literature.

Just my thoughts, of course. Laterz.


----------



## Jim (Sep 14, 2004)

A REAL higher power wouldn't want or need proof.... Nor would I believe in a higher power who wanted/needed to show any proof.  That's what good old fashioned 'faith' is for kids!


----------



## RandomPhantom700 (Sep 14, 2004)

Oh yes, I forgot.  Blind faith somehow elevates something such as God above such trivial things as rational understanding.  Or maybe it's just the personal significance that makes religious people afraid to question it.


----------



## MisterMike (Sep 14, 2004)

RandomPhantom700 said:
			
		

> Oh yes, I forgot.  Blind faith somehow elevates something such as God above such trivial things as rational understanding.  Or maybe it's just the personal significance that makes religious people afraid to question it.



I don't think that's what he was saying. But you are beginning to look like an ****.


----------



## heretic888 (Sep 14, 2004)

> A REAL higher power wouldn't want or need proof....



A REAL "higher power" wouldn't want or need anything. A REAL "higher power" would be completely transcendent of any defining characteristics or anthropomorphisms. A REAL "higher power" could only be "known" via mystical communion or contemplative union --- not by looking into the Big Bang or coming up with teleological arguments based on Aristotlean logic.

This is verily the Buddhist doctrine of shunyata and mu, the Vedantic doctrine of nirguna Brahman, the Kabbalistic doctrine of kether and ayn, the Tao that "cannot be mentioned", the Platonic and Neoplatonic doctrine of the One, the Valentinian doctrine of the Abyss, the 'dazzling darkness' referred to by St. Denys Areopagite, the 'Ground of the soul and God are one' referred to by Meister Johannes Eckhart, the 'Ground of All Being' mentioned by Paul Tillich and Thomas Merton, the.... well, you get the idea.

It should also be mentioned that the various Semitic root words associated with the Divine Name --- Elat or Alat (Canaanite), Elohim (Hebrew), Alaha (Aramaic), and Allah (Arabic) --- all point to this. _EL_ is the definite article, the word "the". And, _LA_ is its opposite, the negation of anything, the word "no". The No. Or, if you prefer.... the Abyss, the Nothingness, the Void, the Emptiness, the Formless, the Dazzling Darkness, and so on. Or, if you don't like those metaphors, you can always stick with the Kabbalalistic doctrine of Ein Sof Aur --- the 'Limitless Light'. It all points to the same thing, no matter how you slice it.

Meh. I think I've made my point.


----------



## RandomPhantom700 (Sep 14, 2004)

MisterMike:

Your opinion is noted and disregarded appropriately.


----------



## heretic888 (Sep 14, 2004)

Now, now, guys.... play nice.


----------



## kenpo tiger (Sep 14, 2004)

heretic888 said:
			
		

> It should also be mentioned that the various Semitic root words associated with the Divine Name --- Elat or Alat (Canaanite), Elohim (Hebrew), Alaha (Aramaic), and Allah (Arabic) --- all point to this. _EL_ is the definite article, the word "the". And, _LA_ is its opposite, the negation of anything, the word "no". The No. Or, if you prefer.... the Abyss, the Nothingness, the Void, the Emptiness, the Formless, the Dazzling Darkness, and so on. Or, if you don't like those metaphors, you can always stick with the Kabbalalistic doctrine of Ein Sof Aur --- the 'Limitless Light'. It all points to the same thing, no matter how you slice it.


I don't question your scholarship.  However, in Hebrew, LOH is no, AYN is nothing.

I've been waiting for someone to bring in Kabala.  Can it be considered in the same light as the rest of Judaism, since it deals with a realm that could be considered 'heretical' in some circles?


----------



## heretic888 (Sep 15, 2004)

> I don't question your scholarship. However, in Hebrew, LOH is no, AYN is nothing.



Heh. Well, I may have goofed on the exact specifics of the spelling --- I don't have my sources right in front of me, after all. 

But the point remains the same: all those rendering of the Semitic conceptualization of the Divine literally say something like "The No". Or, to be slightly more interpretative, they combine existence ("the") with nothingness ("no"). This points to a concept of Nonduality, and is more than slightly reminiscent of the Buddhist doctrine of shunyata, the Hindu nirguna Brahman, or the the Valentinian-Christian Ineffable One or Abyss.

Another translation I have heard of these Semitic root-words, which I found particularly interesting, is "Holy Absence".



> I've been waiting for someone to bring in Kabala. Can it be considered in the same light as the rest of Judaism, since it deals with a realm that could be considered 'heretical' in some circles?



I don't see why not.

Virtually all schools of any religion are considered "heretical" in different circles. I'm sure there are points were the different mainstream schools of Judaism don't exactly get along. 

In any event, Kabbalah can trace its beginnings at least to various schools of Jewish Gnosticism present in the first century CE (and claims to go back further, all the way to Moses). This cannot be said for most of the extant schools of Judaism.

Just my thoughts, of course. Laterz.


----------



## Mark Weiser (Sep 15, 2004)

I was told by a certain source that this subject should be studied only by a well grounded Rabbi due to the implications. Hmmm makes you wonder what is really in the study of this? lol


----------



## kenpo tiger (Sep 15, 2004)

Mark Weiser said:
			
		

> I was told by a certain source that this subject should be studied only by a well grounded Rabbi due to the implications. Hmmm makes you wonder what is really in the study of this? lol


I recall hearing something to that effect also.  Could be that our forefathers viewed it as a threat to their teachings.  With numerology rampant in all religions, it begs the question as to why the mystical side isn't more dominant.


----------



## heretic888 (Sep 15, 2004)

Personally, I think its a problem with all mysticism in the Western religions. It is a two-fold problem, methinks:

1) Politically, its harmful to the authority figures to encourage the study of mysticism and esoterica --- after all, if the devotee goes around claiming "I am God" as many mystics have, were goes this leave the middle-man (i.e., the rabbi, priest, pastor, etc)?? And, more importantly, where does it leave his collection plate??

2) Pyschologically, it is dangerous to delve into the study of esoterica without a firm basis in exoterica. Even Buddhism has a bunch of exoteric rules and ethical guidelines before getting into wisdom study and meditation. From the mystical point-of-view, "I am God" is a very obvious statement of the Suchness of all things. From the egoist point-of-view, however, its an excuse for megalomania.

Laterz.


----------



## Jim (Sep 17, 2004)

To a REAL higher power, all your posturing and arguments would mean nothing because they would have the same affection for all forms of life regardless of intelectual capacity.  You can 'prove' God is dead all you like but it won't make any difference.  I'm sure if you argued long enough you may even convince me that an apple tastes like an orange (either that or I'd die of boredom).

Let's agree that you are a better 'arguer' than me as long as you agree that a real higher power doesn't care if you believe in it or not.  Okay?


----------



## kenpo tiger (Sep 17, 2004)

J Jim said:
			
		

> To a REAL higher power, all your posturing and arguments would mean nothing because they would have the same affection for all forms of life regardless of intelectual capacity. You can 'prove' God is dead all you like but it won't make any difference. I'm sure if you argued long enough you may even convince me that an apple tastes like an orange (either that or I'd die of boredom).
> 
> Let's agree that you are a better 'arguer' than me as long as you agree that a real higher power doesn't care if you believe in it or not. Okay?


Not to instigate or anything... but ... can you prove that?


----------



## Scout_379 (Sep 17, 2004)

> Not to instigate or anything... but ... can you prove that?


:rofl:


----------



## Jim (Sep 17, 2004)

Prove what?  That they're a better arguer than me?  Of course... here goes:

'I know you are, but what am I?'
'No you are!'
'Nah na ne nah na...'

And so on...


----------



## Josh (Sep 17, 2004)

who said that the Revelation of "John" was twisted? Huh?!?!? Where'd you get that? The book of Revelation was WRITEEN BY JOHN and he testified to what he saw. He saw JESUS!! The book of Revelation can actually be called THE REVELATION OF JESUS CHRIST!! It's not about the "end of the world". But the end of this present SINFUL WORLDLY AGE since Adam disobyed The Lord. The Revelation of Jesus Christ takes us through history. And yes, it's true certain things in there HAVE NOT HAPPENED yet. BUT WILL. Because Jesus says so. YESSS, they is going to be a time when Christians WILL NOT BE TOLERATED ANYMORE. Aren't you glad? Heh, i'm not, but even Jesus was persecuted and many didn't believe, and Jesus says no servant is greater than His master so if they persecute Me(Jesus) they will persecute you(the christian). With that said, Jesus WILL BE REVEALED. I know you don't believe it, you don't think He's gonna COME BACK like HE says He will. I wish you would believe, HE WANTS YOU TO BELIEVE. Even those that hated Jesus and didn't believe, He WANTED them to be saved. But WOULDN"T even TRY to believe. You believe George Washington was here and was our first president, SOOO, with that SAME SIMPLE FAITH, Believe Jesus IS WHO HE SAYS HE IS, ask HIM TO SAVE YOU AND MAKE YOU ONE OF HIS!!!! YOU WILL NOT REGRET IT.


----------



## rmcrobertson (Sep 18, 2004)

Congratulations, "Josh." Congratulations, "J Jim." I completely accept your explanation of all the hatred, all the misery, all the torture, all the mutilation & death, committed in the name of Christ.

Here's a little something from William Blake, "Songs of Innocence and Experience," goin' out to all you fellow strugglers.

A DIVINE IMAGE

Cruelty has a Human Heart
And Jealousy a Human Face
Terror the Human Form Divine
And Secrecy the Human Dress

The Human Dress is forged Iron
The Human Form a fiery Forge
The Human face a Furnace seal'd
The Human Heart its hungry Gorge.




Now everybody...


----------



## Josh (Sep 18, 2004)

ummmm, cheese?


----------



## Jim (Sep 18, 2004)

Errrr... Did I at any time mention Jesus?  (Oh, okay.... I did just then yes, but before...?  Oh just shut up!)


----------



## rmcrobertson (Sep 18, 2004)

Fair enough, though I'm not even sure I understood what the hell you just wrote...


----------



## kenpo tiger (Sep 18, 2004)

Ranting and raving in the name of any higher power is guaranteed to push away anyone who might be remotely interested in listening to your side.

It has me.

See ya.


----------



## Scout_379 (Sep 18, 2004)

Raving is quite effective amidst a bunch of uneducated and naive fools...there happen to be _very_ few here.  you are raving.


_please USE ITALICS!! _

Most don't even have read what you, josh, type, it's the same _every_ time, and the replies are for the most part ignored by you.


----------



## Darksoul (Sep 18, 2004)

"Each smallest act of kindness reverberates across great distances and spans of time, affecting lives unknown to the one whose generous spirit was the source of this good echo, because kindness is passed on and grows each time it's passed, until a simple courtesy becomes an act of selfless courage years later and far away. Likewise, each small meaness, each expression of hatred, each act of evil."

-_This Momentous Day, _H.R. White

-btw, its not that people hate Christians. That is so far from the truth that to even consider it is just silly. (Course, I don't speak for all.) What is annoying and dispised are those individuals and groups who are bent on convincing others of something, even when they're asked to stop. You said you had proof, but so far nothing has been presented which qualifies as such. One of my good friends is a Jehovah's Witness, and we have had many interesting discussions about faith and religion. But not once has he ever preached to me. Therefore, I can never judge any group as a whole; instead I will take issue with those who specifically deserve it.

-Share with us, don't preach at us. And accept us even if we don't agree or choose another path. I have accepted your belief in God and Jesus, and am happy it brings you fullfillment. Please let the rest of us do the same.

A---)


----------



## doug russell smith (Sep 19, 2004)

Let me state first off that I am not a proponant of any organised religion. I am also a bit of a cynic, however let me offer this as perhaps a simple indication of a higher force.............. 'Bananas an Rainbows'................ If these aren't gifts that make you wonder then no amount of "My God can beat up your God" will ever convince you! Just a thought.


----------



## michaeledward (Sep 20, 2004)

doug russell smith said:
			
		

> 'Bananas an Rainbows'................ If these aren't gifts that make you wonder then no amount of "My God can beat up your God" will ever convince you!


They sure do make me wonder ... and let me take a shot a 'Rainbows' for a moment. I especially get curious when I see a 'double rainbow'. I wonder a great deal.

Then, I get to look at the way light reacts when it goes through a prism. It seems this pure white light gets split up into different colors as it leaves the glass triangle ... 

So, does a rainbow make me ponder a higher power because raindrops act like prisms? Because white light is composed of many different colors of light? Because it would require a higher power to think up a triangle shaped piece of glass? 

Or, do I just recall my 8th grade science class? 

Mike


----------



## GAB (Sep 20, 2004)

Michael,

Yes, 8th grade science class. Quite an eye opener, I was raised Presbyterian.
This was in the 50's, time of the Bomb and shelters in America, and duck under the table...Sure!
I can still remember in the 6th grade, a young Jewish kid and myself got into a pretty good fight (by 6th grade standards) over the fact that I had been taught that it was the Jewish people who really had Christ crucified. 

I pounded on him until the teacher pulled me off. I got several swats from the VP (I don't remember if he was Jewish or not) sent home with a note, my Mom and Dad, had to come to my school to talk to the VP, who did the spanking on my behind with a board. (all I did was use my empty hands and feet).

I was always getting into a squabble over religion one side or the other.

When I learned about Science and the Periodic table, and of course along with that came Biology, well the rest is History.

Unfortunatly, I was never able to apologize to my little Jewish school mate as an adult, but we did make up and got along just fine. I don't know if it was the swats or the fact that we were just kids and made up pretty fast.

I can tell you first hand about swats and fighting, I received them for many years at the hands of school VP's, but never by my parents.

Then I went into the Marine Corps, now that is another story of torture and punishment. By the way you were either Catholic, Jewish, or Protestent. (59)

To Protest, I guess that was the reason I was having so many problems I had been raised to Protest. 
If it wasn't for Martin Luther or Martin Luther King, where would we be now? 
I remember a Catholic kid telling me his name was Lucifer not Luther, That was another fight, but I won't bore you.

Regards, Gary


----------



## RandomPhantom700 (Sep 20, 2004)

*blinks* 

Was there a point to that?


----------



## GAB (Sep 20, 2004)

Hi 700,
I guess the first thing is the word Michael, the next would be Science, Biology and Periodic table, The other information, how I came about being an Agnostic.

To many religions, to many wars in its name, to much misinformation for me to believe in anything, but what is proven and reproven by science.

Regards, Gary


----------



## someguy (Sep 20, 2004)

Science is a great tool.  My dad is a chemist and it has payed for a fair amount of my life.
You also can use it to "prove" all sorts of great things.
It has been "Proven" that Irish are inferior to the rest of the imigrants in america(in the nintenth cetury mind you).  There have been other graet things science has "proven" over the years.


----------



## RandomPhantom700 (Sep 20, 2004)

someguy said:
			
		

> It has been "Proven" that Irish are inferior to the rest of the imigrants in america(in the nintenth cetury mind you). There have been other graet things science has "proven" over the years.


How exactly was it that science proved the Irish to be inferior?


----------



## GAB (Sep 20, 2004)

Hi,
Irish and alcohol ? Irish and the potato, potato and alcohol? My guess...

Regards, Gary


----------



## heretic888 (Sep 22, 2004)

> To a REAL higher power, all your posturing and arguments would mean nothing because they would have the same affection for all forms of life regardless of intelectual capacity.



Congratulations. You just perfectly summed up the Bodhisattva.

Of course, a Bodhisattva wouldn't actually consider him/herself a "higher power", since the entire notion is laughable from the point of view of the Enlightened Mind. Now, the notion of THE "power" (as in "one and only"), well, that's another story...

I did enjoy your use of the pejorative term "posturing", intimating that I am somehow pretending to be something I am not. Interesting how someone arguing for "equality of all creatures" was making a not-so-veiled stab at moral superiority....



> You can 'prove' God is dead all you like but it won't make any difference. I'm sure if you argued long enough you may even convince me that an apple tastes like an orange (either that or I'd die of boredom).



At no point did I ever argue that "God" is "dead".



> who said that the Revelation of "John" was twisted? Huh?!?!?



That'd be me. And, to note, what I specifically said was that the Revelation of John is a Christian redaction of a Jewish intertestamental work.



> Where'd you get that?



Biblical scholarship.



> The book of Revelation was WRITEEN BY JOHN and he testified to what he saw.



That's funny... considering the incredibly late date of the appearance of the current "Revelation of John". So late, in fact, that the Church of the time actually had stories of John becoming "immortal" so it could have been the same John of the Gospel of John that authored both texts --- since, of course, they were well over 100 years apart.



> Share with us, don't preach at us. And accept us even if we don't agree or choose another path. I have accepted your belief in God and Jesus, and am happy it brings you fullfillment. Please let the rest of us do the same.



Well said.



> Science is a great tool. My dad is a chemist and it has payed for a fair amount of my life.
> You also can use it to "prove" all sorts of great things.
> It has been "Proven" that Irish are inferior to the rest of the imigrants in america(in the nintenth cetury mind you). There have been other graet things science has "proven" over the years.



In typical fashion, someguy is demonstrating a blatant misunderstanding of just what "science" is and, more importantly, how it actually works.

But, hey, its always easier to demonize the "other side" rather than understand where they're coming from, right??

*chuckle* Laterz.


----------



## Feisty Mouse (Sep 23, 2004)

> Quote:
> Science is a great tool. My dad is a chemist and it has payed for a fair amount of my life.
> You also can use it to "prove" all sorts of great things.
> It has been "Proven" that Irish are inferior to the rest of the imigrants in america(in the nintenth cetury mind you). There have been other graet things science has "proven" over the years.
> ...


Well, he is correct in that science has been used (and misused) to forward inherent racial or classist superiority for centuries, and still some try to today.

Science is a human endeavour, and studies can be flawed, biased, and so forth.

What are you referring to, heretic?


----------



## RandomPhantom700 (Sep 23, 2004)

Feisty Mouse said:
			
		

> Well, he is correct in that science has been used (and misused) to forward inherent racial or classist superiority for centuries, and still some try to today.
> 
> Science is a human endeavour, and studies can be flawed, biased, and so forth.


Yes, but someguy is (or seems to me to be) saying that such flawed abuses of science show that it is therefore just a crock.  Notice the contextual mockery of the word prove, which is repeatedly put in quotes.


----------



## Marginal (Sep 23, 2004)

someguy said:
			
		

> Science is a great tool.  My dad is a chemist and it has payed for a fair amount of my life.
> You also can use it to "prove" all sorts of great things.
> It has been "Proven" that Irish are inferior to the rest of the imigrants in america(in the nintenth cetury mind you).  There have been other graet things science has "proven" over the years.



The Bible has been used to "prove" that slavery is mandated by God. Better toss it out!


----------



## Feisty Mouse (Sep 23, 2004)

RandomPhantom700 said:
			
		

> Yes, but someguy is (or seems to me to be) saying that such flawed abuses of science show that it is therefore just a crock. Notice the contextual mockery of the word prove, which is repeatedly put in quotes.


Ah!  OK, gotcha. 

Well, that's ridiculous.  I hate this kind of "reasoning" - if it's not a perfect system, toss it out!  All the systems we have are imperfect - we are imperfect creatures.  We do the best we can, and, hopefully, acknowledge our faults and mistakes, and keep going.  

Sheesh.

And a scientist rarely if ever says they "prove" anything (although certain fields, like physics and math, have "proofs") - we can support or not support certain ideas.


----------



## Flatlander (Sep 23, 2004)

Interesting to note, as well, that the field of physics is largely based on the acceptance of approximation.  Werner Heisenberg's Uncertainty Principle demonstrates this rather well.


----------



## heretic888 (Sep 23, 2004)

Everyone else covered anything I might have said, so I'll just address the one question directed at me:



> What are you referring to, heretic?



Past experience, miss mouse. 

Someguy's use of "science" in the past on these boards --- particularly in regards to religion --- has always been based upon misunderstandings, misinterpretations, or flat-out fraudulent data. He was one of the guys supporting that "creation science" nonsense, among other things. 

And, when he is usually called on it, he typically bows out for a time. I suspect this will happen again now.

Have a good 'un.


----------



## Feisty Mouse (Sep 23, 2004)

heretic888 said:
			
		

> Everyone else covered anything I might have said, so I'll just address the one question directed at me:
> 
> 
> 
> ...


You too.


----------



## someguy (Sep 23, 2004)

Go away for abit and see what happens...
I don't really know where to start.
How about here


			
				heretic888 said:
			
		

> Someguy's use of "science" in the past on these boards --- particularly in regards to religion --- has always been based upon misunderstandings, misinterpretations, or flat-out fraudulent data. He was one of the guys supporting that "creation science" nonsense, among other things.
> And, when he is usually called on it, he typically bows out for a time. I suspect this will happen again now.
> Have a good 'un.



Me thinks some one has misunderstood me alot.
I don't really remeber supporting creation science.  I probably did just for the fun of it.  
I have belived in evolution most of my life.  Before that I hadn't thought it was either creationism or evolution.  I simply hadn't thought about it at all.  Although it doesn't really matter that much.  

All I am saying about Science is put your faith in anything that calls itself science and say it's right because it's science is not a good idea.  I'm saying this in a very round about way and I guess you took a differnt view on what I said.
My quotation marks around prove where intended to show that it didn't really prove anything.  But thats what "science" says.   
Alright what do you want me to go back and prove somethings fine.  PM me Heretic and tell me what to go and find and show you.  I'll try and do though I won't promise athing.  
Bowing out for a time might have something to do with things to do.  I'll still come and check things but I won't check everything when I'm bussy.  I also won't look into stuff I don't feel like talking about at the moment.
Do you guys really want to go hunt up the article that" shows" how Irish are infrerior.  If you really want I'll have to go find my proffessor and get her to tell me where to find it.  Tell me if you guy's really want to see one of those studies because there where more than one.  It will take me till at least wensday of next week to see her again.  Then I'll have to remember I'm very absent minded so it may take a while.
As to my grammer and spelling if you can't read something I will clarify it for you.  I have no spell chcker on this computer.  It isn't mine.  I'm also not paying as much attention to grammer as I should. I am doing stuff at the moment other than this.
Well if you will exsuce me I'm going to go do some of that stuff that apperntly I think is all what ever I think it is.  Chemistry for now.  Hmm burning things and looking at colors.  Been there done that.  maybe I should try randomly mixing things.  Look for someguy blowing up a collage by accedent.  That would be me.(really bad joke but I couldn't resist)


----------



## heretic888 (Sep 23, 2004)

> All I am saying about Science is put your faith in anything that calls itself science and say it's right because it's science is not a good idea. I'm saying this in a very round about way and I guess you took a differnt view on what I said.



You are aware, of course, that that entire attitude is itself very unscientific?? Science rests its basis on the principle of testability and falsifiability --- not on "cuz we say so". 'Fraid you're thinking of certain varieties of religion. Again.

That being said, there is indeed "bad" science. Meaning, "science" that does not have the data to support its claims or whose claims are untestable.

But, by its own criteria, bad science isn't real science at all. Laterz.


----------



## RandomPhantom700 (Sep 23, 2004)

someguy said:
			
		

> But thats what "science" says.
> 
> Do you guys really want to go hunt up the article that" shows" how Irish are infrerior. If you really want I'll have to go find my proffessor and get her to tell me where to find it. Tell me if you guy's really want to see one of those studies because there where more than one. It will take me till at least wensday of next week to see her again. Then I'll have to remember I'm very absent minded so it may take a while.


No, that's what somebody with an agenda--either to insult the Irish or to insult true science--tried to pass off as a scientific claim. And if you're citing this discovery as a reason why science shouldn't be trusted, then that shows a blatant misunderstanding of what science really is. 

This is why I asked about the nature of the whole 'science proving the Irish are inferior' claim; only by seeing the excuse for reasoning behind the claim could I really say how it isn't an example of scientific discovery. And yes, I'd like to find out what you're referring to, if it wouldn't be too much trouble. If not, all anyone has is your word and interpretation.


----------



## Marginal (Sep 23, 2004)

someguy said:
			
		

> Do you guys really want to go hunt up the article that" shows" how Irish are infrerior.  If you really want I'll have to go find my proffessor and get her to tell me where to find it.  Tell me if you guy's really want to see one of those studies because there where more than one.  It will take me till at least wensday of next week to see her again.  Then I'll have to remember I'm very absent minded so it may take a while.



I can get a copy of Uncle Tom's Cabin which "proves" the Bible is an evil tool of slavery too if you like. But then, since it's but one interpretation of the Bible and takes lazy shortcuts like your eugenics texts do most simply elect to not take it seriously rather than burn every Bible they come across.  Funny how that works...


----------



## Feisty Mouse (Sep 24, 2004)

> You are aware, of course, that that entire attitude is itself very unscientific?? Science rests its basis on the principle of testability and falsifiability --- not on "cuz we say so". 'Fraid you're thinking of certain varieties of religion. Again.


Unfortunately, I think a large number of people in school today are being told (directly or indirectly) that Science (note capital letter) is now the most important system, as Religion (whichever that was) used to be a few centuries ago.  

One of the biggest challenges I think I face in teaching college students about research methodology is that *they* (each one of them) is a scientist, as long as they understand the scientific method, and are criticial and honest in their questioning.  It doesn't mean that someone with a PhD and 30 years of research experience might not have more experience and a larger body of knowledge to immediately draw upon than others, but it is up to each person to realize that they have the ability to evaluate science, given the time and interest.

I teach pretty intelligent students who are interested in and possibly going to pursue a science career, and they still don't always seem to take on that role of evaluating science themselves.  (Or they do, but tend to forget that each person has their own personal biases they bring to the table, and must remain aware of.)

Whew!  Long mini-rant.  

Religion/spirituality - faith is important
Science - scientific method and knowing that explanations are tentative

They are both important systems, I think, but different.  The trouble comes when one takes the place of the other in society.  (And don't get me started on technology.)


----------



## rmcrobertson (Sep 24, 2004)

If you want to see a beautiful illustration of what just got posted, look up the attempt by practitioners of, "therapeutic touch," to attack the results of an experiment run by a 9-year old, which showed conclusively that "therapeutic touch," is ********.


----------



## PeachMonkey (Sep 24, 2004)

Feisty Mouse said:
			
		

> They are both important systems, I think, but different.  The trouble comes when one takes the place of the other in society.  (And don't get me started on technology.)



Mouse, can you give an example of where science has replaced religion in society to detrimental effect?


----------



## Feisty Mouse (Sep 24, 2004)

PeachMonkey said:
			
		

> Mouse, can you give an example of where science has replaced religion in society to detrimental effect?


Well, someguy's comments are an example.  No system (whatever it is) is perfect, because it is people who are going to implement the system.  Relgion can be used for good results or bad results, and so can science.  I can be told that we have a religious inquistition going for spiritual reasons, or that other races need to be oppressed and cannot think for themselves or feel pain, for scientific reasons.  

Both are up to the people who are perceived to hold the power - speak with authority - and how people in general interpret what they are suppossed to do.  Love others because GOD told us to?  Or love others because altruism and group selection are tools for survival?


----------



## PeachMonkey (Sep 24, 2004)

Feisty Mouse said:
			
		

> Well, someguy's comments are an example.



Someguy's comments were an example of "science" being misused for evil, rather than an example of science supplanting religion, n'est-ce pas?



			
				Feisty Mouse said:
			
		

> I can be told that we have a religious inquistition going for spiritual reasons, or that other races need to be oppressed and cannot think for themselves or feel pain, for scientific reasons.



In either of these examples, did science supplant religion?



			
				Feisty Mouse said:
			
		

> Both are up to the people who are perceived to hold the power - speak with authority - and how people in general interpret what they are suppossed to do.  Love others because GOD told us to?  Or love others because altruism and group selection are tools for survival?



How about just loving others cause it's a good thing to do, without reliance on external authorities to back up what clearly works best for people and societies at large?


----------



## Flatlander (Sep 24, 2004)

PeachMonkey said:
			
		

> How about just loving others cause it's a good thing to do, without reliance on external authorities to back up what clearly works best for people and societies at large?


When making this judgement ("cause its a good thing to do") are you not basing it on one of either:

1) your observations, which have demonstrated that the cause/effect relationship between loving others and the rewards this brings to your life (science) (approximately),

or

2) your moral position - it just 'feels' like the 'right' way to behave.(religeon) (approximately)

Regardless of whether you rely on an external authority to validate or guide your behaviour, there will still be a component of science or religeon in justifying your choice.


----------



## heretic888 (Sep 25, 2004)

You bring up an excellent point, miss mouse, but we both know that what you are referring to ("Science" with a capital S) is not really science.

What you are referring to has existed since the 18th century in various forms --- materialism, positivism, reductionism, "scientism", etcetera ad infinitum. None of the above actually adhere to the scientific method in and of itself --- they are basically "one-and-only" type philosophies that go about trying to rip on all other philosophies as "wrong", while harping theirs as the one true faith.

Gee, does kinda sound like religion, huh?? Kinda like what the Stalinists and Maoists did with "Marxism" a few decades ago --- but, no science here. Just another type of "religionism" (which can be atheistic or materialistic in its fanaticism).

The problem, I would agree, is that this crass "scientism" has slowly infected some of the science curriculums in universities across the country. Its up to the discerning and intelligent teacher to keep the two separate (example: evolutionary theory does not preclude a "divine" or "otherly" aspect to biological adaptation).

Regarding the relation of science and religion --- they aren't as different as people would always like to think. Gould's NOMA is a simplistic solution, at best, and doesn't really drive to the heart of the matter.

Laterz.


----------



## Feisty Mouse (Sep 25, 2004)

heretic, I agree with what you said there.  Maybe "sciencism" is a better word for what I was getting at.

The point being, these are different systems that can be used and/or abused by the "authority" or people in power.  For most of human history, it's been religion.  Now that it's science, it doesn't mean the same things won't (or aren't) happening.

I think the NOMA concept is useful to try to start getting people to think about religion and science as addressing different things (needs? ways of thinking?  ???) in people's lives.  I agree that it's not so cut-and-dry, but I think it's a useful tool.


----------



## heretic888 (Sep 28, 2004)

> your moral position - it just 'feels' like the 'right' way to behave.(religeon) (approximately)



Errrr..... not necessarily, flatlander.

Thing is, there seems to be a pretty damn impressive amount of cross-cultural evidence to support the existence of multiple levels of moral development (among other things). The most popular versions of this cross-cultural "moral hierarchy" would probably be from George Kohler and Carol Gilligan's work, respectively --- preconventional/narcissistic, conventional/sociocentric, and postconventional/worldcentric; and, selfish, care, and universal care. But, of course, there are other examples as well (Clare Graves' "spiral dynamics" memes, for example).

Anyways, the point is that these levels of moral development are _cross-cultural_ --- i.e., whatever else they may be, they are most definately not the exclusive property of any particular religious tradition. Now, different cultural environments can alter the _rate_ at which the levels are progressed through, but do not fundamentally alter the levels themselves.

In any event, it seems as if this particular aspect of ourselves seems to be collectively inherited ontological potentials --- not a learned behavior created by any particular religious tradition.

That's my take, anyway. Laterz.


----------



## heretic888 (Sep 28, 2004)

> The point being, these are different systems that can be used and/or abused by the "authority" or people in power. For most of human history, it's been religion. Now that it's science, it doesn't mean the same things won't (or aren't) happening.



Well, I agree that these disciples of scientism, we could say, are just as rigid, jingoistic, and fundamentalist in their treatment of the belief system they adhere to as any religionist --- August Comte actually proposed, and get this, having a "pope of positivism". Yeah, I know.

However, certain differences do need to be highlighted. For example, as annoying as their reductionist intellectualism is, these guys aren't going around on Holy Crusades or the like. I guess you could say the world has perhaps evolved over the past thousand years.

Then again, we have guys like Stalin and Mao --- who have no problem at all with physically imposing their "atheism" on the rest of us.



> I think the NOMA concept is useful to try to start getting people to think about religion and science as addressing different things (needs? ways of thinking? ???) in people's lives. I agree that it's not so cut-and-dry, but I think it's a useful tool.



Well, personally, my take is that the NOMA concept confuses the issue.

Basically, it creates a rather rigid and nonexistent dualism to sustain itself --- a dualism which cannot be maintained. As Wilber pointed out in his "Marriage of Sense and Soul", for every subjective religious experience one might have, there are objective sensorimotor correlates that can be observed in the physical organism (i.e., varying brainwaves, among other things). Clearly, the two "magisteria" here --- while not being reduced one into the other --- are overlapping like hell.

Then again, it would probably help if we define "religion" and "science" to begin with, as well.

Laterz.


----------

