God

[Dennis_Mahon]

There are two types of people,those who divide people into two groups,and those who don't!

And what, praytell, does that have to do with the price of tea in China?

You are, perhaps your own best audience, which leaves me wondering why you would elect to discuss matters when it is apparent you have no intention of considering any possibility other than your own.

I find your claim rather ironic, since it was you, not I, who restarted this thread after nearly a month of innactivity.

Furthermore, your claim that I have "no intention of considering any possibility other than your own." sounds quite a bit like sour grapes. I have considered your arguments, and found them to be false.

The constructs known to our species as "right" and "wrong" are wholly of our own fabrication and vary considerably depending on culture, time, stress, intellect and so forth

Would you care to name one society, present or past, that has declared murder, theft, or false witness to be an aceptable practice amongst its members? I know several anthroplogist who would be facinated by this radical discovery.

If God plays any role whatsoever it is to allow the existence of this Universe while we play our silly games of "white and black".

Interesting; now God, in addition to making judgements, is impotent, sitting around flacid and inactive while the universe spins on. Not much of a God at all, it seems.

Furthermore it is of no sense to say that needing to know what is "good" and what is "bad" animates that a person will do what is "good" and avoid what is "bad" as the constructs are under constant revision as well as subject to interpretation from more than one point of human judgement.

So, by your reasoning, if I were to kill you, that would not be "bad" because from someone's viewpoint, that would be "good"? By that logic, racism, sexism, slavery, and genocide are entirely acceptable behaviors, because someone, somewhere will cosider such things "good".

You may well be right about yourself, though I doubt it. I think, perhaps you have just gotten lazy and foisted the responsibility about making enlightened decisions off on the first Cosmic excuse to come along.

Ah, yes..an ad hominem attack; how utterly predictible. Because I attribute God as the source of all that is Just, I am "lazy" and "foisting my resposibility" off onto Him.

Mother Theresa did not need the Catholic Church to know the right thing to do, nor did Gandhi or dozens of others who worked to invoke quality for their species independent of the judgements of people around them. Nor does the focus of productive behaviors need be human as there are countless selfless acts done on the behalf of endangered species around the world.

But, according to your reasoning, how can you claim that their behavior was productive, since that is in itself a subjective judgement? How can you, a subjective judgementalist, declare that what they did was "productive"?

And I must point out that you have miss-represented my position: I never said that the Catholic Church was the source of all that was just; I said God was. Mother Theresa herself fully creditied God with her sense of justice- not her own faculties. And whether the others knew it or not, it was God who instilled in them their sense of justice.

Maybe, YOU think the addicts behavior is "wrong" but then, the addict may think that your slavish adherence to an extraordinary ridgid value system is also "bad".

And what if he does? If he believes it, let him prove it.

It hard to know what your background is but I would hazard a guess that your conclusions have never come close to the Criminal Justice System, Family Court, a bar during happy hour or the American Dating scene.

Putting aside the fact that I work in law enforcement, I fail to see of what relevence any of those thing have to do with my conclusions.

Such environments do things to the concepts of "Right" and "wrong" that would make a Klein Bottle jealous!

Why? What is it about such environs that have an impact (if any) on the concepts of Right or Wrong?

And what is God doing while all this is going on?

Right there, with each and every one of us, celebrating when we do what is right, and mourning when we do wrong.

Murder occurs in this experience and carries with it the natural consequences of its occurance whether I have knowledge of the nature and instance of those consequences or not.

And what natural consequences did the murderer of Joan Bennet Ramsey suffer? And how do you know that the murderer suffered those consequences? What about Josef Stalin? What consequences did he suffer for the millions he murdered?

 

[glad2bhere]

Dear Dennis:

Apparently you have found time to confer with others and are now prepared to respond, yes? I was curious to note that your responses are not unlike those of other contributors who have proven themselves to actually be thinly disguised advocates for fundamentalist Christian thought rather than legitimate participants in an on-going and open dialogue.

Suppose we take a look at the evidence.

1.) You are not actually reading my contributions since you chose to attribute to me a quote from some previous individual. I have no idea WHAT that has to do with the dialogue at hand, but it is not my citation.
2.) There is no irony involved in my contributing to this discussion. I would suggest, however, that if this string HAD in fact been quiet for a month, that you may have found making contributions unrewarding without an audience in front of which to posture.
3.) You yourself cannot find my arguments to be “false” as belief in a Deity is an act of Faith and not something that can be proven by Science as we know it today. You may, perhaps indicate your disagreement or inconsistencies with your own value system and little else.
4.) Naming a society that has declared “murder” acceptable only serves to support my position that constructs such as “right” and “wrong” are essentially subjective. The governments of Japan, South Africa, US, Germany and the USSR all, at one time or another sanctioned the government –sanctioned the subjective irradication of various classes of people and affirmed this under law. Furthermore the Eugenics movement of the 1930-s, the Chemical-Biological experimentation of the 1930-s and 1940-s and the current class-driven eliminations in North Korea likewise support the same thing.
5.) God is not impotent--- at least not my God. The fact that He sits back and allows us to make our own mistakes and learn from them seems to bother you some. Perhaps you would rather that He simply stepped in and altered natural law in deference to each individuals complaint that Life was just a BIT too tough at that particular moment. You speak of a God of the Infinite but you still interpret Him in terms of your own selfish ends. As the poet said: “I believe in the Sun even when it is raining, and I believe in God, even when He is silent.”
6.) You reasoning to the extreme borders on the childish as you are at least old enough to know that all of the categories you mentioned including “racism”, “sexism”, “slavery” AND “genocide” have each be supported and propagated as “right” or “correct” at one time or another. Maybe YOU don’t consider such things “good” at this time and in this place, but I guarantee that SOMEONE, somewhere may--- and their value is just as valid as yours.
7.) Actually, if you are going to use “ad hominem” as a defense, you may want to recheck the definition. I have no idea if God is the source of all that’s Just. I have no idea if all humans are lazy, or foist their responsibility off onto Him. My statement was that apparently you are uncomfortable with making assessments based on your individual values without having to invoke some higher power to authenticate you.
8.) I do not know if Mother Theresas’ behaviors were productive. That was not the focus of my statement. What I indicated was that she did not need organizational validation to move in the direction of doing “good” as she defined it. Now, perhaps observant Hindus’ might have seen her actions as evil as they rescued untouchables from the karmic consequences of previous lives. I don’t know. This is outside the parameters in which I invoked her actions. Crediting God with anything is as good as not crediting Him with anything. His allowing the existence of something does not mean people will use it, OR that people need necessarily pair God and the existing item for it to be expressed.
9.) You seem particularly focused upon YOUR conclusions as though no one elses’ conclusions have validity. The drug addict, the rapist, the nun, the minister, the thief and the senator all have values and they are ALL valid. I don’t think we are talking about “right” and “wrong” as much as what you “like” and “don’t like”. Very different spheres of discussion.
10.) Finally, along with your need to be validated by a Deity, apparently you have a strong need for vengeance. What possible difference does it make to you WHAT the killer of the Ramsey girls suffers, or Stalin, or Hitler, or the guy who overcharges for a corn-beef sandwich at your local deli? God does not check His books every day---- but He DOES check them. If you have so much faith in God, how is it that faith does not extend to trusting that He is taking care of things whether or NOT you get a special delivery message from Him itemizing the details. FWIW.

Best Wishes,

Bruce

 

[Dennis_Mahon]

Apparently you have found time to confer with others and are now prepared to respond, yes?

Another ad hominem- I couldn't possibly be doing this all on my own, could I? No doubt I'm just some poor, knuckle-dragging shmuck that's just parroting what force-fed to him by his dark masters, right?

1.) You are not actually reading my contributions since you chose to attribute to me a quote from some previous individual. I have no idea WHAT that has to do with the dialogue at hand, but it is not my citation.

I did not attribute it to you- I merely responded to it in the same posting as my responses to you. Try to keep up.

2.) There is no irony involved in my contributing to this discussion. I would suggest, however, that if this string HAD in fact been quiet for a month, that you may have found making contributions unrewarding without an audience in front of which to posture.

The thread was quiet for a month, you opened it again with a post addressed to me; and because I responded to a post addressed to me, I am now accused of "posturing". Right. Maybe you'll now accuse me of using my hidden Jedi mind-powers to force you to address your posts to me.

3.) You yourself cannot find my arguments to be “false” as belief in a Deity is an act of Faith and not something that can be proven by Science as we know it today. You may, perhaps indicate your disagreement or inconsistencies with your own value system and little else.

I never said that I found your arguments false through Science; I can show them to be false through logic.

4.) Naming a society that has declared “murder” acceptable only serves to support my position that constructs such as “right” and “wrong” are essentially subjective.

Which is why I asked you to name them.

The governments of Japan, South Africa, US, Germany and the USSR all, at one time or another sanctioned the government –sanctioned the subjective irradication of various classes of people and affirmed this under law. Furthermore the Eugenics movement of the 1930-s, the Chemical-Biological experimentation of the 1930-s and 1940-s and the current class-driven eliminations in North Korea likewise support the same thing.

Nice try, but no- I asked: "Would you care to name one society, present or past, that has declared murder, theft, or false witness to be an aceptable practice amongst its members?" What you have cited are class vs. class conflicts, not a society sanctioning murder against its own members. You do not see members of N. Korean Communist Party openly sanctioning mureder amongst its own.

5.) God is not impotent--- at least not my God.

Your God sits back and does nothing- why shouldn't I call him impotent?

The fact that He sits back and allows us to make our own mistakes and learn from them seems to bother you some.

The fact that he does nothing bothers me a great deal; if God does not decide what is right or wrong, if all truth is subjective, decided at the whim of the individual, then there is no difference between the Saint and the Monster- all acts are equal. And all action are meaningless. The Monster is no better than the Saint- and no worse. That way lies madness.

Perhaps you would rather that He simply stepped in and altered natural law in deference to each individuals complaint that Life was just a BIT too tough at that particular moment.

Why would he need to alter Natural Law? The dificulty of life isn't His fault- it's ours. We choose to violate Natural Law by declaring "right and wrong are subjective", and as a result, life is hard.

You speak of a God of the Infinite but you still interpret Him in terms of your own selfish ends

My selfish ends?!? I speak of a God that holds all accountable for their action- in this life or the next. Your "god" sits back and does nothing- holds no one accountable for their actions, niether encouraging good, nor discouraging evil. What exactly are my selfish ends?

6.) You reasoning to the extreme borders on the childish as you are at least old enough to know that all of the categories you mentioned including “racism”, “sexism”, “slavery” AND “genocide” have each be supported and propagated as “right” or “correct” at one time or another.

And by your reasoning, thet might be so supported and propagated as such again. But not by mine; by mine, they are wrong- now and forever more.

7.) Actually, if you are going to use “ad hominem” as a defense, you may want to recheck the definition

An ad hominem (16th Century Latin: "to the person") attack is an attack on the person. You stated: "I think, perhaps you have just gotten lazy and foisted the responsibility about making enlightened decisions off on the first Cosmic excuse to come along." You attacked me, not my argument; hence, ad hominem attack.

My statement was that apparently you are uncomfortable with making assessments based on your individual values without having to invoke some higher power to authenticate you.

Your statement was a cheap shot, an attack on my person. You could not attack my argument, so you attacked me. I called you on it, and now you're trying to backpeddle your way out of it.

8.) I do not know if Mother Theresas’ behaviors were productive. That was not the focus of my statement.

Then why state it?

What I indicated was that she did not need organizational validation to move in the direction of doing “good” as she defined it.

But we weren't talking about "organizational validation", we were talking about God instilling a sense of justice. You're just doing more backpeddling.

9.) You seem particularly focused upon YOUR conclusions as though no one elses’ conclusions have validity. The drug addict, the rapist, the nun, the minister, the thief and the senator all have values and they are ALL valid. I don’t think we are talking about “right” and “wrong” as much as what you “like” and “don’t like”. Very different spheres of discussion.

Why are they all equally valid? If I have cancer, should I consider the opinions of a garbage collector equally valid to those of a oncologist? Why should I consider all conclusions equally valid?

10.) Finally, along with your need to be validated by a Deity, apparently you have a strong need for vengeance.

Vengence?? Where have I demonstrated such a need? I willingly admit to a strong idea for justice, but that is a far cry different from vengence.

What possible difference does it make to you WHAT the killer of the Ramsey girls suffers, or Stalin, or Hitler, or the guy who overcharges for a corn-beef sandwich at your local deli?

Because you stated: Nor do I need a God to guarentee that I will be punished or rewarded, and Murder occurs in this experience and carries with it the natural consequences of its occurance whether I have knowledge of the nature and instance of those consequences or not. You are the one who claims that God doesn't act, that "If God plays any role whatsoever it is to allow the existence of this Universe while we play our silly games of "white and black". And asked you to back up your claims: I cited a known murderer, who slew millions, and asked you what "natural consequences" he faced in this world, and you have given me nothing.

God does not check His books every day---- but He DOES check them.

Now you just flat out contradict yourself- God doesn't act, but He does act. Which is it? Does He just sit back and let us 'play our silly games of "white and black"', or does He actively intervene?

If you have so much faith in God, how is it that faith does not extend to trusting that He is taking care of things whether or NOT you get a special delivery message from Him itemizing the details.

I do; it was you who claimed that God sat back and did nothing. I asked you, not God, to defend your statments, and you haven't done so. Sounds more and more like you agree with my opinion, and don't want to admit that you were wrong.

 

[glad2bhere]

Dear Dennis:

How apt. For you this discussion is not about the nature of God but about one person being "right" and of course, then the other person must be wrong. How odd that the "logic" that you tout is so conveniently limited only to the point of defining God as a judge. How convenient for you that as a Judge, that same God must take to himself the responsibilities that you have as a rational being. Logic? Not when your purblind view of things disallows your ability to view all of the options. It is not logic when only select "a-s" are equal to selected "b-s". I notice also that while you state that I am somehow "back-pedaling" ( a term used in Logic?) you yourself do not forward any mitigating evidence to the contrary, being content to simply identify my statements as "false". Excuse me, Dennis, but if you are actually using Logic, you will know that one can never prove something as "true" or "false" only Logical or Illogical. It follows that since the belief in a God is not a matter of knowledge but one of Faith, one cannot make a "logical" statement, let alone prove something "false". You seem to like throwing these terms around but apparently you don't have much depth of understanding about their place in discussion.

As far as your whimsical comments about being a knuckle-dragger, I have no way of knowing this. However, I would suggest that the cynicism in your comments might well reveal the scars left over from similar discussions in the past in which you have similarly been criticized for fervent if uninspired comments.

Speaking of "keeping up, it may be time for you to be called to account for your somewhat inaccurate reporting.
a.) My comment regarding your posturing was a function of your methodology not of your response to my post. This is similar to your comment about not finding my comments "false through Science".
b.) Since we are discussing what is effectively matters of Faith you can use neither Science nor Logic, nor can you find my statements False.
c.) You can, with some maturity enter into a reasonable exchange of views on the subject, though assessing your past communications my sense is this is quite a bit beyond you without some greater authority such as a religious text or organization to invoke.
d.) And since you disavow the validity of even historic record, I am not sure there is much basis for further discussion. Had you but reviewed your history you would find that the examples I gave were all consistently cultures which as you say accepted the crimes you identified among its members. What probably embarrasses you is that such sanctions continue even to this day.
e.) But perhaps what I find most disturbing is that you blatantly misrepresent what I shared for the purpose of "winning" when there has been no competition accept in your own mind. You stated that "my God sits by and does nothing". I would hardly consider maintaining the existence of the entire Universe through an act of pure consciousness "nothing". Your definition of "nothing" appears to be a function of your own narcissitic need to be affirmed. And since God and His Universe cannot be proven to be at your beck and call, such a universe is unthinkable for you. Does God know He's suppose to be keeping you apprised each time a star goes supernova, or a pickpocket gets busted or a pre-adolescent with a flashlight filches one of his uncles' PLAYBOY-s? Does God know that His role is one of dividing existence up into "good" and "bad" so Dennis doesn't feel like his life is a joke? I didn't attack YOU, Dennis. I attacked the ignorance and misrepresentation that you use to maintain limits on your own Humanity. I for one am legitimately sorry that you have selected a life in which keeping your balance is a matter of dividing everything up into Black and White, but lets not spread your infection to the Deity, yes? In less that 100 years you will no longer be here, and will, most probably return to take another whack at solving your conundrums. God will still be here. I am probably going to be back myself. The riddles will be the same. All will be played again and again, until we get it accomplished.

Best Wishes,

Bruce

 

[markulous]

I personally think there is a god or 2. I don't KNOW but I have an idea that there is a good god and also an evil god. Both doing their thing creating the balance. Sometimes it teeters off one way but it eventually corrects itself.

As far as right or wrong goes...If we just see and observe what's going on within ourselves we would do the right thing. But again I used the word "right". So there isn't really a right or wrong, because that would mean being classified by someone or something. There is just truth. To me "right" is helping yourself and others around you and not stealing, lying, murdering, and all that other stuff without truthful reasoning. To another it would be crashing into a tower in an airplane and murdering people. Obviously those people that did that, SAW differently than me and most other people. Because of that fact does that make them wrong? Who knows. That doesn't mean I just sit there when something goes bad. Say I saw a guy in a ski mask mug a woman and take her purse, I am not going to say "Well that might not be wrong because he see's it as right." And debate it all in my head while he runs by me. I am going to beat the crap out of him if it is within my power and help the woman. Maybe I'm wrong, but I'm only human.

 

[glad2bhere]

Dear Markulous:

The very first thing I thought of when I read your post was the movement in the post WW II Jewish population that advocated that God had broken His covenant with the Jewish people. But it sounds like what you are proposing is more along the lines of there being two Gods after the fashion of Um and Yang, yes? For myself I had often found problems with some of the Christian approach as "the devil" often seemed represented as a counterpoint to God. And then there is the idea that were God empowered to intervene in a given event, would He? Then there is the matter of the Universe Recycling. If this particular incarnation of the Universe started about 8 billion years ago, and may well have about the same to go, what happens after that? And how many times has this happened? If a cycle for the Universe as we know it is some 20 billion years, how many times would our Universe have recycled in, say, 300 billion years? And what is the ethereal nature of such a recycling? Are souls given a reshuffle and redistributed throughout the Universe? Does God grant an amnesty, erase the chalk board and begin again? Or does the Universe simply recycle naturally in much the same way as a clock pendulum swings first one way and then another? FWIW?

Best Wishes,

Bruce

 

[markulous]

Bruce,

Yeah after being in martial arts and reading about taoism and buddhism(I still don't know that much I am still reading everyday) everywhere I see BALANCE. So yeah I fashion my "idea" after the yin and the yang.

That's an interesting thought about the universe recycling. The happy ending part of me wants there to be a heaven but that is just wishful thinking. If bad people went to a hell and good people went to a heaven I would see balance there. Or the way you said it also would have balance. We will find out sooner or later. Hopefully later than sooner. :asian:

 

[Dennis_Mahon]

How apt. For you this discussion is not about the nature of God but about one person being "right" and of course, then the other person must be wrong.

It was you, not I, that asked: "Is it a necessary function of God that we be held accountable for what we do?" Either He is, or He isn't. I take the position that He does, you take the position that he doesn't. One of us is right, the other is wrong.

How convenient for you that as a Judge, that same God must take to himself the responsibilities that you have as a rational being.

Not convienient for me at all; if God doesn't hold me responsible for my actions, and truth is subjective (again, your position, not mine), then any action I take is meaningless, of equal value. It doesn't matter what rational decisions led to that action-it's still subjective, still valueless. Rape is no better nor worse than charity, murder no better than saving a life.

Not when your purblind view of things disallows your ability to view all of the options

I have considered your option- and rejected it. Your position suggests that God created the world, populated it, and then sat back and allowed it turn into a slum.

I notice also that while you state that I am somehow "back-pedaling" ( a term used in Logic?) you yourself do not forward any mitigating evidence to the contrary, being content to simply identify my statements as "false".

1) You attacked me.
2) I pointed it out.
3) You attempted to claim that it wasn't an attack. That's back-pedaling.

Excuse me, Dennis, but if you are actually using Logic, you will know that one can never prove something as "true" or "false" only Logical or Illogical

And this is written where? Certainly not in Socrates's Apologia. Certainly not in Plato's Republic. Not in Aristotle's Ethics. Not in Boethius's The Consolodation of Philosophy.

It follows that since the belief in a God is not a matter of knowledge but one of Faith, one cannot make a "logical" statement, let alone prove something "false".

Have you never heard of the First Cause Argument?

You know what, I'm washing my hands of you. You've resorted to insult, back-pedaled when called on it, and flat-out contradicted yourself. Go believe what you want, but don't expect me to respect you.

 

[KenpoTess]

appropo methinks

 

[WillFightForBeer]

Forget this arguement, it only caused un-needed mental stress. You cannot prove a negative, therefore there is no definite answer.

Who cares, anyways.....

Don't question the chair, just sit in it

 

[glad2bhere]

Dear Dennis:

"......I have considered your option- and rejected it. Your position suggests that God created the world, populated it, and then sat back and allowed it turn into a slum....."

Sorry your world is a slum; Mine isn't. God allows for the existence of the universe that we know, He allows people to make the choices that they do. He allows the natural consequences of those behaviors to be visited on the actors. He does this all on His scale and that may or may not be satisfying to us.

"......1) You attacked me.
2) I pointed it out.
3) You attempted to claim that it wasn't an attack. That's back-pedaling...."

Identifying what is not an attack as "not being an attack" was a correction to you. Your need to be right does not allow you to accept correction.

"......Have you never heard of the First Cause Argument?...."

Yes, and it does not apply within the context of what we are discussng.

".......You know what, I'm washing my hands of you. You've resorted to insult, back-pedaled when called on it, and flat-out contradicted yourself. Go believe what you want, but don't expect me to respect you....."

Ironic that you invoke the same sort of symbolism attributed to Pontius Pilate and which was apparently just as flawed. I have no doubt that the discussion would have gone longer had I simply agreed that you were right. God is a cosmic judge whose sole purpose is to reward good people and punish bad people. And how do we know when we are good (enough?) or bad (enough?)--- why there are special people who have set themselves up as authorities on what God is suppose to be doing. I am sure this brings some smug sense of satisfaction to you. On the other hand I come from a State whose last governor excused 11 people from Death Row. Despite getting the "benefit" of judgement, without intervention they would have been 11 innocents executed for what they had not done. I am left to wonder how many others died before notice was taken of the situation. That said, I would not be too quick to wave the flag of justice as a rationale for your belief system. There is more of revenge than compassion in this. And whatever else people disagree on, most concur that whatever else God maybe--- He is a god of Compassion.

Oh, and "respect"? Well, if your concept of respect is something that you parcel out only to people who adjust their beliefs in deference to your own, it can't really be worth much, yes? FWIW.

Best Wishes,

Bruce

 

[glad2bhere]

Dear Fight:

I am not sure that anyone was looking for a definite answer. And, as far as "who cares?", well, I do. For a Buddhist, such caring is "benevolent indifference"---- to acknowledge truths without being controlled by them. Whatismore, one practices to remain in the here-and-now and consistently address who one truely is and how this relates to whatever truths are presented. This is called "one-mindedness" or "single mindedness". Take the matter of God.

God is a truth. How do I relate to Him and how does the nature of my True Self figure into that relationship? I can use books, and religions, and groups and whatever else, as crutches but I am still led to a place where I must know God and my relationship to Him. Not easy stuff, this, and maybe thats why God grants us a lifetime--- perhaps even many lifetimes to work it out. FWIW.

Best Wishes,

Bruce

 

[marshallbd]

So I am a Christian and I'll be the first in line to stand up and say it.

I'm right there with you Brothers (or Sisters)! :asian:

 

[someguy]

Consider the implicatoins of there not being a God.
Existance is just some random fluke in existance.
You live just to not.
All you do is worth nothing to you in the end.
The only thing that is good is what you chose to make it.
I can't exept those implications so I must belive in God. Some people maybe albe to do so but I just can't.
As to what willfight4beer you can rarely prove a negative but thats just nitpicking unless you go down the line of is anything real and I don't like where tht takes me either so if I'm deciving my self so be it.
There is a mad tv sketch that said heaven and prayer are just a crutch to keep people from despair. I dislike dispare so I prefere to avoid it.
btw to athiests out there no offense intended I don't mean to attack your views or anything

 

[OUMoose]

Dear Fight:

I am not sure that anyone was looking for a definite answer. And, as far as "who cares?", well, I do. For a Buddhist, such caring is "benevolent indifference"---- to acknowledge truths without being controlled by them. Whatismore, one practices to remain in the here-and-now and consistently address who one truely is and how this relates to whatever truths are presented. This is called "one-mindedness" or "single mindedness". Take the matter of God.

God is a truth. How do I relate to Him and how does the nature of my True Self figure into that relationship? I can use books, and religions, and groups and whatever else, as crutches but I am still led to a place where I must know God and my relationship to Him. Not easy stuff, this, and maybe thats why God grants us a lifetime--- perhaps even many lifetimes to work it out. FWIW.

Best Wishes,

Bruce

Bruce, I am not argueing your point, but there is one little part of your post that got under my skin.

Dictionary.com defines truth as: "A statement proven to be or accepted as true." Since I have never seen any documented evidence of the existance of God, he/she/it can not be a truth under that definition. Granted, this is just one of many interpretations (much like most of the religious texts), but this thread is for speculation, is it not? But speculation implies discussion of an unproven theory, not fact. Dissertation and cross-examination discuss facts, IMO.

Just playing devil's advocate here (pardon the pun). My personal philosophy is an eclectic one. I don't necessarily feel the need to personify whatever higher power exists, be it God, Jesus, Allah, Mohammed, Cerruenos, the Goddess, Satan, Set, Osiris, or any others that I can't think of off the top of my head. I realize that there are things in this world that can't be explained away by science, and that we are just a small part of a much bigger picture. As for right and wrong, I think some of the occultists got it close to right in "An it hurt none, do as ye will". To illustrate: a Suicide bomber blows himself up in the middle of a city square with people around to prove a point, or his faith if you will. No one else is injured in the blast. My take? :idunno: Great. He/she did what they thought was right without hurting anyone. 911 (as everyone so loves to bring up.. /sigh)? bad, because they took alot of innocent people with them.

Anyways, I'm ranting now, and I'm gonna stop. Please continue.

EDIT: I would just like to say I would offer a dollar to whoever pimpslaps the person that came up with UBBcode... that stuff is just annoying!

 

[marshallbd]

EDIT: I would just like to say I would offer a dollar to whoever pimpslaps the person that came up with UBBcode... that stuff is just annoying!

What is the UBBCode?

 

[OUMoose]

that code junk you have to put in to make links, bold text, etc...

just use HTML.. alot easier!

(sorry for the thread hijacking, but thought it fair to respond)

 

[marshallbd]

that code junk you have to put in to make links, bold text, etc...

just use HTML.. alot easier!

(sorry for the thread hijacking, but thought it fair to respond)

Thanks very much.... :asian:

 

[Brother John]

well if there is a hell i wont be alone and it will be the biggest party of all times... im sure heaven would be pretty boring without ozzy, ac/dc, the stones, and countless other bands...

Please realize that you are treading on the religious convictions of others TLH3rdDan.

Not cool...



Your Brother
John

 

[OUMoose]

Please realize that you are treading on the religious convictions of others TLH3rdDan.

Not cool...

Your Brother
John

How is that treading on other's religious convictions? He was clearly referring to himself, and others who make no case against their presumed location after passing.